About 52% of gun homiicides are committed by 2% of the population, black males between 16 and 24. Why aren't we focusing where the action is? Racial profiling?

Well if that number is true I agree with you. But be sure of your sources. And unfortunately the liberals would call it racial profiling. They forget that bad is bad, poor is poor. To many race cards being playing in this country. I would also like to know the percentage of those guns that were legally owned. I suspect a very small number.

I am also glad Heroux thinks the criminals with illegally owned guns are going to step up and pay taxes on the weapons and ammunition. Just another burden for responsible legal gun owners to bear. Notice this was held by a Democratic organization. Heroux is just one more dummycrat trying to make us communists.

why does everything has to become a political who-done-it?!!!

regular citizens have no need for assault type of weapons. Evidently Congress agreed with the NRA and not the majority of US citizens!

As is typical, our society (specifically, our elected officials) go after the people who didn't or haven't committed the infraction.

We DON'T need more laws.

The size of a magazine nor the external makeup of a gun is of NO business of yours, Mr. Representative! The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." If we allow you to infringe because it's politically expedient for you today, then the Government would have precedent to infringe in other areas of the Constitution. We are either a country of laws or we're not.

In closing, get out of the way and let people live. Stop restricting. Stop creating costs. It is already illegal to shoot another person in this country. We can’t make it more illegal due to you passing more laws. The type of gun, the size of the magazine nor the “looks” of the gun have anything to do with a person’s intent or his actions. Deal with the offender with the existing laws. We will not fix every ill the world throws at us even when you think “I have to do something,” you still won’t get every offensive action covered. Stay out of the public’s lives.

Tizzy, the argument that 'more people are killed by swimming pools and knives' is totally bogus. This is a fallacious argument called a false parallel. Try using some critical thinking when you make your points. And watch out for those 'red herrings'.

I have read the statement made by Mr. Linsky. What interests me is that he quoted national statistics. He did not discuss our current laws here in MA to any real extent. Nor did he state the percentage of gun ownership in MA as it compares to many other states, or a national average. MA has just over 12% gun ownership, the high is Wyoming at just over 59%. The median is 34-39%. ref: http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election2012Factors/a/Gun-Owners-As-Percentage-Of-Each-States-Population.htm

It would seem to me that with a gun ownership that low, if this state still has a "gun violence" problem, then enforcement in regards to use of guns in gun crimes would be something to look at seriously. If the use of guns in suicides is a problem that needs to be addressed with education and counseling. Indeed, Japan has a very low "gun violence" rate and use of guns in suicide, but their suicide rate is off the charts. It is almost twice ours. A further question I have is why is suicide by gun referred to as "gun violence", but gassing oneself with a car is not called "car violence", hanging oneself is not called "rope violence", or overdosing is not called "drug violence"? Apparently proponents of gun laws need to lump in anything that causes death involving a gun as violence, but not so much with other means. Why didn't Linsky use statistics from MA? He is a State Legislator, not a Federal rep.

What is interesting about the 12% gun ownership rate in MA is that it dovetails nicely with other states with very restrictive gun laws. It becomes very apparent that these laws do, in fact, interfere with a person's right to own weapons. There is nothing fundamentally different about people in other states that makes them purchase weapons. They are not "rabid", "crazy", "backwards" or any other label an anti gunner can think of.
The laws here in the NorthEast have been created to reduce the number of guns and limit the number of people who can possess them. They make the process difficult to the point where people are unwilling to exercise their constitutional right.
Mr. Linsky, et al would like to make it even more difficult. Contrary to what he states, he would gleefully continue to craft laws that prevent anyone from owning guns, but he would state that he was "for" gun ownership. As long as you could levitate off the ground.

If you are wondering who David Linsky is, here is an excerpt from Monday night's meeting:

"David Linsky: "...that it's not what we think is the Constitution. It's what the Supreme Court of the United States rules is the Constitution. We have a civilized society here, okay, and when we don't like our government, we have something called elections, every 2 years and every 4 years. Where if we don't like what our rulers are doing, our elected officials..."

Audience: "Rulers!? LOL! Who's your King?" "

Notice the audience took him to task. But one has to wonder, what politician ever thinks in those terms? Maybe it is time this would be "ruler" got out of public life. I shudder to think of him as a DA.

I just read through Mr. Linsky's proposed bill. One of the problems with the gun laws in this state is the lawyerese in which they are written. Linsky continues the tradition. There were 45 pages of legal jargon to go through. Under our current laws, many gun owners still have no idea of what is actually legal or not. Of course, since he has stated he wants to be Middlesex Cty DA, he would like all sorts of new laws to "pile on" when anyone runs afoul of the gun laws in Middlesex county. Here is how the "gun grab" works in MA:
A gun owner can have an event at his home. Something as simple as a break in. Or, a disagreement with their spouse (no threats, but the spouse is plenty angry). It may even be as simple as someone requiring medical treatment. Upon arriving at the home, the police enter and discover that a gun is not properly secured. The DA is now off and running. The first thing is that all guns are confiscated. Then the PC is notified, he determines the gun owner is no longer "suitable". The DA meanwhile looks for any and all charges he can possible heap on the gun owner, nevermind that the purpose of the police visit had nothing to do with a gun violence crime. With any luck at all, the DA will level a charge that is a felony with a nice big fine and jail time. Facing huge legal fees, the gun owner pleas bargains out and becomes a restricted person for life in MA. One more person who will never own a gun in this state.

What is important to note, is that other states may have laws concerning guns, but quite often they are misdemeanors with a small fine attached. They have no bearing on whether the person can own a gun in the future. But in this state, the laws like the ones Mr. Linsky writes, are crafted to specifically prevent a person from ever owning a gun again. Just in case the law does not provide for it directly, Linsky makes sure the good old "Police Chief determines if the applicant is SUITABLE" clause where appropriate. Of course, after a run-in with the DA, that person will never be "suitable" again.
Notice too that virtually all of the infractions carry a felony charge, so Linsky wants to make sure the person can never own a gun anywhere in the U.S., even though the "crime" they committed here isn't even possible in most of the states in this country.
Mr. Linsky would like this state and country to be like England, where they have "rulers" and it is virtually impossible to own a gun, unless you kiss the local politicians buttocks regularly and often.

There are lots of problems with Mr. Linsky's ideas. Seems everyone is keen on this whole mental health check idea. If you read his bill, he wants to go back 20 years and have a doctor attest to the person's status. What doctor wants to guarantee that a patient is "cured"? Moreover, what if the doctor is anti gun? Better question is: Since when do we have to give up one right (privacy) to exercise another?
But let's get down to brass tacks. Adam Lanza. There would have been no mental health check for him, he just stole his mothers guns. Gun violence via crimes. Criminals rarely have licenses, so much for their mental health checks, huh? Then we have the person that is perfectly normal today, but chugs around the bend in a year or so. What good did that mental health check do? The mental health check idea is dubious at best and ripe for abuse.

One gun a month. That stops exactly what? The mass shooters have been shown to have planned their attacks, usually for months. So they buy one gun a month, if their plan includes multiple guns. If their is another Adam Lanza out there, he may very well live with someone who already has way more than one gun, or he may have purchased them long ago. Another "it feels so good to crack down on those lawful gun owners" piece of legislation.

Storing large capacity weapons at gun clubs. First off, most clubs are not equipped to handle it. Secondly, it will concentrate large numbers of high capacity weapons in one place. This makes them a target for people like gangs. That aside, who stops a member of the club from leaving with a weapon stating he is going to the gunsmith with it? That is in Linsky's bill. The member has gone off his rocker and proceeds to the nearest "gun free zone" to start shooting. Frankly, I don't see it happening that way, since we have not had any mass shootings perpetrated by gun club members, but Linsky would like to see them pay, big time.

Insuring weapons. I don't have much to say, the insurance companies have already told him it is a stupid idea. Just another way to discourage anyone from buying a weapon. Evidently Mr. Linsky does not understand the concept the SC has talked about concerning throwing roadblocks in people's way to exercising their rights with clever little ploys like his insurance scheme.

Increased penalties for crimes committed with a gun. This one I can get totally behind, bravo!

A word about license fees. Baloney. The vast majority of states have no such thing. Another way of preventing poorer people from owning guns. Car licensing fees make sense, a person operates a motor vehicle on a road. Guns are not "operated" in any sense of the word, especially in public. We do not pay a "license fee" for the right to speak our minds either.
Sometimes I think this whole slew of laws is nothing more than a cover up for this state to be able to collect more money.

Just a thought, based on readily verifiable sources it is easily determined that as the number of assault rifles has increased, the "incidents of gun violence" have decreased.

While Gretchen drones on about the "false paralell", she completely ignores the "denial of the consequent". So much for Logic 103.

how about you guys spend one moment thinking about the rights of children to grow up healthy, and not just about Newtown and gun violence.
Where's your moral passion for correcting the percentage of children living in poverty and the economic injustice in places like Bristol county. http://wgbhnews.org/post/how-healthy-county-you-live
(yeah, I know, I'm adding to the kitchen sink of subjects here. And this is a red herring, but I think the inflated sense of injustice and resentment might better go to the rising generation--or those that are trying to grow up despite horrible circumstances.

Another interesting thought is that while Linsky is all fired up about reducing "gun violence", the fact is, rifles are the least used firearms. However, the anti gun bunch does not like the "looks" of them, so they have to go. When the numbers do not show an appreciable drop, then they will cry that handguns are the real problem, but they will not be willing to drop the laws concerning rifles. (called admitting they were wrong to begin with)

when all else fails, attack your opponent's statistics.

IJ His-Story
I have a time limit here. I don't have the time to write several entries at once and steamroll this thread. The more you write, the less people read. Why not write a book if you have so much time.

Oh, Gretchen, I thought it might be nice if people actually knew what was in Linsky's wonderful sounding bill.
As far as your statement about the "the more you write..." How would you know? Got a mini drone buzzing around watching them all? That is what a good Nanny Stater would want to do.
I have given serious thought to a book. The title would be "Massachusetts: The Place Where Freedom Was Born, and Died"

It would be an interesting task to research how the people of this state surrendered their rights in light of the fact that this is where it all began.

13 entries today. Tedious reading.

When a liberal wants to win an argument they roll out the "safety" or "children" words to back you off. If that doesn't work they start with the personal attacks. "Then you're a racist" they contend.
Point here is that they already have their gun control. The hurdles to licensing and ownership are high and numerous. Try to buy ammo via the web - vendors won't do it due to the confusing state laws. This is not the Government our founders intended. It's death by a thousand paper cuts. Eventually, people give up trying to exercise their Constitutional right.
This is not about the children. This is not about people's safety. Bad things will always happen to good people. That is not a wish but a fact. This has everything to do with Constitutional rights. Black and white. If a crime is committed than it's already against the law. Bring that person up on charges due to the violation.
We must protect our Constitutional rights because if they go away we're ALL going to wish we had them back. We can't curtail some of the rights because someone else will want to curtail others, look at the NDAA and the Patriot Act - do you know what your Government can do TO you?
These state reps need to shelve their proposal and think about people's freedom and liberty.

"This is not about the children."
That is a morally bankrupt statement. It only serves to
highlight how gun lobby and one sided gun ideologues can only
say Me!Me!Me! My!My!My. No one else counts, no one's life,
no one's children count. All that counts is your addiction to owning
your guns without any reasonable restrictions. You trot out the most
absurd arguments and now, you have said what I find
beyond the pale.

"THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE CHILDREN."
The prime directive of the human species is to birth, raise, protect, and educate
the next generation. The narcissism of gun zealots condemns your side to moral irrelevancy. Bankrupt. Morally.

Steve
yes, these gun rights are very recent, part of a paranoid conspiracy that the bad old government is going to take their guns away. Clearly they are wrong and wrong-headed. Also, clearly, the whole other side is not being told. Even here it's at least 5-1 with the gun zealots sounding off ad nauseum. "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/21/bowing-to-second-amendment-myths/

Hi Gretchen - Yes, they are like a one track record. Brainwashed into thinking that closing some loopholes and fine tuning some of the laws on the books already, that they will be loosing their gun rights by the end of the year! LOL!
Every buyer should have to have a background check. and every state, town and dealer should use the same agency NICS, to run the check.Period!

Getchen and Steve, I think you should both review the current massachusetts laws. We already have good checks in place. I am open minded. But this attack on gun rights does nothing for the protection of citizens. Give me some legislature that goes after the action and not the tools. Give me some legislature that pursues the illegal guns out there and I am on board. No need to protect yourself from me or millions of other law obiding gun owners. We cherish our privilgeg in this state to be high enough standing citizens to own the firearms we have. So I have just made an invitation. Action on violence. Ill join you today!

So here we go with the name calling and the "you're an idiot" attitude.
Gretchen and Steve, you'll probably never get it that responsible people desire to and should live freely. You're solution is to allow bureaucrats to call the shots. We've seen this solution play itself out before and it always ends badly for "the people." I know, I know, IT could never happen here, you'll say. That's ok, you go on empowering people like Rep. Linsky and Rep. Heroux to run your life, I'm good with that but I'm not good with turning my life over to any of you!
This attitude of self-reliance, anonymity, freedom and liberty is one that lives in the abstract for you. You can't fathom that it's none of your business or either of the Rep's. business what I buy with my private property (money that was earned). A gun or a candy bar it’s still none of your business. It’s not your business what I buy or where I buy it. I’m a free market guy and it’s my choice to support whom I choose.

You’re idea of taking guns, limiting participation of ownership and otherwise installing roadblocks is way out of your rhelm of civic responsibility. I’m sure this is where we insert the children argument. I have children and I’d much rather teach them to fight back than to cower in corner when guns are pointed their way. If they’re too young, I’d like to see an adult that is in the care of my kids fight back vs. hiding behind a turned over desk. Fighting back is call being responsible. This is where we go back to the crazy argument right? It’s ok, just remember that when the overbearing government or a bad guy comes calling your way you can talk with soft words and tell them you’re on their side, see if that works. In recent years, it’s been your toilets, your light bulbs, your vehicles, your food, etc., etc., etc. This time it happens to be guns.
Living freely is not easy and comes with a whole bunch of responsibility that many of us are not ready to honor. In those cases, we need someone else to care for our basic needs. This might be you, I don’t know. If it is, find a way to pay for it without attaching yourself to everyone else. If it’s not, think liberty, freedom and responsibility.

Well to get us off the personal attack. I will reiterate. Please produce some legislature the attacks the problem of violence not the tools. Crazy angry people will do harm no mattter what is in the possession. If they want to use guns they will find them some way some how. And if the can't for some reason they will make bobms or fly a plane into a building. If you really look back in history you see this is true. Look at Africa. People have been terrorized there with everything from machette gangs to dictators dropping major appliances out of airplanes on them. So as I said in an earlier post. Put forth some real legislature to analyze and find some effective methods to seek out the violent people before they act regardless of what device they use. Do this and I will bring a rally to your door.

sorry for the typos...was being distracted while posting...