I am going to say that was never true. Kids have been moved along in schools since they were invented.

Yeah, you can only really hold a kid back one, maybe two years. You can't just hold them back every year, until you get a 14 year old going through classes with a group of 8 year olds.

Legislation needs two sides with mutual trust and neither Republicans nor Democrats as of now have given the opposing party any reason whatsoever to trust them at all.

In the pantheon of crazy, I like the magic platinum coin idea better.

What the platinum-coin option really shows is how odd the debt ceiling is. It’s an artificial obstacle to the government paying for spending it has already approved and for making interest payments on debt it has already issued. The debt ceiling isn’t an economic limit on spending; it’s a legal one. And maybe that, not the trillion-dollar coin, is the real joke.

No, something stinks here. The lack of eye witnesses of the shooter confirming the single shooter account is BLARINGLY absent. The reports of a second shooter in the woods has suddenly disappeared. The reporters are not grilling the one and only witness we know of- this little boy....

Friends. I believe there is evidence of more than one shooter. I believe this was a PLANNED event- specifically to get the UN Small Arms Treaty signed. The father of the shooter is Peter Lanza, rumored to be scheduled to testify on the international LIBOR scandal....

I believe our GOVERNMENT shot those kids and teachers and used Adam Lanza and his family to pull it off.

Ft. Hood was a "gun-free" zone.

2) People treat mass shootings differently than lightening strikes because mass shootings aren't random acts of nature. Good lord. How obvious is that?

Screw remaining calm about Newtown. I know the ones desiring calm have an agenda, but emotion is always the motive behind action. Reason and logic are only tools that get you where you want to go. They should be put to use, but only with your end goal in mind.

The emotional trauma caused by the atrocity is a proper factor in any bloodless, rational consideration of risk, right, and reward.

An American child grows up in a married household in the suburbs. What are the chances that his family keeps a gun in their home?

The probability is considerably higher than residents of New York and other big cities might expect: about 40 percent of married households reported having a gun in their home, according to the exit poll conducted during the 2008 presidential election.

But the odds vary significantly based on the political identity of the child’s parents. If they identify as Democratic voters, the chances are only about one in four, or 25 percent, that they have a gun in their home. But the chances are more than twice that, almost 60 percent, if they are Republicans....

In 1973, about 55 percent of Republicans reported having a gun in their household against 45 percent of Democrats, according to the General Social Survey, a biennial poll of American adults.

Gun ownership has declined over the past 40 years — but almost all of the decrease has come from Democrats. By 2010, according to the General Social Survey, the gun ownership rate among adults that identified as Democrats had fallen to 22 percent. It remained at about 50 percent among Republican adults....

White voters were substantially more likely to own guns than Hispanics or blacks. But white Republicans were more likely to own guns than white Democrats.

And based on demographic inertia, the differences seem likely to grow over time.

About 35 percent of Democratic voters age 65 and older reported having a gun in their home, against about 25 percent of those ages 18 to 29. But gun ownership rates bore little relationship to age among Republican voters, and were constant at about 55 percent among all age groups. That might suggest that gun ownership will continue to decline among Democrats while holding steady among Republicans, further increasing the partisan gap....

In urban areas, 40 percent of Republican voters said they had a gun in their home, while 20 percent of Democrats did.

The differences are most apparent in suburban areas. There, 58 percent of Republican voters said there was a gun in their household, against just 27 percent of Democrats.

Having school-age children in the household did not significantly affect gun ownership rates, either positively or negatively. A majority of Republican-voting parents of minor children had a gun in their home, while only about one in four Democratic-voting parents did.

In other respects, the profile of gun owners defies some of the stereotypes that urban liberals might assign to them. For example, despite President Obama’s comments in 2008 about voters who “cling to guns and religion,” the two qualities are not strongly correlated. Slightly more than 40 percent of voters who said they attended church weekly or more often reported having a gun in their home, about the same percentage as among those who attend religious services just a few times a month or a few times a year. And gun ownership rates are highest among the middle class, rather than the poor. Households making $50,000 to $100,000 per year were slightly more likely to own guns than those that made a little bit less or a little more. (However, gun ownership rates are inversely correlated with educational attainment.)...

It might seem strange that ownership of a single household object is so strongly tied to voting behavior and broader political attitudes in America. But America is an outlier relative to other industrialized nations in its gun ownership rates. Whatever makes this country so different from the rest of the world must surely be reflected in the differences in how Democrats and Republicans see the nation.

Completely laughable. The GOP damaged the country's credit rating for political gain; it raised the filibuster to performance art levels; it has been singularly intransigent, and was specific, that wrecking Obama's presidency was more important than acting in the country's best interests. Nothing comparable has occurred on the Dem's side, and yet you'd have us believe that, really, both sides are equally at fault. What a joke.

That's a real great way to win an argument you've got there

That's a real great way to win an argument you've got there Jack, that is a small step below this - "YOUR SIDE IS EVIL, YOU ARE IN IT ONLY FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL GAIN! MY SIDE IS RIGHT! GO CRAWL INTO A GUTTER AND DIE!"

It's entirely rational to conclude that the steps taken to prevent the murder of six-year-olds in school should be different than, say, preventing the murder of serial child molesters in prison. Why? Because the former is far more emotionally searing than the latter.

I assume you see the difference now, since it's quite obvious.

Though a number of NRA-backed Democrats have said they’d be open to reviewing gun control laws, among House Republicans it’s a different story.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., was recently elected chair of the House Judiciary Committee for the next session of Congress, making him the highest ranked Republican with control over regulating firearms. Goodlatte said Tuesday that he doesn’t support implementing tougher gun laws.

“We’re going to take a look at what happened there and what can be done to help avoid it in the future, but gun control is not going to be something that I would support,” Goodlatte told Roll Call.

...

In the Senate, though some Republicans have said they’d at least be open to a conversation about gun laws, others have balked. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., told the Kansas City Star that owning guns “is an important right, and it is in the Constitution. These laws are not going to change in the near future.”

And Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said that he would not support an assault weapons ban, which Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has said she will introduce in the new session.

“That’s not going to answer the question. You’ve got to find out who has access to those guns, especially where people are irrational, deranged and so forth. How do you define assault weapon? It’s very difficult,” Shelby told Politico. “[An assault ban] won’t fix it. We’ve seen that movie before.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also told Politico that a ban on assault weapons “doesn’t make sense to me.”

“The worst thing we can do is create false sense of security. Every bad event in the world can’t be fixed by government action,” he said. “The question for me is how to prevent mass murder?”

The worst thing we can do is create false sense of security.

The recent shootings in Newtown, Conn., have led many people to characterize school violence as a modern affliction, a byproduct of our national obsession with guns and media violence. But the deadliest school-related massacre in American history happened in 1927, at an elementary school in Bath, Mich. A school board member named Andrew Kehoe, upset over a burdensome property tax, wired the building with dynamite and set it off in the morning of May 18. Kehoe’s actions killed 45 people, 38 of whom were children.

At the time, Bath was a small farm community with under 300 residents. The town had “an elevator, a little drugstore, and you knew everybody within 20 miles,” as one survivor of the attack recalled in 2009. Perhaps its most modern feature was the Bath Consolidated School, which opened its doors in 1922 and brought all the region’s students under one roof. In The Bath School Disaster, published in 1927 and available online here, Kehoe’s neighbor, Monty J. Ellsworth, noted that the consolidated school was markedly superior to the “common country school” that preceded it. It was also more expensive, and the township raised property taxes in order to repay the school’s bonds.

This upset Andrew Kehoe. A local farmer with training as an electrical engineer, he was a severe, stubborn man fond of drastic solutions to small problems; Ellsworth writes that Kehoe once shot a noisy dog and killed his own horse because it was lazy. In an article from May 20, 1927, the New York Times noted that Kehoe “was known through the countryside as a ‘dynamite farmer’. Neighbors detailed how he was continually setting off blasts on his farm, blowing up stumps and rocks.”

Kehoe really hated taxes, and joined the school board to argue against them. The Times reported that, as a board member, he “appeared to have a tax mania and fought the expenditure or money for the most necessary equipment.” In 1926, he ran for town clerk, but his obstructionist reputation preceded him, and he was defeated. His loss in that race, coupled with the news that his farm was facing foreclosure, appears to have triggered his plan.

It's a hell of a lot better than your "argument," you don't really have a response to what he said, do you?

Because what part of what he said was incorrect?

Or is it the tone you are complaining about?

Should these things only be discussed in quiet rooms?

Mike Huckabee blames it on teaching evolution

... and yes, your railing against teacher salaries in the face of the Newtown teachers' heroism and bravery was an abject, buffoonish embarrassment.

Ft. Hood was a "gun-free" zone.

Good one, Joe.

Yes, the area in which the Fort Hood shootings occurred was a "gun-free zone." Are you seriously claiming Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 29 more in a room full of armed military members?

There are MP's in the area with weapons, correct?

There are MP's in the area with weapons, correct?

At many installations, Department of Army Civilian Police officers augment military police personnel. Some smaller installations have only civilian police present. The officer can expect to perform a variety of security and law enforcement roles.

One major function of a Department of the Army Civilian Police officer is to conduct force protection duties. This often takes the form of ensuring that only authorized personnel access the installation by performing identification checks at fixed entry control points (gates). Department of Army Civilian Police officers may also stand fixed posts at higher security areas within the confines of the installation, such as buildings containing classified material or around parked aircraft. Officers at fixed posts ensure that all entry requirements have been met before allowing an individual to proceed.

Department of the Army Civilian Police officers also conduct security and law enforcement patrols within the installation. Officers patrol the installation and check that physical security measures such as fences and lighting are in good working order. An officer can conduct traffic stops for motor vehicle violations. Each base adopts the surrounding state's motor vehicle laws under the Assimilative Crimes Act (see Federal Jurisdiction). There are two types of citations that may be issued: the DD Form 1408 Armed Forces Traffic Ticket, and the DD Form 1805 Violation Notice. The type of citation(s) issued are authorized at the local command level. The DD Form 1408 does not have any monetary fines associated with it. The DD Form 1805 Violation Notice does however establish fines and a hearing system through the U.S. Magistrate. Department of the Army Civilian Police officers and military police personnel respond to all calls for law enforcement assistance that take place within the installation. If the crime is found to be a major felony, then the matter is generally referred to the special agents of the applicable military investigative agency (NCIS, CID, OSI, FBI, etc.).

If all that's necessary for a place to be a "gun free zone" is that no one within 12 feet (or in the same room) has a gun than 99.99999999% of the country is and will always be a gun-free zone.

More fundamentally, I also dissent from the idea that the relative level of return firepower is a factor considered by these spree killers, who usually wind up just killing themselves as intended, anyway. You've already insisted that the Newtown killer was "mentally deranged" -- so why would he worry about who in the school had guns?

The rules for carrying weapons on an Army post are standard throughout all bases, service officials said. The only personnel allowed to openly display weapons on the base are military police, said Lt. Col. Nathan Banks, an Army spokesman.

Service weapons are checked daily and are usually only allowed to be removed from an arms room for training on a range or maintenance. Personal weapons must be kept locked and registered with the base provost marshal. The military police keep a record of all of the weapons on a base, Army officials said.

To prevent people from taking advantage of all the gun-free zones, as the Newport killer did.

It's exactly what you'd expect statisticallly, given the fact that 99%+ of the country is and will always be a "gun-free zone." So, no, I wouldn't call it a coincidence.

I'm using your definition, which holds Fort Hood to have been a gun-free zone.

How so? If what's required to not be a gun-free zone is immediate access to usable firearms -- as it must be for Ft. Hood to be "gun-free" -- then 99%+ of the country is gun free. The second story of a house with an arsenal in the basement is "gun free" when all the residents are upstairs, under your definition..

How so? If what's required to not be a gun-free zone is immediate access to usable firearms -- as it must be for Ft. Hood to be "gun-free" -- then 99%+ of the country is gun free. The second story of a house with an arsenal in the basement is "gun free" when all the residents are upstairs, under your definition..

Barne & Noble convoluted defense

All I know is that I am going to be pretty upset if all the Barnes & Nobles go out of business and we are stuck with Wallmart and Target as our bricks and motar stores.

I could be wrong, but I think Joe is using "gun-free" to mean places where people are not allowed to carry guns, rather than access to guns.

I know, and I'm saying it doesn't matter whether guns are "forbidden" or "not immediately available." Guns showed up at the Ft. Hood massacre site to counter the killer, anyway,

so you have to warp the definitions of "area" and "zone" to make the dubious point. Guns certainly weren't "forbidden" at Ft. Hood.

The NRA distributes the talking points; Kehoskie shows back up arguing the talking points to the letter. The man could be replaced with a simple bot.

Well, that's what happens when you permit assault weaponry -- the death tolls rise much higher before the counter-firepower arrives.

And again, that's a stupid definition of the terms "zone" and "area." Under that definition, 99%+ of the country is and will always be "gun free."

You think assault weapon possession should be permitted, right? Or are you walking that back?

I can't remember if TGF said it upthread or not, but it's fair (if not imperative) to conclude that our response to 9/11 was too emotional.

I am sure there was more sentiment for the Iraq invasion, to "do something", because of 9/11. But Afghanistan was available as well. The Iraq invasion speaks to the powers that be having an agenda that 9/11 provided convenient cover for. The American people had no direct choice in the invasion of Iraq; that was an administration choice.

No, simply holding you accountable for your sophistic horseshit, e.g., Ft. Hood being a "gun free zone."

admittedly just playing devil's advocate here, but it did give me a little pause.

An interesting overview of the 1927 Bath schoolhouse massacre

Mike Huckabee blames it on teaching evolution

What was the culturally deplorable activity the youth participated in in '27? Don't forget to blame that.

whereas a spree killer who doesn't intend to survive may simply be looking for an accessible gathering without regard to whether or not other armed individuals may be present

What was the culturally deplorable activity the youth participated in in '27? Don't forget to blame that.

Yeah, after 13 people were dead and 29 were wounded.

Well, that's what happens when you permit assault weaponry -- the death tolls rise much higher before the counter-firepower arrives.

I thought it was what we were talking about. You're suggesting that the way to stop assault weapon deaths is to arm more people and reduce the number of "gun-free zones." I'm suggesting that it's to ban possession of assault weapons by civilians (and to buy back and/or confiscate the ones currently in civilian hands.)

The problem is, that with my buying habits, I'm hastening the demise of B&M shops, which in turn will eventually leave Amazon with the power to control the market and raise prices pretty much at whim, which to an extent they've already been doing.

(CNN) – Republican Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina, the new appointee to replace Sen. Jim DeMint, indicated Wednesday he may oppose any gun control legislation in the Senate next Congress, saying instead the larger issue is one of "moral decay."

"I think the solutions are not necessarily in new legislation. Perhaps the solution starts with us examining the mental condition of the person and the persons in the past that have had the desire to create the atrocities we have seen recently," he said on CNN's "Starting Point with Soledad O'Brien."

He added that "mental illness should be a major part of the conversation."

...

In addition to addressing mental illness, the South Carolina congressman, who starts in the Senate on January 3 after DeMint officially resigns, said the recent crisis should prompt the country "to engage an entire culture of moral decay and of violence."

Why, if the owners are as "law abiding" as advertised? If a ban on the weapons they own is passed tomorrow, won't they just turn them in or sell them back and remain law-abiding?

Far fewer guns in circulation to be misused, a la the guns in the Newtown atrocity.

Now, back to the original question -- why will the vast majority of assaultish weapons be difficult to confiscate, if they are owned by law-abiding citizens? Won't they simply comply with the law?

So the question of whether or not more guns would protect us is interesting but utterly irrelevant to the regulations that are on the table at this point. If a House of Congress proposed regulating handguns, that would obviously be a different story.

(CNN) – Republican Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina, the new appointee to replace Sen. Jim DeMint, indicated Wednesday he may oppose any gun control legislation in the Senate next Congress, saying instead the larger issue is one of "moral decay."

"I think the solutions are not necessarily in new legislation. Perhaps the solution starts with us examining the mental condition of the person and the persons in the past that have had the desire to create the atrocities we have seen recently," he said on CNN's "Starting Point with Soledad O'Brien."

He added that "mental illness should be a major part of the conversation."

...

In addition to addressing mental illness, the South Carolina congressman, who starts in the Senate on January 3 after DeMint officially resigns, said the recent crisis should prompt the country "to engage an entire culture of moral decay and of violence."

In addition to addressing mental illness, the South Carolina congressman, who starts in the Senate on January 3 after DeMint officially resigns, said the recent crisis should prompt the country "to engage an entire culture of moral decay and of violence."

Which is going to lead to an increase in e-book piracy (it's already growing rapidly).

That's because the denominator is way too high. Not sure of the point anyway.

Nonresponsive. Are assault-type weapons and semiautomatic weapons currently in the hands of the "law abiding," or not? If they are, they'll be turned in if the law says so. If they aren't, then the NRA's wails about guns being taken away from "law abiding" citizens is a bunch of claptrap.

Does buying second hand help the author at all?

I wouldn't disarm them. They could still possess pistols for self-defense, and sporting hunting guns.

... while criminals would retain a supply of semiautomatics for generations to come.

What's your point? That I need a semi-automatic weapon to protect myself from the miniscule possibility I am ever confronted by someone with a semi-automatic weapon?

That's a good and serious point, which I haven't given much thought to, for the simple reason that I buy almost nothing but hardback books (with dust jackets, yet), a tiny handful of paperbacks, and no e-books at all. So far the practical effect on my own book buying habits is that the ones I've bought have become progressively cheaper and easier to find with each successive year, but I don't have any illusions about the future (for new books, at least) once Amazon crushes its competition, since I have no illusions about Jeff Bezos' underlying concern for any part of the book business that he can't control.

What's your point? That I need a semi-automatic weapon to protect myself from the miniscule possibility I am ever confronted by someone with a semi-automatic weapon?

Yes.