Friday, December 07, 2007

Ban On AK-47 Assault Rifle Used In Omaha Mall Rampage Was Lifted By GOP Congress In 2004


For 10 years, the AK-47 semiautomatic assault weapon used in the deadly Omaha mall shootings was illegal in America, after President Clinton signed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. On Sept. 13, 2004, that ban came to an end, thanks to the GOP-led Congress.

Thanks to this idiotic decision, lethal weapons such as AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s returned to store shelves in America.

The AK-47 is not used for hunting (as it isn't accurate for long-range shooting). However, it is a excellent weapon to have if you are a psychopath who wishes to go to his local shopping mall and slaughter a bunch of innocent people.

It was the weapon used by Robert Hawkins on Wednesday at a shopping mall in Omaha, Nebraska, where he shot and killed five women and three men and then turned the gun on himself.

If the GOP retains the White House, or regains the Congress, in 2008, we can be assured that Republicans will continue to weaken what few remaining gun restrictions there still are on the books in this country. For example, we can kiss the Brady Bill, signed into law by President Clinton in 1993, goodbye.

Indeed, the current crop of GOP presidential candidates all seem to be outdoing themselves on the campaign trail, depicting themselves as foes of any and all gun restrictions. And as long as our politicians are in the pocket of the powerful NRA, we can expect more gun tragedies in the years to come.


Anonymous said...

You need to do a little research. The gun that was used was NOT an "AK47" but was an "SKS" and SKS's were NOT banned by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. If you want to be a credible blogger than tell the truth, don't fabricate things. Typical liberal media drivel.

Anonymous said...

WOW! Killing 8 people, stealing a gun and shooting a gun in a mall are all illegal but he would have thought twice about using an illegal gun. Right? I'm sure that was one law he would have taken into consideration! You don't think he would have just stolen another gun and used it instead? I,m all for restrictions but why ban a gun because it "looks cool"?They all do the same thing! They shoot! Messed up people will always find a way to kill. As sad as that is. But why would you want to take away the right for law-abiding citizens ,who would never harm anyone, the right to shoot for recreation and collect firearms?

z0mbi said...

I know tons of people who own assault weapons. They use them for target shooting and home defense. None of them are psychopaths. This kid stole the weapon he used to kill, not bought.

If this guy had taken a chainsaw to a mall and chainsawed 8 people to death, would you be calling for a national ban on chainsaws? No...because your position on the issue is irrational.

Badthing1 said...

Marc you said a mouthful and I am linking your post to my blog so that others can read your so very truthful words.

Marc McDonald said...

To the first comment poster, I'd like to point out that the gun used in the mall shooting WAS an AK-47.
I've gotten several emails from people disputing this. It's true: the initial reports said it was an SKS---but later, corrected news reports confirmed that the weapon used was indeed an AK-47.

Marc McDonald said...

To the second comment poster, who wrote: "Messed up people will always find a way to kill."

Uh, no they won't, actually, if a nation has intelligent gun policies.
In Europe and Japan, for example, mass shootings are extremely rare. Gun violence is a tiny fraction of what it is here in the U.S.
You can try to spin this all you want, but the fact is, that a nation CAN greatly reduce gun violence with sensible laws.

Marc McDonald said...

Hi, Badthing1, thanks for stopping by and for your kind words.
I appreciate you linking my post.
I'm looking at your site right now; nice job you're doing.

Anonymous said...

You do need to do a little research. AK-47's were available throughout the entire 10 years the assault weapons ban was in effect. The AK-47's sold legally during this period just had the bayonet lug ground off and the flash supressor welded on. Then they were no longer considered evil assault weapons under the law. The federal assault weapons ban really didn't ban anything, it just let politicians say they did something. It also gave Republicans the majority in Congress.

Thebes said...

Actually the 94 ban didn't ban the gun used in this henoius crime. It didn't even ban ak47's. It banned certain firearms by name and other firearms that had certain "evil features". One could still go buy a "pre-ban" ak47 with all of the "evil features" (like flash hider, bayonet lug! as if there has ever been a drive by bayonetting, pistol grip, folding stock, etc)... or one could buy a very similar firearm with the requisite number of "evil features".

Of course, why would any law have stopped him? Its not like he obeyed the law about not taking his rifle into the Gun Free Zone of the mall. Nor did he give a s**t about the law against murder...

The real problem with these shootings is that they ALL happen in Gun Free Zones. If there had been even the remotest chance that this deranged and (perscription) drug addled lunatic would have encountered a law-abiding ccw holder, he would have picked someplace else to "go out in style"

Sebastian said...

In Europe and Japan, for example, mass shootings are extremely rare. Gun violence is a tiny fraction of what it is here in the U.S.

There have been numerous mass shootings in Europe and elsewhere with strict gun laws. I also wouldn't ignore countries that are universally armed, like Israel and Switzerland, that have very low violent crime rates (Israel is actually pretty low when they aren't experiencing terrorist problems). I don't think you can necessarily say that strict gun laws lead to less violence. Russia bans guns for the most part, yet has an astronomical violent crime rate. Mexico also bans all guns and has a high violent crime rate. The UK, which bans all handguns and strictly regulates and bans some long guns, has had an increasing violent crime rate since the ban. Washington DC bans all guns and has never had a murder rate lower than when the ban went into effect.

You'll have about as much luck controlling guns and we do with controlling drugs in this country. We've had the technology for more than five centuries now, and it's not going away. Even if you ban them all, they aren't difficult to make; you can turn out working firearms from a reasonably equipped machine shop that would fit in someone's garage.

I'm not too keen on further eroding our rights by declaring a "War on Guns". I've already lost enough of my constitutional rights fighting the equally ineffective "War on Drugs".

Basta Cosi said...

First: a real 'AK-47' is a highly regulated and restricted item, so No, it wasn't an AK-47, whatever it turns out to be.

Speaking of which, the rifle didn't steal itself, it didn't load itself nor drive itself to the mall. It didn't conceal itself, didn't disobey the "No Guns Allowed" sign posted near the door, nor did it kill 9 people.

Stop being so intellectually lazy and/or politically correct. A Person did this. He did wrong. It's his fault. Plus this wasn't a secret, either. Where's the call to hold the state, his parents, and all the others that knew he was troubled accountable?

Quit blaming the object.

Jack of All Trades said...

"'Messed up people will always find a way to kill.'

Uh, no they won't, actually, if a nation has intelligent gun policies."

That right there proves your ignorance. I don't care if you ban firearms, knives, hammers, etc. there will always be killing.

By bringing up Japan I can go ahead and tell you you're trying to open a real nasty can of worms. With Japan's firearm policy comes a whole lot of unpleasant stuff to enforce it. Also I do remember a long time ago someone mentioned this at another place:

"In Japan, a man with a samurai sword went through a kindergarten school, and killed twelve people."

"a nation CAN greatly reduce gun violence with sensible laws."

Love this little gem of a comment. You see; I don't want to reduce 'gun violence'. I want to reduce violence in general. Gun control cannot do that. It's just a band aid solution for someone who doesn't want to tackle the social and economic stuff.

By the way. It wasn't an AK-47. Those are selective fire. Banned from import in 1968, possession of unregistered rifles banned in 1986. If the rifle in question is selective-fire that says a great deal about the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Hughes Amendment in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

I can tell that you know nothing of firearm laws and would enjoy taking you apart piece by piece in a debate on gun control.

Thirdpower said...

MSNBC reports it as a WASR-10. A semi-automatic lookalike of the AK-47. It was perfectly legal during the AWB.

I could also direct you to Russia, South Africa, and Mexico. Three nations w/ highly restrictive laws and astronomical crime.

chris horton said...

There is already enough "sensible" gun laws on the books,To many!And using Japan and Europe is like comparing apples to oranges.Truth is,PEOPLE use guns for violence and death.The guns are Tools and are inanimate objects.There are NO ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGES or such.Just un-educated and inexperienced people. Gun Laws only affect Law Abiding Citizens,not crooks or people with evil intents,who don't follow the "laws" to begin with.Restrictions obviously don't work.

Garm said...

AK's aren't used for hunting? This guy begs to differ:

In Nebraska, no less.

Marc McDonald said...

Hi, Sebastian, thanks for your comment.
You say:
"There have been numerous mass
shootings in Europe and elsewhere
with strict gun laws."

It's bizarro statements like this that show many of us that you NRA types are living off in another world with little relation to the real world.
You've gotta be kidding with that statement. Gun crimes and shootings in Europe are EXTREMELY rare.
England has something like 30 gun murders a year (compared to over 10,000 in the U.S.).
If you NRA types want to defend your precious guns, go ahead and knock yourself out...but please, spare us these ridiculous arguments that claim that gun control hasn't made Japan and Europe virtually free of the horrible gun violence that has plagued the U.S.

Garm said...

AK's aren't used for hunting? This guy begs to differ. In Nebraska, no less. Any rifle of sufficient caliber can be used for hunting, depending on local laws and/or DNR regulations.

See also what Thebes and Sebastian said above, as they took the words out from under my fingers.

Bajovian said...

Well, an AK clone can be fairly accurate in the right hands. Assuming it is manufactured well, it should be capable of 2-3.5 MOA (usually closer to four, though). Its reputation for inaccuracy is usually due to the poor skills of its users. (Of course, accuracy is usually very different when shooting offhand versus bench rest shooting.)

Anyway, it's highly doubtful background checks will be thrown out these days. They are viewed as acceptable, as long as they are not abused.

It's kind of hard to compare Japan to the U.S. (or any other country with distinctively different cultures and histories). Japan has very low drug use and other crime rates, not just gun crime. But guns certainly aren't the master key to their low crime rate.

We can't say there won't be any mass killings if guns are banned or even if they are widely carried via CCW. The Israelis instituted mass open carrying of weapon in response to Palestinian attacks (with AK-47s). That stopped those attacks, but the Palestinians later switched to suicide bombing.

Dave thA said...

We are lucky he didn't get a job in the food mall...

He could have killed hundreds and gotten away with it.

Justin Buist said...

It's bizarro statements like this that show many of us that you NRA types are living off in another world with little relation to the real world.

Hey now, you started this with the "bizzarro" statement that the '94 AWB banned AK-47's, Tec 9's and Uzis.

As has already been stated it did no such thing. I personally purchased 2 AK-47 clones (Egyptian Maadi and WASR-10) during the ban. The each cost me $300. Each time I picked up two 30 round magazines for them and 1,000 rounds of ammo. Total cost out the door: $400-$420 dollars.

No laws were broken in their procurement.

Justin Buist

jetfxr69 said...

In your response to Sebastian, you claim that England has "something like 30 gun murders a year (compared to over 10,000 in the U.S.)."

You then stoop to an ad hominem attack about living in a world with no relation to the real one.

Pot, meet kettle.

From the Telegraph newspaper in the UK.:

"In Merseyside there were 57 shootings during the 12 months to last December compared with 15 in the same period the year before." This is a report from 2002, one of the first that comes up in a Google search for "Gun Crime UK". I'm not going to spend all evening looking for more recent data.

Note that Merseyside isn't a major metro area, it's a smallish town. London, more on the order of a large city, reported 939 gun crimes. Note I don't say 939 shootings, but if the 59 in Merseyside are any indication, I'd have to guess that 30 murders/year in England is completely fabricated number.

Consider actually finding information for yourself in the future, instead of believing the pap that's been shoveled by the media for so long.

I'm predicting this comment will not see the light of 'blog'.

Dustin said...

Mark - England has 30 murders per year? Where did you come up with that false data? In 2006/2007 England had 755 Homicides according to the UK itself. Don't make up garbage & expect it to pass muster. See for yourself at:

Manifesto Joe said...

I am not entirely aligned with fellow lefties on the gun issue, mainly in that I can foresee a day on which, if the reich-wing in the U.S. gets too strong, I would want to defend myself to the fullest, or join others who were determined to.

But the notion that having this technology available to vast numbers of people doesn't contribute to gun violence is ludicrous. I recall being at a gathering many years ago in which everyone else was conservative, so I was being a bit quiet. But there was a discussion. One guy told me, "I could kill you with that croquet mallet there. It's the intent."

I didn't think it was a good idea to argue much at that particular gathering, but -- against a croquet mallet, I know martial arts techniques that would be quite effective. A knife is more dangerous, but I would have a chance. Against certain firearms, at close or even medium range, I have little or no chance; and even if I'm carrying, the assailant will be shooting first.

I have never heard of a drive-by stabbing or a drive-by clubbing.

I am skeptical about what stronger and far-reaching gun control would end up like in the U.S. -- I fear sort of like the 18th Amendment -- but it's ridiculous to keep talking about INTENT. A bad intention is pretty damned difficult to carry out without the means to do it.

Sebastian said...

Some studies have shown that England and Wales have higher violent crime rates than the US.

But you're right, British criminals murder less often than US criminals. But you can't compare overall numbers, because population sizes are different. Depending on the year, the rate in Britain is about 1/4 of our murder rate.

Of course, there are some European countries that have firearm ownership rates comparable to the US, but have lower murder rates and violent crime rates than the UK.

joelr said...

Well, of course the AK can be used for hunting. Taking advice from the Brady Bunch on what rifles can be used for hunting is like taking advice from the KKK on the best mechanism for school desegregation.

cwilcox said...

Jeeze Marc,
Looks like you went and got all of the gun whacko's all riled up! It's too bad they can't find the same passion for things like education, affordable health care, the enviornment (where they do their hunting...eating, breathing, sleeping...)or how about our 4th Ammendment? Funny, these guys are so entrenched with a single issue that they aren't even considering the ramifications of warrantless spying which Hillary will be able to use, once she is in office, to round them up. And she won't even have to charge them with anything. She can just ship them off to Gitmo and call them enemy combatants! Wish them luck with that.

Marc McDonald said...

In response to Jetfxr69: you gun lovers always amuse me in that you refuse to face reality. If need be, you'll simply just make things
up out of thin air.
You attacked my contention that England has something like 30 gun murders a year (versus over 10,000 in the U.S.).
You try to confuse the issue by quoting higher figures---but NOT for gun murders, but for "shootings" and "gun crimes."
"Debating" with right-wingers has become frustrating for me in recent years---the Kool-Aid drinkers are impossible to reason
with: they believe whatever they want and, if the facts don't fit their case, they simply ignore the facts, or make up entirely bogus "facts" to make their arguments.

Marc McDonald said...

Hi Red Hog, thanks for stopping by. And thanks a bunch for your right-on-target comment---it was a refreshing change of pace from the NRA gun nuts' predictable ramblings.

Jack of All Trades said...

"NRA gun nuts'" "gun whacko's" I do love the name calling. Not to mention failing to allow a comment that trumps your argument. I can tell you nor any of those supporting you have the cojones to take me on in a little debate.

I would also like to see you prove that their facts are "bogus" along with proof that what you say is the "truth".

By the way; I'm not NRA, GOA, or SAF. Proud supporter of the JPFO. So much for calling me single issue guy.

iron mike said...

Despite Nebraska's concealed carry laws, the mall was posted as a gun free zone.

I sincerely hope that the families of the victims sue the mall management for depriving them of a legal & legitimate means of self defence.

As the Jonesburro AR shooting, the Apalachian Law school shooting & the recent mall shooting in UT have all clearly demonstrated, law abiding citizens with arms save lives. In each of these cases, it was a citizen using a gun that intervened & put an end to the carnage.

Perhaps your efforts would be better spent eliminating psychotropic drugs. After all they've been the common denominator in every mass shooting for the last 20 years.

Dimensio said...

Wow, cwilcox, do you have anything to say that isn't predicated upon a dishonest sweeping generalization, or are you too stupid to understand that not everyone who respects the right to keep and bear arms is a neocon sycophant?

I'm also noticing that no one who is attacking people who oppose irrational gun bans has bothered to address the undeniable fact that semi-automatic AK-47 lookalikes were fully available during the span of the "Assault Weapons Ban". I guess they don't like to have to acknowledge that reality just doesn't agree with them. It must be easier to just ignore any rational arguments and just assume that anyone who doesn't want to ban all civillian firearms ownership is a 'right winger'.

Sebastian said...

Looks like you went and got all of the gun whacko's all riled up! It's too bad they can't find the same passion for things like education, affordable health care, the enviornment (where they do their hunting...eating, breathing, sleeping...)or how about our 4th Ammendment? Funny, these guys are so entrenched with a single issue that they aren't even considering the ramifications of warrantless spying which Hillary will be able to use, once she is in office, to round them up. And she won't even have to charge them with anything. She can just ship them off to Gitmo and call them enemy combatants! Wish them luck with that.

Yeah, yeah... assume that we're all a bunch of crazed right wingers. I'm very concerned about warrant less spying, and many of the things Bush has been doing. But it's a silly argument to dismiss us because not everyone cares about the pet issues importing to you. We all have our pet issues.

Either way, about the environmental issues... a lot of hunters are very concerned about this as well. You know who pays for all the wildlife biologists running around out there studying wildlife? Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration is paid for by both shooters and hunters based on the taxes we pay on equipment and ammunition.

Anonymous said...

Small potatoes! He should have parked a Ryder truck bomb in that mall and killed ten times that. I'd like to see the government ban 1000 pound homemade bombs. Go on over to RESIST.COM and get educated.

Anonymous said...

Have most of you forgotten that this kid wasn't legal to own a fire arm in the first place? He could of just as easy made a bomb and killed maybe more people.The problem is not the weapon but more of a social responsility to recognize and help these people. We have plenty of laws on the books for gun control. When will the main liberal media start reporting all the FACTS and then start finding solutions to the real problem in stead of poiting a finger at law abiding gun owners?

Basta Cosi said...


False and/or outdated stats and name-calling.

Keep it up, Marc.

You're one of the best allies us pro-gun and pro-freedom folks could have.

Marc McDonald said...

The gun nuts have been spewing their usual lies and also attacking my contention that England has around 30 gun murders a year.

They act as though England is this terribly violent place with thousands of people killed by guns because the Brits don't have the precious "right" to bear arms.

I seem to have underestimated this figure a bit (although I couldn't get figures for England alone---the figures I provide here are for BOTH England and Wales--so my earlier estimate may not even be that far off).

Anway, in 2005/2006, there was a grand total of 50 homicide deaths by firearms in England and Wales.

50 deaths.

That's around how many people are murdered by guns in a typical two-day period in America.

And yet the gun nuts refuse to acknowledge this fact (or the fact that tough gun restrictions in Britain could have ANYTHING to do with this remarkably low figure).

And the gun nuts would have us believe that England is a dangerous place because no one has the right to own a gun.

They try to have us believe that England shows how gun control is a "failure."

And the gun nuts try their best to confuse the issue by quoting all kinds of figures on vague categories like "gun crimes" and they completely ignore the fact that ONLY 50 PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY FIREARMS IN ENGLAND AND WALES IN 2005/06.

50 deaths.

And, of course, as we all know, such gun restrictions would NEVER work in America. Why? Because the gun nuts say so.

A lot of the gun nuts have been bitching and moaning that I haven't posted all the comments I've gotten. But frankly, the comments I've seen all simply regurgitate the same, tired, cliched lies that the NRA has been spewing out for years. I haven't
read an original argument in the comments yet (indeed, I think with these gun nuts, they're incapable of coming up with an original thought that they haven't heard on Rush).

In any case, it's my fucking blog and I'll post whatever comments I want.

I WON'T post comments that idiotically claim that gun control hasn't worked in Britain and not made it a nation that is vastly safer from gun murders than the U.S.

50 deaths. FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR.

Listen, gun nuts: please, go play somewhere else. Oh, and if you love guns so fucking much: please join the Army and go fight in Iraq. You'll get to handle all the
guns you want over there, while you're fighting to secure oil for the ExxonMobil and the other rich cronies of Bush.

Oh, and one other thing: please grow a pair. You gun nuts are such pussies. You're so fucking frightened of anything and everything. You think you need your precious gun to defend yourself.

How about stop being a coward for a change? Real men use their fists to settle disputes (or better yet, they use reason and logic).
Only cowards use guns.

Anonymous said...

and the idocrity continues

Anonymous said...

you are an idiot sir

Anonymous said...

maybe you should move to tokyo if you like their laws better

PGP said...

I'm as liberal as they come, but I gotta tell ya buddy...the temper tantrum you're throwing here is making you look really bad.

First, you're simply wrong--it was NOT an AK47.

Secondly, if people who use guns for self defense are pussies...does that mean all cops are pussies? Riiiiiight.

How about the guy in Easton, PA that Sebastian pointed to last week who saved his own life from two muggers who said they were going to kill him, and did so only by using a gun? Is he a pussy?

That sort of ad hominem nonsense isn't a compelling argument.

The idea that gun control made England safe is nonsense. Sure they don't have much gun crime now...but what you're missing is that THEY DIDN'T HAVE MUCH GUN CRIME BEFORE GUN CONTROL EITHER.

The fact is that gun crime has gone UP and not down since they banned all handgun possession. You're simply not being rational.

Equally irrational is the assumption that being pro-RKBA makes you a right winger.

Anonymous said...

Congrats, Marc. You've now experienced the non-reality that is GunLoonery.

Note how quickly they will deflect the subject when their "facts" crumble into dust. It wasn't an SKS, it was an AK-47? No problem, bring up a bunch of anecdotes about how their buddies own AK-47s and *never* shoot up malls. International gun homicides are a fraction of US gun homicides? No problem--let's compare some other stat.

It will always be like this with gunloons.


Anonymous said...

Awwwwww! Someone got butt hurt! You think us "gun nuts" are pussies? and we cant come up with a new argument. What have you said that both sides havent heard? And pussies!?! In your last comment you whined like a little bitch. I think YOU need to "grow a pair". Your right its a blog! People post comments so that others can hear both sides. NO ONE SHOULD GET THERE FEELINGS HURT. I agree with some of what your saying and I'm a "gun nut". Im sure you could do the same if you were a little more open minded!

Robb Allen said...

A) Former Marine. Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt. So much for the chicken hawk smear.

B) If we're such pussies, why won't you post our comments? Oh, yeah, because they prove you wrong.

C) Don't worry about posting our comments. We've got blogs and we are letting everyone know how cowardly you are.

mekender said...

its funny, marc, you quote all these statistics... and your profile claims that you are an award winning journalist... but surely an award winning journalist would actually quote sources when you bring up statistics... your opponents managed to do so, including a newspaper in the UK and the US DOJ... instead you get profane and start name calling... i suppose logical discussions are out of the question eh?

oh, and BTW, no im not an NRA member... merely a US citizen that enjoys target shooting...

and for all its worth, why is it that the 2nd amendment is so easy to trample on? what if those of us that were tired of reading all the propaganda in todays newspapers and seeing all the garbage on TV started calling for limitations and bans under the 1st amendment? after all, it says "congress shall make no law" not "shall not be infringed" which to me means that any other body other than congress can make laws all they want...

Guav said...

Why do you and cwilcox assume gun rights proponents are all conservative Republicans? I'm certainly not. There are plenty of liberal and Democratic gun owners. This isn't a partisan issue.

iron mike said...

In any case, it's my fucking blog and I'll post whatever comments I want.

" How democratic of you....

Actually I have served in the army as a combat infantryman.

Did you know that about 20% of the guns confiscated in Washington DC are home made "zip guns"?

No new law will prevent a thug from making one & using it.

Be honest w/ yourself. If you hear a window shattering in your home at 3am, will reaching for a phone or a gun be more likely to save your life?

Manifesto Joe said...

I think they are taking people in the military now until they are 40. We know that a lot of people who are vomiting up these rancid NRA arguments are younger than that. Message: Uncle Sam wants you! Go, for God's sake. I wish you joy and bliss amid the carnage. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Just remember that some people over there shoot back!

Michael Hawkins said...

I keep track of crime in the UK as part of my blog, so if anybody wants to read about them:

the December 2 entry is a summation of previous posts by the way.

LibertyNews said...

Your posting is totally inaccurate. The so called 'assault weapon ban' didn't actually ban any guns. They banned the combination of certain features, none of which had any serious effect on the operation or availability of the weapons.

AK's and AR's, etc. have been available continuously, and sales have actually increased as crime rates have dropped.

Your stats on England are inaccurate and useless for comparison. When US and UK crime rates are compared the UK actually has a higher overall per-capita crime rate which has been on the rise since they enacted their bans.

The only reason this shooter was able to kill as many people as he did was because the law prevented law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves, as recounted here - "Victim Disarmament in Omaha"

In one of the comments you say "Listen, gun nuts: please, go play somewhere else." Like you expect to be able to make a public blog posting full of inaccuracies without being corrected? If you have such a hard time dealing with the facts then maybe you ought to give up blogging.

You also proclaim "You're so fucking frightened of anything and everything."

We're not frighened of anything. We have taken the needed steps to ensure our safety and that of our loved ones. It appears to me that the anti-gun fanatics are the ones with the irrational fear of inanimate objects.

And your final comment "How about stop being a coward for a change? Real men use their fists to settle disputes (or better yet, they use reason and logic).
Only cowards use guns."

We both know how well your techniques would have worked agains the Omaha shooter.

rpcmig said...

"Real men use their fists to settle disputes (or better yet they use logic)"

Hey there's an idea! Why haven't we thought of it before?

I say Mr.Rapist,Mr. Mugger, please put that knife down for a moment while we debate the merits of what you're about to do. I'm sure that my superior intellect will protect me from your murderous desires.

What if you're not a real man? what if you're an elderly women? A frail elderly man? Wheelchair bound? Are they not entitled to defend their lives from someone younger and stronger? You seem to think that the world exists in a vacuum where all are of equal strength and criminals play fair.

MadRocketScientist said...

There is one thing I wish BOTH sides of this debate would get into the habit of (and yes, folks from both sides do this), is CITE YOUR DAMN SOURCE!!!!!

Link it, name it, put in MLA citation format, I don't care, but the moment anyone quotes a number about crimes or deaths or rates or whatnot, I want to see a source, because otherwise, as far as I, or many other folks, are concerned, you are pulling numbers out of the air, or you are sourcing a article of questionable origin, or you are parroting something someone else said (hearsay).

And don't just link to another blogger who said this was so but did not cite their source either. I really don't want to have to dig through 10 different blogs to find a report. You are making an argument, present your evidence in a direct form so I can look it up quickly.

For those who did provide a source, thank you.

Billy Beck said...

Why do you have to lie like you do about these matters?

Michael Hawkins said...

I'm not in here because I like guns, I do this because I believe in freedom, and because I do not believe gun control will make this place any safer.

Marc McDonald said...

In reponse to LibertyNews' comment:
"Your stats on England are inaccurate and useless for comparison."

I'm going to repeat my earlier point again:
In 2005/2006, there was a grand total of 50 homicide deaths by firearms in England and Wales.
That's around how many people are murdered by guns in a typical two-day period in America.
In response to Jetfxr69's comment:
"I'd have to guess that 30 murders/year in England is completely fabricated number." earlier estimate of 30 gun murders a year was off (although I wasn't including Wales in my number).
Again to repeat:
In 2005/2006, there was a grand total of 50 homicide deaths by firearms in England and Wales.
In response to Dustin's comment:
"Mark - England has 30 murders per year? Where did you come up with that false data? In 2006/2007 England had 755 Homicides according to the UK itself."

OK, it was 50 gun homicides, not 30 (although England has had years in which only 30 people were murdered with guns).
Oh, and please stop confusing the issue by dragging out these misleading statistics for TOTAL HOMICIDES. We're talking about GUN homicides in England, not total homicides, idiot.

Dimensio said...

It wasn't an SKS, it was an AK-47? No problem, bring up a bunch of anecdotes about how their buddies own AK-47s and *never* shoot up malls.

Actually, what has been brought up is that semi-automatic AK-47 clones such as the one used in the Omaha shooting were not banned during the period of the Assault Weapons Ban. For some reason, however, the gun grabber side doesn't address that fact.

sheepdog56 said...

So since you only want to discuss "GUN" homicides, how can you in any way state that homicides will go down if gun laws are tightened?
While England has not had any public shootings since they tightened their laws, has the homicide rate dropped overall, stayed steady or has it gone up?
What exactly has been the affect on violent crime rates since the ban?
Have crime rates dropped?, or what?

cwilcox said...

Did I say anything about gun-whacko's being conservatives? Nope. So Demensio who is stupid now? Looks like it's YOU!

And Sebastian,
The fervor of defense of our 2nd Amendment is alarmingly lacking with regard to our 4th. That was my point. Hunters in fact do contribute greatly to environmental protection. I come from a family of hunters. I just never recall any of them hunting with assault rifles. And I don't even care if you guys have assault rifles so long as you were sane and a non-felon when you purchased it. I was just amazed at how in a matter of a few hours you guys had jumped all over this post. I hadn't seen your comments on any other of the important issues that had been written about here.

Anonymous said...

pardon this idiot for not seeing what must be so very obvious to you, but... why should homicides committed with guns be so much more significant than homicides committed any other wise? why only talk about the former kind --- are you less dead if you're shoved under a bus instead?

Sebastian said...

I just never recall any of them hunting with assault rifles. And I don't even care if you guys have assault rifles so long as you were sane and a non-felon when you purchased it. I was just amazed at how in a matter of a few hours you guys had jumped all over this post. I hadn't seen your comments on any other of the important issues that had been written about here.

A appreciate that the host is continuing to approve comments today. Those of us who blog about this topic have google alerts set to find timely blog material. I'll be honest, I doubt most of the folks on here are regular readers, but you'll attract a lot of attention if you trip over something we all get the alerts on.

But I'll fully admit, I'm not as vocal an advocate for the fourth amendment because there's currently no political movement to save it. Both parties support policies that erode it. I'd be more worried about losing my civil liberties to the War on Terror if I already hadn't lost them to the War on Drugs. I'm definitely not happy where conservatives have taken the fourth amendment, but it seems to me that liberals have been along for the ride too.

Anonymous said...

Sebastian's lies debunked at LeftRudder.


Anonymous said...

You claim that only gun homicides "count", not total homicides. But a fundamental argument against gun control is that most criminals will substitute weapons if guns aren't available. It doesn't matter if you're killed by a gun or a knife, you're still dead. A classic example of this is Japan's suicide rate. No, guns aren't available, so people just use other means. Overall crime is the statistic that counts.

For your argument about low crime rates in the UK, you have to consider that the UK always had lower per capita crime rates than the US, even when guns were much more widely available than they are now. But, if you look at the trends since guns were banned there, they've been INCREASING. The reason for the lower crime rate is cultural, and the trends say gun control has not helped, but hurt.

Also, you have to be very careful when comparing statistics across national borders, as definitions vary. In many countries, suicide is not considered in homicide rates, in others it is. These statistics become very dodgy once you start comparing violent crime rates, as the definition of what a violent crime is varies dramatically.

Oh, and by the way, calling your opponents an idiot makes you look really smart.

iron mike said...

First I'd like to apologize for giving errant information in an earlier post. It wasn't Jonesburro Arkansas where the shooter was stopped by a citizen w/ a gun. It was Pearle Mississippi.

Did anyone notice that the shooter in Colorado was dropped by a CCW holder?

I am not an NRA member, right wing republican or a neocon. & I will not carry water for any of them.

I'm an American & a TEXAN! I send 4 boys & a girl to school 5 days a week. My wife works in a high stress environment. I know that posting "no guns allowed" signs won't stop a lunatic from taking many lives. I would support TRAINED teachers, administrators & other staff carrying firearms in schools. Watch the footage from Columbine. Note that the police arrive AFTER the shooting begins. They "secure" the perimeter & wait until the 2 stooges kill themselves before going in. They never even tried to save a single life. You can hear the shooting continue as the police occasionally peek thru a window...

An adult or 6 w/ guns in that building may have put an end to it much sooner. They certainly couldn't have done less than the police.

Guns aside, I encourage everyone here to find out just how many of your childrens classmates & your co workers are on pschotropic drugs

ravenshrike said...

You need to do a bit more research about Britain there boyo. It has always had a lower violence rate than the States, even when they had the same access to guns. This is partly because of the homogeneous population, and partly the culture. Of course, if you were willing to do the research, you might have actually shown an informed opinion, rather than what you posted. Moreover, if you think laws actually do anything to prevent the criminal element from obtaining a simple tool(what a gun is), well quite obviously someone slept through Prohibition in their US History class.

ravenshrike said...

Also interestingly, if you screen the Fibbie statistics for race and remove blacks from both victim and murderer rates, the rates fall to European levels. I imagine if you further screen out any area that outlaws guns and any murders that occurred in GFZs, that number would equal or fall under most of Europes.

ravenshrike said...

Why don't you include merry old scotland in your figures there Marc? Could it be because it fucks up your picture perfect view of england, even though it has the exact same laws?

Marc McDonald said...

In response to Ravenshrike's comment:
Ah, I see the gun nuts are now resorting to a predictable fall-back tactic (when all of their other lies have been debunked).
That is: "let's blame this gun violence problem on the fact that there are blacks in America."
Yeah, that's it!
England and Scotland have no blacks, right?
Ah, I can hear the gun nuts wistfully dreaming, "If only America were the same and we didn't have all these niggers running around here."
(Actually, come to think of it, I've heard NRA gun nut types say things EXACTLY like the above quote---including the use of the "N" word).
I guess I could here point out that modern day Britain has plenty of immigrants from around the world (in London alone, there are something like 300 languages being spoken today), but I'm not going to waste my time.
Oh, and despite what you think, Ravenshrike, I have no "picture perfect" view of England. I think they have sensible gun laws, but I really lost a lot of respect for Britain after Blair became Bush's poodle in the Iraq fiasco.

BFM said...

"If only America were the same and we didn't have all these niggers running around here."

I thought Robert KKK Byrd (D-WV) said that...

BFM said...

Ah, I can hear the gun nuts wistfully dreaming, "If only America were the same and we didn't have all these niggers running around here."

If you are hearing that then you, sir, are delusional and should seek medical help immediately.

The last time I heard ANYONE use the N-word was Sen Robert Byrd, D-WV. If you truly think that all right wingers and pro-gun people are racists then you have no grasp on reality.

And your comment: please join the Army and go fight in Iraq. Been there and done that. Not the Iraq part, they started that after my 27 years of service which ended in 1998.

But since you're so bold to instruct other on supporting their their beliefs I'll offer one: Why don't you and all your little Bush hating lefties just show us right-wingers how it's done. Why don't you travel to the middle east and then YOU can negotiate with the terrorist have killed US citizens and will do so again. Go ahead and show how you'd accomplish world peace with those guys without coming home with your body in one basket and your head in another.

Go ahead big shot, show us all how it's done. Solve the problem of world peace for us.

And if you're wondering how gun control is related to Iraq, read your own post where you instructed us all to join the Army and go to Iraq. (What planet did you get that from? Oh, I forgot. More liberal idiot logic!)

Oh, and in case I forgot, I'm sure you've meant to add that, "all the world's problems are Bush's fault." Hate Bush, Hate Bush, Hate Bush, right...

Sebastian said...


Can we dispense with the weak "if only you remove these statistical outliers, our crime rates are just fine" arguments? England and Wales have minorities too, as does most of Europe. It does our side no favors to make this a racial issue, because it's not. Crime affects everyone. I agree with you that gun control isn't a solution, but saying that it's minorities causing all the crime isn't exactly offering a solution is it?

Marc McDonald said...

In response to BFM's comment:

>>>"If only America were the same
>>>and we didn't have all these
>>>niggers running around here."
>>>I thought Robert KKK Byrd
>>>(D-WV) said that...

LOL, it always makes me laugh when you right-wing bigots serve up your fake outrage over you really give a shit about racial equality.

I don't recall any of this outrage when your beloved George W. Bush went to Bob ("I don't want my white daughter dating any Negroes") Jones University and praised that school during the 2000 campaign.

OK, Byrd served in the KKK. Back in the 1940s. He's apologized for it a thousand times and said it was wrong.

By contrast, your beloved little Fratboy-In-Chief praised Bob Jones University in 2000 and he's never apologized for it.

So please, spare us the fake outrage. You're just getting your GOP talking points from Rush, as usual.

Think for yourself for a change.

Marc McDonald said...

In response to BFM's comment:
>>>"If you truly think that all
>>>right wingers and pro-gun
>>>people are racists then you
>>>have no grasp on reality."

The problem with you right-wing
bigots is that you're often racist
without even realizing it.

And if you're going to claim that
you've never heard any of your
right-wing buddies ever use
the "N" word, then you, sir, are a

You remind me a lot of the racist
cop in the O.J. trial, Mark
Fuhrman (who is a big hero on the
Right). He laughably claimed he
hadn't used the "N" word in 10
years (and audiotapes later showed
him to be a liar).

>>>Why don't you travel to the
>>>middle east and then YOU can
>>>negotiate with the terrorist
>>>have killed US citizens and will
>>>do so again.

Uh, actually, I had raised the
issue of IRAQ. Iraq had nothing to
do with 9/11. I realize you
Kool-Aid drinking, Bush-worshipping, Rush-listening
wackoes will never grasp this
fact. But Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO
WITH 9/11, idiot!

iron mike said...

Marc, While I strongly disagree w/ on the issue of gun control, I do admire the strength of your convictions However misguided they may be :)

I would've hoped that you wouldn't stoop to the childish use of profanity & name calling. Not even Bob R.Saunders or the late Miss Ivans needed to use such tactics. J R R Labbe would hang her head in shame....

A FT. Worth native.

GonzoX said...

Why is it that you Liberals always think that you can punish criminals by taking rights away from law abiding citizens?

The Bass Ackwarness of your logic is stiffling.

Ask yourself this one question:
Do you really want to live in a world where only the Ccriminals and the Government have guns?

And keep in mind that some or one in the same. Think long and hard before you answer this.

Anonymous said...

Well Mr. Mcdonald,

I see that you have a deep hatred for Freedom and for America.

Since you have an interest in Japan, perhaps we could all pitch in to buy you a one way plane ticket there.

Marc McDonald said...

In response to Robb Allen's comment:
>>>Former Marine. Been there, done
>>>that, got the T-Shirt. So much
>>>for the chicken hawk smear.

Former Marine, you say? Hmmm, well, I would like to ask you something: how do you feel about thousands of your fellow soldiers being killed in a illegal, immoral war that was based on LIES?

Anonymous said...

"Illegal and Immoral War"??

You mean the one that is keeping them from killing you and me here at home?

And what do you care? You are safe at home bitching about something that doesn't even affect you while others make the sacrifice to serve overseas. You sound like a whiney little coward.

Let me ask you something, have you ever served in the military yourself? Are you a member of the "Blame America Fist" crowd?

Now I completely understand how you managed fall from grace from being an alleged journalist to a wannabe internet blogger journalist.

You are unemployed now aren't you? Good luck with that.

Marc McDonald said...

>>>"Illegal and Immoral War"??
>>>You mean the one that is
>>>keeping them from killing you
>>>and me here at home?

What the fuck are you talking about, you Kool-Aid-drinking retard?
Turn off Rush Oxymoron and Fox "News" and educate yourself for a change.
Frankly, BushBots like you scare me a lot more than Al Qaeda ever could.

>>>You are unemployed now aren't
>>>you? Good luck with that.

Uh, no...actually, I have my own highly successful business, that I started from scratch.

Anonymous said...

We also tend to forget how much of the gun homicides in the country are attributed to gang/gang killings. USA Today did a story on the issue last year, I believe they credited something in the ballpark of 70%+ of homicide victems in the Maryland Urban area to be felons. It doens't make it okay, but it does make it different.

Most of them didn't use ANY, assault weapons. Every one of them I've talked to used a handgun - or shotgun.

To be fair, I'm a Libertarian, Former Marine, CCW Holder, Firearm owner, Militia Member, Law Enforcement Officer, who does not give money or membership to the NRA or even read their publications.

HOWEVER: Anyone who feels that banning guns is a good step is wrong on several accounts;

1. It is the amendment that allows us to defend all the other amendments, as laid out in the Declaration of Independance. I care equally about the ENTIRE bill of rights, not just the second. Many pro-gun folks are.

2. If you overlook the fact that the second amendment, is still a constitutional amendment... if we override it, then it sets a dangerous precedent for activist and the government lobby to override other amendments (moreso than they already have). Believe it or not, they are all equal.

3. "shall not be infringed" What does the word infringe mean? It doesn't state "Shall make no law abridging", but it DOES mean to impose upon, which is exactly what most gun legislation does. Restrict our second amendment rights with rules that only people like me will follow.

Try to remember, everytime you say anything about banning or restricting guns, that private gun ownership in the hands of the people/militia is why we even have a country in the first place.

You owe your heritage to them, so have some respect.

Jen said...

Gun restrictions only make it a LITTLE harder to kill people...or protect yourself quickly, if need be.

If someone wants to go out there and kill everyone, I'm pretty sure they'll find a different way, or more likely, get their gun illegally from the organizations that ARE allowed to have the ones you feel like banning.

Why aren't you whining about the sorry state of their thought processes instead? Work on fixing that. I think it's a little more important.

Anonymous said...

one quick thought i haven't read yet.
for any weapon to be a true assault weapon it must be fully automatic or capable of at least burst automatic fire.

Anonymous said...

and as already stated anyone who would kill anyone with anything would ignore every other law also.

Anonymous said...

and even if you managed to remove all items classified as weapons people would still find ways to kill other people. does a hammer not have enough force to kill some one. how about blasting materials for mining or the mining equipment itself.

Anonymous said...

if anything you would make it easier. who would think anything of a guy with a screw driver in his overalls. the 2 foot or longer rifle is far easier to spot and or report to police or another government agency.

Anonymous said...

that is unless you want to ban everything and go back to caveman days and then die cold hungry and stupid

Anonymous said...

You sir, are living in a fantasy world.
"67 knife frenzies in 10 yrs"

Guns dont kill people, Your ignorance does.

Spark said...

Just wait until they want to take freedom of speech. let's see how up in arms you libs get.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I bought all my AK rifles during the Clinton Ban in 1997. Are they accurate? Answer yes- I can hit a beer bottle with any of them at 100 yards. Did I have access to large capacity ammunition feeding devices during
in 1997 during the ban? Answer
Yes, I bought dozens of them because there are millions of AK 47 magazines already in circulation. Would the Clinton ban have stopped that boy from getting anything deadly? Answer No it wouldn't have. Ask yourself this
will laws prevent anyone from getting pot, cocaine, extasy, beer,
or guns? Answer Hell no that why theres always been a black market
because bans never have worked ask Al Capone if he appreciated a ban on alcohol- it caused more crime than it ever prevented.

jon said...

Let us not argue about bayonet lugs and pistol grips on rifles whilst Republicans AND Democrats evicerate the entire Constitution.
I firmly believe anti-gun folks will be yearning for a decent firearm to protect themselves in the near future from tyrants.

A house divided cannot stand.

Turn your tv's off, throw your anti-depressants in the trash and face reality America!

Marc McDonald said...

There's been a lot of idiots here claiming that England, with its strict gun laws, is actually more dangerous than America.

Here's a dose of reality from

The homicide rate of 1.6 per 100,000 in England and Wales compares favorably with the 5.9 per 100,000 in the United States. Overall crime figures are down by a third since the ruling Labour Party was voted into power in 1997, and London has actually seen a reduction in most violent offenses in recent years.

Anonymous said...

fuck that!!! you take away the guns and we are all bound to die!!!

not only are the lawmakers trying to ban people from owning firearms by passing laws against them, they are now doing it differently,

they are finding other ways to criminalize the people into not being eligible to own or possess a firearm!

people, lets put it this way ,if the original 13 American colonies where banned from owning or possessing firearms
we wouldn't be here today...admit it you left wing irrational idiots...! let me tell you, if more people in that mall where eligible to own a firearm and did, i don't think 2 people would have been shot...and that kid would've died by someone else's bullet!

Anonymous said...

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

Marc McDonald said...

In response to the previous comment:
So guns protect us from tyranny, huh?

They really did a bang-up job protecting us from the past 8 years of the Constitution-shredding Bush/Cheney regime, didn't they?

Incidentally, moron: who is talking about banning all guns? You gun nuts are always screaming that any restrictions on guns whatsoever automatically leads to all guns being confiscated by the government.

So I guess you don't have any problem with children buying guns, right? The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about "adults only." Any 7-year-old should be able to pack an AK-47 on the school playground, right?

MadRocketScientist said...

Don't be an idiot Marc, kids buying guns has never been something those of us asking for gun rights have worked for.

Marc McDonald said...

>>Don't be an idiot Marc, kids
>>buying guns has never been
>>something those of us asking for
>>gun rights have worked for.

Why not?
Why are you restricting the Second Amendment rights of minors? Why are you interpeting the Second Amendment like a Liberal Activist Judge?
The Second Amendments gives EVERYONE the right to UNRESTRICTED ARMS.
So I want the right to have a suitcase nuke--this is my Second Amendment Right.
If you disagree, then you are a PINKO COMMUNIST who is trying to take away my Second Amendment Rights.

MadRocketScientist said...

Yep, that's right Marc, children should be allowed to buy guns, and while we are at it, let's let them smoke, drink, and drive cars without restriction. I mean you lefties let kids have unfettered first amendment rights, and the pen is mightier than the sword, so handling the responsibility of firearms should be no big deal.

Of course, not only are you being facetious, this has nothing to do with the fact that the AWB would not have outlawed the weapon used.

Marc McDonald said...

So you don't have a problem with me owning a few suitcase nukes, right? The Second Amendment gives everyone unrestricted access to arms of all kinds.

Glad to see we're on the same page.

By the way, you need to tell those Pinko Communists over at the NRA to stop their "keep guns out of the hands of children" campaign.

Anonymous said...

Wow, what came first? Your irrational anti-gun policies? Or your boyfriend's cock in your ass? I guess we will never know. I am sorry that your a little Nancy boy and aren't man enough to handle a gun responsibly so you have to go hand and hand with the granola eating hippies who live on another planet and think that criminals won't hurt them if lawful ownership of firearms is taken away from the rest of the public. Personally, since we are all about stripping people of their God given constitutional rights, we should get rid of that pesky 1st Amendment that allows rappers to release powerful messages to children about glorifying gun and gang violence. Perhaps that will eliminate crime and we can all ride the pretty ponies in lala land. ;)

Anonymous said...

Your news and your opinions reak of gay butt sex. You homo...

Anonymous said...

I think everyone would benefit from a sensible law that doesnt allow just anyone to own a rifle like an ak 47 just because they want one. Military grade assault rifles can do much more damage than the civilian models because of their ability to go full auto, but they still use the same devastating rounds that are meant for battlefields not urban streets.

Bud T. said...

To all those who say if you have good gun policies then there wouldn't be any murders... WHAT?
There are other ways to kill people. Most murders aren't even gun related!

Anonymous said...

Marc, you said you want a suitcase nuke.
Your an idiot, that isn't what the second Amendment states. It gives you the right to have guns, for hunting and protection, not for a nuclear holocaust. Your one of the dumbest people I've heard.

Anonymous said...

This whole thing is absurd. Non-stop name calling, completely fabricated facts, and just generalized ignorance. If they're all "gun nuts" does that make everyone else "tree hugging faggots"? Has anyone here ever converted an "assault weapon" to full auto? Has anyone researched their facts past google? If finding something in a google search meant it was fact, this would've ended way before this. If you don't like guns, don't associate with them. And no, I don't belong to the NRA. I support Universal Health Care, worry about the environment, and support gay marriage. This isn't a black and white issue, so give up the pissing contest.

Anonymous said...


You have made yourself look foolish. According to you everyone that disagrees with you, and one that offers facts that contradict yours, and everyone who doesn't support a gun ban must listen to Rush, love Bush, and be any of a number of names you're throwing around. You scream that they're just spouting propaganda, hate, and can't think for themselves. In reality, all I hear out of you is liberal media clips, hatred, and thoughtless comments, while you cling to the one "fact" you "found". This could be a really good blog, but both sides have turned this into something disgusting and ugly. You being a journalist should be bigger than this. You bring shame on your self and your cause, just as the person calling you a homo. In reality, there are some dangerous loop holes that could use work. There are tons of things that could be done to affect change w/o frivolous weapon bans. Liberal are supposed to be known for their ability to talk through problems. I could keep going but I'm sure I've made my feelings known.

Anonymous said...

Devastating military rounds? You do realize most "assault weapons" use smaller, less powerful rounds than almost all serious hunting rifles, right? As for urban streets, call your local P.D. and ask them to remove the AR15's and M16's from their cars. Go back to shotguns! So much safer for urban conflicts. And no I did not get this from Rush. Its factual information about cartridges used in modern firearms, and ballistic information. Anyone with firearm knowledge knows this stuff.

Anonymous said...

marc mcdonald is funny.just like the 2nd amendment is being destroyed and rights are being lost our freedom of speech is being wrecked by such things as the fairness doctrine and the environment ha thats the worst.the "GOV'T" isnt helping it just imposing rediculous taxes, health care, universal sounds great most canadians aren't to happy with it in fact now theres private health care popping up its the corrupt pharmy' companies that are the problem and rediculous cost of doctors. when people lose freedoms america gets chipped away more and more and some people think thats great. america is awesome free trade is awesome being able to defend yourself is awesome. those are truly awe inspiring things.

CwBoyWz said...

Marc, Your creditability as a journalist has been compromised by your responses here. I was trying to research facts and after reading your bio, I thought I might find reason here. Seems I wasted a lot of time as your comments digressed to the point that your post now comes across like any other rant on the internet.
I see both sides here are abound with misinformation to support their own agenda and truthfully, you lower yourself.
Have you ever heard the old saying: Keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, or open it and prove it?

Anonymous said...

so the gun ban takes effect in the UK and gun murders drop to 30 a year huh........ How many knife/blunt object murders were there compared to the year before the gun seizure?


"A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned."


"New figures provided to the IoS under the Freedom of Information Act highlight how the number of people being prosecuted by magistrates for possessing knives has rocketed up from the 4,489 in 1997, the year Labour came to power. By 2006, that figure had jumped to 7,699."


Keep in mind the words "new" are in the article but the information is still only talking about the effects and is still valid.

And lookie lookie lookie... I site my figures, Oh Snap! Maybe I should get into this "blogging" thing

Dubon_engeven said...

Mr, Mcdonald, are you saying that Those who support our constitutional rights are all NRA? I tend to support democratic leaders. Why would a republican support democrats? Honestly as a country we had no good candidates for quite some time. So I support gun rights so I'm racist? I voted for Oboma well holy crap I guess I didn't realize I was racist in time to stop myself.

(I do question voting for Oboma now but if color had anything to do with it I wouldn't have voted for him in the first place would I have?

Dubon_engeven said...

Gun laws aside Mr. Mcdonald has repeatedly told untruths and bent information to fit his agenda. Because I don't agree with what he says I am "NRA" and according to him a racist. Therefor if you fail to agree with any of his views you are in fact a racist gun toting republican.

Well I guess since I am not a full blooded white and am in fact part Cherokee I therefor must hate myself.

Anonymous said...

Since most of the gun related murders are probably gang related, do you think a ban would help or do you think that they would just find another way to get guns.