October 31, 2014

Elyria
Cloudy
43°F
test

Oberlin church hosts community forum on gun laws

OBERLIN — The Rev. Andy Call, pastor of First United Methodist Church in Oberlin, said Saturday’s community forum to discuss existing and proposed gun laws likely would not have happened had it not been for action taken by the city last year to repeal some local gun laws after a pro-gun group sued the community.

“No, we probably wouldn’t have been here today,” Call said of the forum attended by about 40 people in the fellowship hall of Mt. Zion Baptist Church.

“People feel very passionately about this issue,” Call said, adding, “We’re not trying to take a particular position here. We want to respect different stances.”

Still, most of those who asked questions and made comments seemed to favor laws seeking to restrict gun ownership and tighten access to firearms.

The bulk of the program was presented by David Eggert, a South Euclid resident, and member of God Before Guns, a faith-based coalition of Northeast Ohio churches working to reduce gun violence.

“I had had enough,” Eggert said in explaining how he became active with the advocacy group. “I feel people of faith should lead the way against gun violence.”

“God Before Guns” was formed in 2013 as an outgrowth of a workshop on gun violence at Cleveland’s Forest Hills Presbyterian Church in the aftermath of the 2012 mass school shootings in Newtown, Conn.

Gun sales have risen notably after mass shootings, Eggert said, “over fears of (possible) government regulation” of firearms.

“Obama has been a great gun salesman,” Eggert said, noting the general rise in firearm sales since the Democratic president has taken office and repeatedly spoken out against gun violence.

Eggert noted the growing impact state law has on local efforts to control guns and gun ownership.

“Local laws can’t conflict with state law,” he said.

Oberlin City Council repealed a number of local firearm ordinances last fall after City Law Director John Clark warned the city could face significant penalties and other costs if laws remained on the books that dealt with carrying a concealed weapon, improperly using and possessing firearms and possessing a replica or defaced firearm.

The repeal of the local ordinances in November came in response to a lawsuit filed by Ohioans for Concealed Carry over the city’s regulations of possession of firearms in Oberlin parks.

To emphasize the need for continued work to support legislation and other steps to curb gun violence, Eggert cited 2010 statistics that showed there were 11,078 gun-related homicides in the U.S., of which 396 were in Ohio.

Most Ohio gun legislation “is very partisan,” Eggert said, with measures aimed at controlling firearm possession coming primarily from Democrats, while a much larger number of bills favoring gun owners come from Republicans.

Representatives of various groups, including God Before Guns and the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, met with about 40 state legislators, most Republicans, last week in Columbus to show their support for House Bill 31, a measure to require firearms be secured from minors in secure cabinets, safes or with trigger locks.

Eggert termed the child protection law a priority. “It’s a no-brainer.”

Opposition to the measure commonly takes the form of people who say it isn’t needed, Eggert said.

“They say it’s common sense to lock up guns, why pass a law,” Eggert said. “I don’t understand the opposition to that bill. Texas has lots of guns, but they also have a child protection law.”

The Rev. Kristine Eggert, wife of David Eggert and pastor of Disciples Christian Church in Cleveland Heights, told the group House Bill 31 is unlikely to pass in an election year.

Conversely, Eggert said odds of passage are good for House Bill 203, the so-called “Stand Your Ground” measure that has already cleared the Ohio House and now goes before the state Senate “that has a stronger GOP majority.”

The measure would alter the state’s “personal protection laws” to extend homeowners’ legal rights to use firearms not only inside their own homes to protect themselves from intruders, but beyond their properties to situations in which they believe to be in danger of their lives.

Oberlin City Council previously approved a resolution opposing the bill.

Eggert encouraged people to support laws restricting gun ownership and accessibility by working with groups such as God Before Guns.

Contact Steve Fogarty at 329-7146 or sfogarty@chroniclet.com.


  • golfingirl

    “We’re not trying to take a particular position here.” Really?

    And you can keep your doctor and health plan too!!!

  • Sis Delish

    “Most Ohio gun legislation “is very partisan,” Eggert said, with measures aimed at controlling firearm possession coming primarily from Democrats, while a much larger number of bills favoring gun owners come from Republicans.”

    … and, the Russians know who is in The White House, too.

    Dear Oberlin,
    You cannot be a beacon of Liberalism AND want to limit anyone for any reason. Duh!

  • Ralph Borne

    In no city of similar size is one likely to find such a gaggle of Cultural Marxists who get together to joyously celebrate their mutual hatred of America than in Oberlin. These Cultural Marxists love to play the “victim game”, where in leftist thought everyone is always oppressing someone or something: be it males, heterosexuals, whites, Christians, or Capitalists (i.e. the very people who are responsible for every technological and civil advancement in human history). Surprisingly, on this occasion Oberlin’s ultra-liberal grievance-mongers didn’t drag out the infamous “Blanket Klan”, so through yet another manufactured fake-hate-crime hoax they could reinforce their status as perennial victims.

    • Sis Delish

      Standing Ovation on-line Applause.

    • Simon Jester

      Well said!

    • golfingirl

      I do find it ironic that they meet in a church to discuss a government action they oppose, but then demand a separation of church and state.

      Can anyone say hypocrite?

      Doesn’t matter, as we have seen the political fallout from those who oppose the second amendment. Politicians will not touch this with a ten foot pole for a very long time.

    • golfingirl

      Reagan told Gorbachez to tear down the Berlin Wall.

      I suggest we request Oberlin to erect a wall to keep all the Marxists in.

  • Simon Jester

    False flag op. They’re using some “religious” front as a pretext to sneak New York style storage laws in. What better place to sell that line of crap than Oberlin?

    Nothing new under the sun. The left isn’t happy if they aren’t banning or regulating whatever the Bad Thing of the week is.

  • Brian_Reinhardt

    Why don’t they try to “control” or outlaw meth or heroin so it’s off the streets and people don’t use those two destructive drugs to kill each other with instead of coming after law abiding citizens.

    Oh…wait.

    They’re ALREADY “controlled” AND outlawed.

    my bad…

    • Simon Jester

      Gun control isn’t about guns, it’s about control.

      And you called it, laws only affect the law abiding.

  • Starryeyes63

    Gun sales up crime rate are down……………. hmmmmmm

    • SniperFire

      The C-T is working on that story and we can expect it featured very shortly! Their editorial goal is fair and balanced, you know! (snicker)

    • Paul Facinelli

      One of the first things you learn in graduate school is to be wary of confusing coincidence with causality. You need to show, with solid peer-reviewed evidence, that rising gun sales — prompted perhaps by incessant fear-mongering by the NRA about what President Obama intended to do about gun control — caused the crime rate to go down. Otherwise the connection that you describe is merely coincidental. Crime is a complex issue — economic conditions are a main factor — as all educated people know. These simplistic arguments appeal only to the uneducated.

      • Starryeyes63

        New gun laws ill only affect the law abiding. Criminal control is what is needed.

      • golfingirl

        So, the economic conditions have deteriorated for the poor and middle-class, therefore crime should have risen, based on your logic. But it has not.

        I understand the complex nature of crime. It is in large part due to the leniency of the courts in allowing offenders to remain free and commit additional offenses. Nearly everyone we read about in these pages has a significant criminal record over a period of many years.

        This is why many people, including myself, feel a need to protect ourselves and our families.

        I was the victim of a horrendous crime, and will tell you if I was armed, the outcome would have been much different.

        I will never allow myself, nor my family, to become victims again. I have an obligation as a parent to protect my children and will do whatever needs to be done to do so.

        So here is my “simplistic argument.”

        It takes about 15 minutes for the police to respond to a call. It takes about 2 seconds to defend myself with a gun. Which would you rather have when the downstairs glass breaks at 3am and intruders have entered your house?

      • golfingirl

        In the Liberal mind, emotion will always trump the hard facts. Somehow, someway facts are refuted, rationalized and or dismissed.

        Even your beloved BBC begrudgingly admitted to the facts . . . that firearms related deaths have been declining every year since 1993.

        “The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics said firearms-related homicides had dropped to 11,101 in 2011 from 18,253 – a reduction of 39%.”

        The liberal news corporations have to report it because they can’t ignore something this obvious forever, but they don’t have to like it. They don’t want to admit that “gun crime” has been going down without their help.

        And this with MORE guns in the mix. Which means that fewer guns are being used to kill people.

        I do agree that we can’t really prove more guns = less crime (correlation is not causation), but the numbers absolutely show that more guns DO NOT equal more crime. This is irrefutable.

        Sandy Hook was every gun control advocate’s wet dream: murder of innocent children by a mad man with a gun is the perfect opportunity to create fear of guns. And what people fear, they will seek to restrict or ban. Fortunately, most Americans were intelligent enough to see through this charade.

        It must really hurt your damaged psyche that truth and fact are not at all parallel with your view on gun control.. I can’t imagine living every day knowing, even on a subconscious level, that I’m wrong about every single facet of this argument.

        How dare you refer to people who disagree with you as uneducated.

      • Jonathan Greg

        Paul Facinelli was once deemed “a professional provocateur” and “king of the carnival barkers” when he worked as a columnist for the Chronicle-Telegram. Then on May 12, 1998 Paul was fired. The reason, wrote Chronicle-Telegram Editor Andy Young in his letter dismissing the columnist, was that Facinelli had put his “personal interests into direct conflict with the newspaper’s interests in fair reporting and disinterested commentary.” Fortunately Paul is no longer defending pedophiles as he did in the Head Start Case, but sadly is still arrogantly making up stories, jousting at Windmills and pursuing his radical liberal agenda, only now from the confines of his Avon home.

        • Paul Facinelli

          Hey, Rosenbaum, I didn’t know your middle name was Greg. No, wait, isn’t your middle initial “E” as I recall. Oh, I get it. You signed in with your first name and your former boss’s first name as your psuedo-last name. How clever. Anyway, good to hear from you again, Jonathan. Nice job on the Head Start case. Pass my compliments along to White. Hope both of you are still sleeping well. By the way, next time have the courage to sign in with your real name. It’s not hard. Really. And finally, I see you are still harboring the delusion that Nancy Smith and Joseph Allen are pedophiles just because you got a conviction? Nobody familiar with the case believes this, Jonathan. Nobody. Only the ignorant or the deluded and that group apparently includes you.

          • sally tancy

            You’d sneak around too, if you were on a page about gun control, trying to make someone look bad who was on to you, after your own son shot you in the back because he was angry and you still weren’t smart enough to get the guns out of the house.

            And Paul,nobody familiar with the case believes they are pedophiles except the ignorant, the deluded and the psychopaths… which includes Rosenbaum.

        • Joe Smith

          You mean those innocent people railroaded by the prosecutor? That Head Start case?

      • Guest

        Ah Paul, you were a troll before the World Wide Web existed. For that I salute you. I think the high school statistics concept you’re trying to

      • 1500HPTrollingMotor

        Ah, Paul “I’m Kind of a Big Deal” Facinelli. I think the high school statistics principal you are trying to recall is “correlation does not imply causation.”

        One of the consistent lessons of history, of which I’m assuming you had at least one class during or before graduate school, is that nature favors those who maintain a position of power. Once you give up that position, or are outclassed, you set up a chain of events that will eventually lead to your demise, or that of your progeny. Nature doesn’t care about the human’s notion of “right” or “wrong.” As bad as some of us may feel about the native American it doesn’t change anything about their demise.

        Firearms are power. They readily enable the 110 pound woman to defeat the 260 pound man, the rebel to challenge his government and the poor and disenfranchised quick relevance and power. Modern weapons create the stalemate that enables the ambitious and competitive human being to live in relative peace. Only a fool relinquishes power for any reason.

        Paul, to be blunt, your gun control stance is that of a defeatist, an inevitable victim of Darwin. Your hand picked statistics are irrelevant. Your plan for if and when the empowered come to take your things and/or your life is to rely on another human with a gun to come help you at their leisure. That’s pathetic, if only in the evolutionary sense.

        Bottom line: the intelligently armed don’t fear your personal abilities; you have no one on one means of disarming us. It’s your message that irritates. Your hypocrisy is that in order to enforce this unbalancing of power you propose you must enlist the aid of humans with guns. The only difference between your group of humans with guns and ours is allegiance. For someone who frequently takes issue with the law enforcing component of government I find it surprising you would wish to establish complete dependence on them.

        Paul, you’ve spent years peddling your views to Lorain County like a condescending community college professor. I know you do it for the drama, the sense of righteous power schooling those less (in your mind) educated then you, of enraging the backwards farmer with your progressive enlightenment. In some cases, I’ll concede that you’ve fought a good fight. This is not one of those cases.

        Do I think anything I type will change your mind. Not a chance. It would be near impossible to reverse the entrenching achieved over your lifetime, to admit you are wrong after so many years of living and breathing your fight. I just wanted to maybe crack the window on your mind a little.

  • ekwaykway

    Why don’t all the leftists in Oberlin buy plane tickets to Cuba and live happily liberal after.

  • fireside2004

    And in the Garden, Peter drew a sword and lopped off the ear of one of the men arresting Jesus. Now Jesus told him it wasn’t the time for that and put the ear on, but note that Jesus’ disciples carried arms and Jesus did not object or rebuke them prior to that. Armed parishioners stopped a mass shooting at a church in Colorado. Being armed does not defile you, what defiles you is what is in your heart. This guy is using God to advance his political agenda, not having God inform his political agenda. God at many times commanded His people to kill others. Study scripture and understand when and why. You will find gun/arms control nowhere in the Bible. So where do you come up with “God Before Guns”? It is not an either or proposition, yet you present it as one.

    • Pete

      He said, “God before guns” not instead of guns!

      • golfingirl

        Either way, if someone breaks into my home at 3am, they are going to meet their creator!

        What difference does it make. My guess is most of these liberals only enter a church to rally against something they hate, not to worship God.

      • fireside2004

        If you read his comments and statements as well as the laws he advocates, he means instead of.

  • alreadyfedup1

    The stateist (a.k.a.liberals) always know better (snicker) as long as you follow their way your OK in their narrow minds.

  • golfingirl

    Gun sales just went up in Oberlin.

    Every time there is any mention of gun control, people just go out and buy more firearms.

    This group, like others, is nothing more than a marketing arm for gun manufacturers. They are having the exact opposite effect they hope to achieve.

    Smith ans Wesson thanks you!

  • Paul Facinelli

    Only the ignorant or the fearful would fail to see the need for reasonable gun control restrictions across this nation. We chug along at about 30,000 gun deaths per year — many times the total gun deaths in the rest of the civilized world — and Wayne LaPierre tells us that that’s the price we have to pay for our freedom. Really? The equivalent in deaths of about ten 9-11′s every year, year in and year out, is the price we have to pay? What excrement. What vile excrement. Gun owners, own your guns. Have at it. Assemble your arsenals. Carry them anywhere if you wish. You never can tell where the marauders are: Church, school board meetings, bucolic parks. They could lurk anywhere. But let’s talk about what we can do to lessen the unceasing carnage, about 88 guns deaths a day nationwide. We need laws at the federal level. The patchwork of laws among the states makes restrictions ineffectual. It does no good for, say, New York to have tougher laws if a person can drive a few hours to, say, Virginia, where the laws are looser. We need a federal law, with harsh penalties, prohibiting inter-state trafficking in guns. You get caught crossing state lines with 50 weapons in your trunk and you’re a guest of the federal government for a long time. We need a national data-base of convicted felons and those judged to be mentally deficient, either by a court or by admission to a mental hospital. These people should be not be allowed to purchase guns. Which leads to the necessity for universal background checks. Currently, still, 40% of all guns sales involve no background checks. This is nuts. (A Jared Loughner-type should not be able to walk into a gun show and, with no questions asked, buy a powerful weapon.) People convicted of even misdemeanor domestic violence should not be allowed to own a gun. Sales of assault weapons should be banned. These are a few of the reasonable suggestions to try to quell the daily slaughter of our citizens. And none of them, despite what the despicable LaPierre says, will put us on the slippery slope to tyranny. None of them. The idea that the jack-booted federal government will be coming to take your guns and enslave all of us is a LaPierre fantasy designed to rachet up the fear in the hinterlands so that the money can keep flowing to him and his stooges so they can continue to live in opulence. It’s time, beyond time, for some unfearful, rational thought about this issue. What we’re (not) doing now is insane.

    • Sis Delish

      Mr. F.

      Why not just put a sign on your residence which states, “I do not own, possess nor will I use a gun if you wish to do me harm”.

      That should cover your conscience, no?

      Here’s what one clear-thinking individual did to address your type of concerns:

      http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/my-neighbor-doesnt-have-a-gun.jpg

      • Paul Facinelli

        So all you offer to this discussion is a personal cheap shot, which, by the way, makes no sense. What does owning a gun or not owning a gun have to do with covering my conscience? Also, may I infer that because you have nothing of substance to offer that you think everything’s just fine on the gun ownership/gun laws front? You’re OK with 30,000 gun deaths a year? Nothing we can do about it?

        • Sis Delish

          Mr. F.

          Which am I? Ignorant or Fearful?

          • Paul Facinelli

            You tell me.

          • Sis Delish

            Mr. F.

            In the Spirit of Democracy, I will leave the Verdict to other readers.

            But, since you only offered two definitions via the opening sentence in your original posting, you have already pronounced your decision, all without discovery, evidence or a trial.

            That’s Your version of America? Wow!

          • Starryeyes63

            I would rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

        • Starryeyes63

          And how many of those are by law abiding gun owners???? Or responsible gun owner? Lets just outlaw cars to prevent drunk driving?

        • Joe Smith

          Im ok with the 800,000 times a year a gun is used to stop a crime.

    • SniperFire

      Utter nonsense, Paul. The more guns, the less crime. If you argue with math, you will lose.

      • Paul Facinelli

        Again, can you show, WITH EVIDENCE, that the drop in crime was CAUSED by the increase in gun purchases, not merely that the two events occurred together, which would be COINCIDENCE.

        • Pablo Jones

          Actually it would be relatively easy to show one way or another if it was statistically significant. But you would need other factors in the mix as well. What would you also like to compare? Unemployment rate, GDP growth, the DOW, racial demographic growth rates? Point me to the source of the data and the analysis can be done in a few minutes.

          • Paul Facinelli

            I can’t point you to a definitive source. Conclusions can’t be drawn in a few minutes. Scholars sometimes take years gathering and analyzing information before they’re confident in their conclusions about complex issues. That’s why facile cause-and-effect statements should be avoided.

          • Pablo Jones

            The testing of statistics and the conclusions you draw from them are two very different things. It is easy and straight forward to see if there is a correlation between gun violence and the number of guns in circulation. Especially now that computers can do the number crunching you can get the results in minutes.

          • Paul Facinelli

            Easy and straightforward? If only it were so. By the way: “Testing of statistics?” What does that mean? How do you do that? I need an example.

    • Starryeyes63

      That 40% figure is how old If I remember right it was in the 80′s or 90′s please provide a any source that is more recent

    • Starryeyes63

      Actually, the number reported was a bit lower, 36 percent, and as we will see the true number of guns “sold” without check is closer to 10 percent. More important, the number comes from a 251-person survey on gun sales two decades ago, early in the Clinton administration. More than three-quarters of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks on February 28, 1994. In addition, guns are not sold in the same way today that they were sold two decades ago.

    • Starryeyes63

      According to NHTSA, 30,000 Highway deaths last year using you logic we should outlaw cars.

    • Pablo Jones

      And where did your 30,000 gun deaths a year stat come from? How many tens of thousand of people are being killed by being hacked to pieces. We are doing better than them.

    • Starryeyes63

      60% of those deaths are suicide………. that fact came from CDC web sight. if Guns were not available they would try something else.

    • fireside2004

      Paul, there are a lot of errant arguments. Just for your information, Jared Loughner is a bad example on background checks. He bought his weapon in a store and passed the background check because the university never reported his mental illness to anyone. If you want facts, then you would argue against gun free zones, because with the sole exception of Tucson AZ, all successful mass shootings have occurred there. Now as to you 30,000 a year figure, 2/3 of that is suicides. The US rate is not more than the rest of the world which tells us that absent a gun another method would have been used. Then talk to Mexico and Brazil about how well their near total bans work. In Mexico, it appears that a sea change has occurred there where local citizens have defied the gun laws and armed themselves. All of a sudden the bad guys are not so powerful and the Mexican police are arresting fugitives they didn’t even know were alive. Plus a significant number of the gun murders (which are actually at historical lows) are in cities such as DC and Chicago who have draconian gun laws.

      • Paul Facinelli

        Absent a gun, another method would be used? What method? Rope? Knife? Gas oven? A trip to a bridge or a tall building? Pills? Another method would be slower, perhaps much slower, than that provided by a readily available gun. That time lapse might allow the despondent person to reconsider or a family, friend or loved one to intervene. You say that the U.S.’s suicide rate is equal to or less than the rest of the world’s? How about among developed countries? I’m skeptical. You’ll have to direct me to your data. By the way, I’ll ask you what I’ve asked others at this thread: What would you do to lessen the gun death carnage in our country? I’ve made some proposals. What are yours? By the way, I didn’t write “Jared Loughner,” I wrote “Jared Loughner-type,” indicating a typical deranged person, not a specific one.

        • Sis Delish

          Since this is a story about Oberlin and THEIR gun-possession position, Mr. F., please give us statistics on how many murders by gun have occurred in the City of Oberlin.

          Here’s a Cheat Sheet. Answer: Zero
          http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Oberlin-Ohio.html

        • Pablo Jones

          Suicides are not impulsive nor spur-of-the-moment. It has usually been on the mind of the person for a long period of time. If they want to do it they will do it. Japan’s suicide rate is about twice the US rate and Australia and United Kingdom are roughly the same as the US. This is according the to the Wold Health Organization.

          • Paul Facinelli

            Does the WHO consider our rate to be low or high, vis-a-vis the rest of the world? Interested to know. Again, you’ve offered nothing in the way of what solutions you would recommend to lessen our gun death toll. What do you think other countries are doing right?

          • golfingirl

            What exactly are your solutions?

            Please be specific. Seriously, please tell me.

            I am not being facetious, just want to know.

            Also, please discuss your activities you intend to pursue to reach your goal.

          • Pablo Jones

            I did below.

          • golfingirl

            Interesting that socialist countries, like China and Cuba, have higher suicide rates.

            Isn’t this the type of government Paul claims to be aligned with?

        • fireside2004

          Paul, you spout a lot of whoppers. WHO stats have US 33rd of 107 for suicide rate. The bottom of that list is dominated by equatorial countries which means daylight time has more to do with it than guns. As a matter of fact, on murder rate (homicides include suicides), the UN figures show the US at just about the middle of 208 countries. Far worse than the US are Mexico and Brazil, who have heavy gun control laws. While Britain comes in at about a fourth of the US, there are plenty of developed countries with gun control that are worse.

        • golfingirl

          In Japan, they use “train jumping.” Jump right onto the tracks.

          This method of suicide has become so common that the families are being charged for the “clean up.”

          You want to die, you will find a way to accomplish it.

    • Simon Jester

      Concealed Carry in Illinois.

      Your side lost, get over it.

    • Joe Smith

      “40% of all guns sales involve no background checks. This is nuts”
      What other Constitutional right do you have to get the Govs permission to exercise?. If you have to ask permission, it is not a right.

      Background checks only affect the innocent as the criminals will bypass it and get the guns anyway just like drugs etc.

      “Sales of assault weapons should be banned.”
      More people are killed by blunt objects like bats than all rifles combined including so called assault rifles which are used in about 1 percent of crime.

  • Paul Facinelli

    A couple more points and then I’ll shut up. According to the Dept. of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control, if you have a gun in your home you’re five times more likely to shoot someone you know, including yourself, than any intruder. That’s 5X. Also according to the DOJ, about 96% of all burglaries occur in unoccupied homes. (The other 4% are mistakes.) This makes sense. Burglars want to boost property, not hurt anyone. Finally, there’s Wayne LaPierre, who has more blood on his hands than any brutal dictator. When President Obama was elected in 2008, the NRA fear machine cranked into high gear. Soon, gun sales skyrockted and dealers couldn’t keep ammunition on their shelves. Why? Because LaPierre let it be known in apocalyptic terms that Mr. Obama was coming for your guns and if he was successful, only his pals in the, uh, urban areas would have guns and they would come out to the ‘burbs and the rural areas and start killing everyone. Hence, the stockpiling of guns and ammo that continues to this day. The truth, of course, is that the President made no gun control proposals during his first term, although he did sign off on a measure that allows visitors to carry guns in our national parks. You can’t be too careful about those rogue buffalo in Yellowstone. But LaPierre had an answer. The President was waiting until his second term to unleash his diabolical plan to enslave us. Send me more money, LaPierrre said. Buy more guns and ammo from the corporations that send me money to stoke fear and sales. All of this, of course, overlooks the fact that the President doesn’t make laws. The Congress does that. But, hey, when you’re talking about Mr. Obama and his, uh, appearance, facts and rationality have no bearing. Keep sending LaPierre more money. He has an empty stall in his five-stall garage.

    • Starryeyes63

      Maybe if the DOJ didn’t furnish guns to drug cartels………………….

    • golfingirl

      I was raped by three men, beaten with a baseball bat and left for dead while in college.

      That is why I carry a gun. No, I am not ignorant, and I can assure you I am as educated as yourself.

      I do not carry a gun because I am evil, I carry a gun because there is a lot of evil in this world.

      One’s experiences shape their opinions. Maybe now you can understand mine.

      • Starryeyes63

        Similar story myself , NEVER will I be a victim again.

      • SniperFire

        Even a raving lunatic of a failed journalist Marxist should be able to comprehend that.

        • Paul Facinelli

          I’ll cop to being a semi-almost-could-be-Marxist, but “raving lunatic” and “failed journalist”? Geez. People usually have to get to know me or work with me before they make those judgments. Have we met?

      • Paul Facinelli

        I am deeply and sincerely sorry for the horrific trauma visited upon you. Now I know why you argue so forcefully for gun rights. You’re fearful. That’s highly understandable given what you’ve suffered and what the after-effects have been. But in none of my postings today have I argued that you shouldn’t own a gun. I have not uttered the word “confiscation” or even “registration.” I have not even suggested that there should be a limit on how many guns a law-abiding citizen can own. Own 100 if you wish. My main posting dealt with policies that we should implement, as a society, to reduce the appalling level of gun deaths in America. I know that cross-cultural and cross-national comparisons get strained, but why is it that the rest of the civilized world, combined, has but a fraction of the gun deaths that we do? What works in the U.K., France, Finland, Japan, Australia and elsewhere? What are these countries doing that we could be doing? I don’t want your gun. I want fewer people to die in gun violence. How do we do that?

        • Pablo Jones

          The problem is, very few of the crimes are committed by the law abiding citizen. If a law could stop criminals then they would just need to pass a law that says people should kill other people, rob banks, or rape. Oh wait they do have those laws and it still happens. A law is only as good as the people that follow them.

          Looking at those countries do you think they have low gun violence because of their gun laws or because of their culture? Society and the people in it have more to do with crime or the lack of crime than the laws.

          There are around 450 million guns in the US and less than 10,000 are used to kill people. Of those 10,000 most were illegally obtained. Please explain how adding laws to the legally obtained guns will prevent the illegally obtained guns from being used. .002% of guns are used to kill people. I’d say that is a remarkably low number.

          If you want to reduce gun violence you need to target those that are using guns for violence. I seen this statistic a while back, of the 4,000+ counties in the US about 85% of gun murders occur in something like 25 of them. In those counties certain demographic groups contribute to the majority of those shootings. If you are truly serious about wanting to reduce gun deaths you need to focus on the location and populations responsible for most of the deaths. Not the 99.998% that don’t cause any problems.

        • Pablo Jones

          I don’t know golfingirl and I don’t want to speak for her, but my impression on her posts on here is not that she is living in fear. I would guess she had fear at the time of her incident and after. But you either let fear control your life or you confront what you are afraid of and turn it into a strength. I doubt owning a gun is a crutch for her.

        • Starryeyes63

          Actually the US is 28th in gun homicides per capaita . #1 In gun ownership I will post the link after this comment as links rarely show for me for some reason

        • golfingirl

          Horrific trauma did not “visit” me, it attacked me.

          And I am not “fearful,” that emotion passed many years ago. I am prepared now, and because of this, I am less fearful than I have ever been in my life.

          Any anger I may have had was directed at myself, for not understanding all the evil which exists in the world, and for being unprepared when it came to “visit” me.

          I can assure you, it will never happen again. I pity the poor soul who ever attempts to “visit” me again.

          May he RIP……Rest In Pieces!

        • Starryeyes63

          In the U.K., France, Finland, Japan, Australia only the criminals have guns……..

    • SniperFire

      ‘ All of this, of course, overlooks the fact that the President doesn’t make laws. The Congress does that. But, hey, when you’re talking about Mr. Obama and his, uh, appearance, facts and rationality have no bearing. ‘

      Obama Promises To Enact Gun Control Laws “With Or Without Congress”
      http://www.infowars.com/obama-promises-to-enact-gun-control-laws-with-or-without-congress/

      • Paul Facinelli

        Uh, what laws? The President only has control of the executive branch. Has he forbidden federal workers to carry concealed weapons? I haven’t read anything about this. What are the specifics?

        • Pablo Jones

          And the executive branch lately has taken the position that it can choose what laws it wants to enforce, which ones it doesn’t want to enforce, and that it can interpret the laws as they see fit and enforce them the way they want.

        • SniperFire

          ‘ I haven’t read anything about this.’

          Ignorance, notwithstanding, your rambling spin is that Owebama has said nothing to make anyone believe he will move against gun rights, and that therefore gun owners are just racist. I corrected you. Again.

    • SniperFire

      And by the way, Paul. A sure sign you have been crushed in argument is your weak attempt to race bait to shut down the dialogue.

      • Paul Facinelli

        If you think that racism plays no part in both the NRA’s successful appeals for more money, for the rise in gun and ammo sales after the President’s election or for the rise of Tea Party just months after Mr. Obama was elected, you’re either naive or in denial. Racism is not an opinion, mine or anybody else’s. It’s been studied repeatedly. Sociologists have found that racism is positively correlated to being old, being uneducated and being white. These factors fit the profile, overwhelmingly, of the typical Tea Party member. My guess is that at least two of the three fit the typical NRA member. The probability that the Tea Party is overrun by those with racist tendencies and that the NRA has many, many racists among its membership is extremely high. Crushed, eh, sniperfire? None of my detractors so far has discussed any of the proposals I’ve made for reducing gun deaths. So, then, what would you do? How would you reduce the appalling number of Americans who die by gunfire every year?

        • SniperFire

          More nonsense. Whenever polled, blacks readily admit to being much more racist than whites. The entire world is racist, and only Caucasians are expected to rise above it. Fact.

        • Pablo Jones

          And where are you getting your demographics from? What is the demographics of the Tea Party. (I’m sure you could probably google it and reply, but did you know them before you do that?)

          What are these racist studies you know so well? What is your definition of old? Since the Tea party has a large range of age you could hardly call them old. They are also more educated than the population as a whole, so that knocks out another factor of yours. And the factor that the majority of the people in the tea party are white is because over 70% of the population is white.

          And you can’t apply general population statistics to a very small subset of the population. That is like going to a college graduation and saying 50% of you will never have more than a high school education even though they just graduated from College. (I guess it depends on what college they went to, it may still only equate to a high school education (OSU). The fact is you don’t know if they are racists or not, you have probably never even talked to them in person.

          • Paul Facinelli

            It’s not the Tea Party specifically, but old, white and poorly educated people in general who tend to harbor racist tendencies. I don’t know what parameters the researchers set on “old”: My guess is 55+, but again, that’s a guess. I have no hard data to point to at this time. Speak to a Tea Party member? You think I’d get honesty if I asked such a person about his or her thoughts about people of various races? In casual conversation, people, all of us, lean toward the socially acceptable answer. Sophisticated research methods that allow anonymity is really the only good way to look into this issue.

          • Pablo Jones

            Gotta. No source data, just your own biased stereotypical opinions. I guess all hell is going to break loose at my 35-40th Elyria High school reunion since all the white guys will be racists.

          • Starryeyes63

            Herman Cain ( Rocket scientist) & Alan West (Retired Lt Col) are old, uneducated white men?????

          • Smira29595

            Ted Cruz & Allen Keyes are also not OLD white men.

        • Sis Delish

          Again, Mr. F. Statistics for Crime in Oberlin.

          http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Oberlin-Ohio.html

          Rapes Win in terms of frequency vs. general populations. Any Guess who is Raping whom in Oberlin?

        • golfingirl

          Here we go, bring racism into it. Knew this one was coming, didn’t we?

          I will tell you, if I am ever attacked again, I don’t care if they are black, white or purple. They all bleed red.

        • Smira29595

          The NRA was formed in part to hel protect the rights of Black Americans who were being denied their 2nd Ammendment rights.

        • Smira29595
    • Sis Delish

      About Mr. F.

      Had he his way, Mr. F. would have lobbied that LaPierre would have never received IRS 501(c)3 status from the IRS…

    • Smira29595

      I don’t belong to the NRA, I prefer the John Birch Society.

  • golfingirl

    Paul,

    In the Liberal mind, emotion will always trump the hard facts. Somehow, someway facts are refuted, rationalized and or dismissed.

    Even your beloved BBC begrudgingly admitted to the facts . . . that firearms related deaths have been declining every year since 1993.

    “The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics said firearms-related homicides had dropped to 11,101 in 2011 from 18,253 – a reduction of 39%.”

    The liberal news corporations have to report it because they can’t ignore something this obvious forever, but they don’t have to like it. They don’t want to admit that “gun crime” has been going down without their help.

    And this with MORE guns in the mix. Which means that fewer guns are being used to kill people.

    I do agree that we can’t really prove more guns = less crime (correlation is not causation), but the numbers absolutely show that more guns DO NOT equal more crime. This is irrefutable.

    Sandy Hook was every gun control advocate’s wet dream: murder of innocent children by a mad man with a gun is the perfect opportunity to create fear of guns. And what people fear, they will seek to restrict or ban. Fortunately, most Americans were intelligent enough to see through this charade.

    It must really hurt your damaged psyche that truth and fact are not at all parallel with your view on gun control.. I can’t imagine living every day knowing, even on a subconscious level, that I’m wrong about every single facet of this argument.

    • Paul Facinelli

      I haven’t really made an argument, just suggested solutions. What are yours?

      • Starryeyes63

        And what law would have prevented Sandy Hook??? The GUN was stolen.

        • golfingirl

          And he killed his own mother to get it!

          Since Sandy Hook, how many blacks, including children, have died at the hands of other blacks.

          I guess if they die at a rate of only a couple per day, it doesn’t get the media attention of one large massacre of white kids.

          • Starryeyes63

            It does not fit the narrative……….. You only get press if it a bunch of white kids or a White Hispanic.

          • Starryeyes63

            I just figured it out. Paul wants us to shut up and be ” good little victims” He can’t stand we are strong women and buying in to the liberal “war on women”

      • golfingirl

        You are correct, you “really have not made an argument,” at least not one based on fact.

        You start by stating those who do not share your views are either “fearful,” “ignorant,” and/or “uneducated.” I can assure you I fit into none of those categories.

        Then you go on to stereotype about people who harbor racism calling them “old, white and poorly educated.”

        There are many blacks in this country that promote racism for personal gain. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson come to mind. Racism goes both ways, don’t you think?

        My solution, since you asked:

        Commit a crime using a firearm – 10 years real prison time.
        Harm someone with a firearm – 20 years real prison time.
        Kill someone with a firearm – Life in prison, or death.

        No discretion by some bleeding heart judge, no discussion. Just prison. No early release, no community control. Get them off the streets.

        When it comes to guns, like everything else, the bad people ruin it for the good people.

        People who want to protect themselves against crime, are told they should not be allowed to do so, because the very criminals they are protecting themselves against are using guns to commit the crimes against them.

        Seems illogical to me.

        Why should the rights of many be denied by the actions of a very few. No different than the drunk driving examples, or those who smoke or drink. We all pay the price for these behaviors, why are they allowed? Just do not understand why guns are singled out and any different. Please explain?

        My daughter had her 12th birthday party at a gun range. Her friends all learned to shoot .22 cal in a safe, controlled environment. Not one parent objected.

        As a female, and a parent, I can tell you every woman needs to learn to defend herself, given their obvious physical limitations versus men, who may wish to do harm to them.

        What is tiring, is the total ignorance of facts when it comes to the gun debate. I am a proud lifetime NRA member, and can tell you they do more to promote the safe and proper use of firearms than any group in the world. This is why I support them.

        You stated you do not want any required registration or confiscation of firearms. What do you really want?

        Lastly, I am a “Tea Party” supporter, I am not an old, white male, nor am I a racist. I am educated, not ignorant, nor fearful.

        I believe in God, the Constitution of the United States and ALL the freedoms it provides, not just a select few. I dislike big government, with all its waste and the enslaving of people of all colors through entitlements.

        I am a proud American, accept others with different opinions and feel God has a place in our schools and government.

        We can agree to disagree, but please refrain from the name-calling directed at others who disagree with you. It is a sure sign you have lost the argument when you resort to these tactics.

        • Starryeyes63

          Teach your daughters to shot a restraining order is just a piece of paper.

      • golfingirl

        Paul,

        Exactly where in this chain of discussion did you “suggest solutions?”

        I went back and reread your comments, and could not find any constructive solutions you “suggested.”

        I am open-minded, but have to tell you I just cannot find anything of the sort.

  • Nick Mascari

    Ah Oberlin. Where else can you see the Russian and United Nations flag flying in the center of town? No, I’m not joking.

  • Bob Owens

    IMV the gun lovers lost credibility in Oberlin when the head protester’s wife left a loaded magazine lying on the table after his mock “protest”. Sad thing is, you can’t even mention a discussion on gun violence without the gun owners frothing at the mouth and waving their constitutions. Non gun owners have a First Amendment right to express their views but all that ever happens on here is the incessant name calling and mockery. I guess if you’re a Second Amendment citizen, your rights trump those of others. Oh, and most of the commentators hide behind screen names.

    • Starryeyes63

      It seems to me the name calling is coming from the gun grabbers.

    • golfingirl

      I will always support the Constitution, including your First Amendment rights. I simply asked that you reciprocate and support my rights under the Second Amendment.

      The Constitution guarantees both rights and I respect them as any American should.

    • golfingirl

      As for “hiding behind screen names,” I can’t fault anyone for doing so.

      Let’s see, I support the Tea Party, a lifetime NRA member, opposed to ObamaCare, support the Constitution of the United States as written, want less government in my life, have been critical of the IRS ….on and on.

      If I gave my name, I would probably have the NSA at my door and the IRS calling me in for a worthless audit!

      Not to mention the possibility some wacko who I disagreed with stalking me.

      Yes, it is sad when you have to hide behind a screen name. But remember, as you so eloquently stated above, it is my First Amendment right to do so….is it not?

      • Bob Owens

        Pretty sad that you live in fear. Honestly, do you think the NSA or gubment couldn’t find out your real name if they wanted? I’m certain that I could if I really wanted to. That’s the thing with may of you, you stoke fear and hide, hoping that others will also become fearful. As far as “less government”, most of you tea partiers want the government to control the things that you disagree with. Do you Really know who funds the tea party? It’s not grassroots nor organic. I don’t own a gun and live a peaceful life sans your fear.

        • Sis Delish

          Bob Owens. Obviously, you cannot keep on topic. What do Tea Partiers have to do with Guns in Oberlin?

          Your descent into name-calling is your gun. It’s what you and others on the Left hide behind, and rely upon in an attempt to diffuse a cerebral discussion.

          Now, since you obviously know, do tell. Who, not what group of who’s, WHO funds the Tea Party?

        • golfingirl

          Please don’t feel “sad” for me, I live a terrific life. No fear in this girl! You mistake caution for fear. Big difference.

          If you truly support the First Amendment, then you must be tolerate of those who disagree, even if you do not care for how they do so. I for one am not a “name caller,” rather choosing to disagree in a respectful manner.

          I would never post under my real name here. Not out of fear, but out of common sense. A female poster who makes comments, often directed at criminals who appear in these pages. C’mon Bob, really? Might as well just say come and get me. Would you encourage your own daughter to do so? Think about it!

          The topic here is the Second Amendment. I support it, you may, or may not. Does not really matter does it, we are both free to express our opinions. We can agree to disagree. After all this is America.

          As for why I am such a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms, see my post above. Our experiences in life shape our views. I am sure if you ever go through what I did, your opinion would change as well.

          Peace

          • SniperFire

            ‘Do you Really know who funds the tea party? It’s not grassroots nor organic. ‘

            That is simply a lie. That you cannot even use capital letters to identify the ‘Tea Party’ as a distinct organization proves the point.

          • golfingirl

            Probably still thinks the Tea Party is an activity you have with your 6 year old daughter.

        • Starryeyes63

          How would you suggest we protect ourselves?

        • Smira29595

          I respect your right to feel you do not need to own a firearm. Why can you not respect my right to feel I need one?

    • SniperFire

      Except, the loaded magazine was never left behind. That was a false hit-piece story and headline, but typical of what Leftist media will resort to to falsify an argument.

  • golfingirl

    Paul,

    Fact is, gun ownership doesn’t correlate with murder rates. Violent crime rates correlate instead with underlying cultural factors, like gangs and drugs.

    Ordinary people simply do not commit murder.

    The murderers are a small minority of extreme antisocial and criminal persons who manage to obtain guns whatever the level of gun ownership is in society.

    Banning guns cannot alleviate the socio-cultural factors that are the real cause of violence and crime rates in the United States. There is no reason for laws prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults because such people virtually never commit a crime.

    Fact is, such adults are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than to commit it, disarming them becomes not just unproductive but counter-productive.

    If you and your political idols were really worried about gun deaths, wouldn’t you be specifically targeting where a majority of the problems exist? This is not in Oberlin, Ohio.

    Events like Sandy Hook get so much attention because they are so rare and out of the norm, while every day, inner-city kids are being gunned down, without so much as a headline in any newspaper. It is because this has become the norm in cities such as Chicago, New York and Cleveland.

    If you want to be productive, go to where the problem lives. Clean out the gangs, get the drugs off the streets, sentence violators to years behind bars, but leave me alone.

    If you have an accident, you put a tourniquet around the extremity that is hemorrhaging, not a Band Aid on a paper cut. Triage the problem and spend the resources where they are needed most.

    I think this is what upsets me the most. This whole gun debate has become twisted, in a way which attempts to place blame and responsibility on those who are nothing less than great, law abiding Americans.

    It seems like you have given up on dealing with the real root of the problem, since you cannot solve it, and instead directed your efforts at those who have not contributed to it, and never will.

    In my opinion, this defies logic and I will never understand it. This is what trouble me the most.

    • Starryeyes63

      That is one of the best responses/ comments I have ever read.

  • Sis Delish

    IF today was Valentine’s Day, not St. Paddy’s, this blog would correctly and cordially name, “The Valentine’s Day Massacre, Part II”, with Mr. Paul Facinelli on the Receiving end of the rat-tat-tat-tat of sane commenters herein.

    In summary, the Citizens of Oberlin have nothing to complain about as there have been NO GUN RELATED MURDERS in the City of Oberlin in recent history.

    However, the stats do show a dramatic INCREASE in Theft and Robberies in this Halcyon Community for the Liberal Agenda, which fits quite nicely with the political posturing of folks on the LEFT–If you can’t Earn it, Take it!

    Of course, the locals continue to Rape the Students as the crime statistics also point out, yet we hear outcry nowhere near the level we hear when the topic of guns is raised in this Constitutionally Puratanical (sp) community.

    Folks who wish to protect their homes, belongings and property are and will continue to be Armed. It’s just a matter of time until an enabler on the Left accepts and condoes the Taking Mantra to piss off someone on the Right and only then will you see how the 2nd Ammendment works, not in Theory, but in reality.

    Its the way of the World which, by the way, exists outside of the tiny town called Oberlin.

  • BriKuz

    I find it funny that the “firearms” death rate is the one always harped about… of COURSE there will be more FIREARMS deaths when more firearms are available. What I would like to see is a comparison of OVERALL violent crime rate and OVERALL murder rate. Without a full study, my research would lead me to believe that, in the MAJORITY (NOT all!) cases, nations and/or States with higher amounts of gun control tend to have higher rates of violent crime. Just one article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html This shows that Australia and the UK have the two highest rates of violent crime among “rich” nations… surprise, surprise, these two nations ALSO have MASSIVE gun control, making it nearly impossible to privately own a firearm. Also note, The rates quoted below count ALL firearm related deaths, INCLUDING justifiable use by LEOs and non-LEO citizens… What has not yet been quantified is the number of defensive firearms uses that didn’t even involve drawing a firearm….