Thursday, January 3, 2013

Holiday Week 2012 Sees New iOS And Android Device Activations Rise To 50M Total, A 150% Increase

Flurry_appDownloads_Christmas_toNewYears2012-resized-600App analytics platform Flurry has released its annual look at how many new mobile devices came online during the holiday season, and the results show a dramatic change from the situation a year ago. Over 50 million iOS and Android devices were activated during the period between December 25 to December 31, versus just over 20 million devices last year.

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/ZnEulhb7a4E/

james cameron liam hemsworth miss canada justin bieber boyfriend marianas trench camille grammer camille grammer

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

EVE - Salt Lake City, Utah News

SALT LAKE CITY ? Fireworks and live music were among several events in Salt Lake City?s ?EVE? celebration for the new year.

EVE, put on by the Downtown Alliance, has been going on for the past three days. The event is billed as ?family friendly,? with music and activities scattered around the downtown area.

On Friday, the Gateway was hosting a glow in the dark bounce room, face painting, and a jumbo Lite Brite.

Downtown Alliance organizers say the cold weather likely pushed a lot of the partiers indoors, particularly in the first few days of the celebration.

?It was cold, but I think that gave people the opportunity to do some of the indoor events like going to our partners at the museums and Broadway shows and Planetarium and the improv comedy,? said Nick Como with Downtown Alliance.

Events were also being held at the Leonardo museum, Temple Square and the Gallivan Center.

?When I heard about things indoors that they can run around and jump around, with all the
cold weather I thought that?s it,? said Tomena Goodwin, who was at the Gateway with her four children.

Event organizers say they sold thousands of wristbands for EVE this year and attendance was ?on par? with the 2011 celebration. The Salt Lake Film Society reported greater attendance at its events in 2012 than in 2011.

On Monday night, the party was packed and by midnight, it was standing room only.

EVE?s popularity and affordability have propelled it on to travel website Travelocity.com?s Top 10 New Year?s destinations list.

Source: http://fox13now.com/2013/01/01/eve-events-mark-new-years-celebrations-in-slc/

cruise ship italy patriots broncos game saints willis mcgahee willis mcgahee ship aground off italy nfl playoff schedule 2012

Bush tax cuts have expired, no law has replaced them (Americablog)

Share With Friends: Share on FacebookTweet ThisPost to Google-BuzzSend on GmailPost to Linked-InSubscribe to This Feed | Rss To Twitter | Politics - Top Stories Stories, News Feeds and News via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/274232597?client_source=feed&format=rss

arizona cardinals Big Bird Adam Greenberg Fall Leaves Jim Lehrer 666 Park Avenue Kara Alongi

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Off the Cliff: What Happens?

America is swiftly approaching the fiscal cliff.

President Obama and congressional leaders have talked for weeks with varying degrees of frequency and success at compromising, and one precept resonates throughout the public statements of politicians and economists: the so-called "fiscal cliff" would be a very bad thing.

But what actually happens if Washington takes us over it?

As has been well documented, the "cliff" is not one thing, but a ball of expiring economic provisions that lead to automatic policy changes at year's end, loosely grouped under the catch phrase. They fall into two categories, taxes and spending.

Should we fall off the cliff, the tax code would change most dramatically with the expiration of the so-called "Bush tax cuts," which created new brackets and lowered tax rates for both middle-class and high earners. According to the Tax Policy Center at the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution, the average American taxpayer would see a tax hike of $3,446, ABC's David Muir reported for "World News."

Where do the hikes fall, exactly? For many tax brackets, rates would jump by at least three percentage points. The middle class would see the worst of it, according to analysis from the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm that studies policy changes at Congress's request.

For high earners, married couples making more than $222,300 but less than $397,000, rates would jump from 33 percent to 36 percent. For the highest earners, couples making over $397,000, taxes would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.

But they'd rise for almost everyone else, too. Couples making $145,900 - $222,300 would see a rate jump from 28 percent to 31 percent. Couples making $72,300 - $145,900 would see rates jump from 25 percent to 28 percent.

The middle class would take the biggest hit: Married couples earning $60,350 - $72,300 would see tax rates jump from 15 percent to 28 percent. That means that without any credits or deductions, a couple making $65,000 would go from taking home $55,250 to taking home $46,800 next year if Congress and the president fail to strike a deal.

The cliff's tax implications go beyond the simple income-tax rate: The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and the estate tax are also on the table with year-end deadlines.

The AMT is a tax that prevents high earners from escaping income-tax liability by claiming too many deductions. Taxpayers over a certain income add back certain deductions to see if they must pay a minimum rate. Ever since Bush's tax cuts, Congress has repeatedly extended an "AMT patch" to maintain the income threshold. According to the Congressional Research Service, if Congress doesn't act again this year, that threshold will drop from $74,450 to $45,000 for married couples and from $48,450 to $33,750 for individuals, exposing more people to the alternative minimum.

The estate tax, demonized by Republicans as the dreaded "death tax," would change significantly. Right now, estates of over $5.12 million are taxed at a maximum of 35 percent. If Congress doesn't act, next year estates of over $1 million will be taxed at 55 percent.

No one likes paying taxes, but the spending side of the cliff isn't supposed to be all that fun, either.

The "cliff" was born from the idea that Congress could impose a deadline on itself, hanging an unpleasant combination of spending cuts over its own head. In 2011, when President Obama and congressional leaders wrangled over a proposed increase to the debt limit, a maneuver Congress had typically done without any fuss, they couldn't agree on a deficit-reduction package that would satisfy GOP demands for fiscal restraint. So they created the now-infamous deficit-reduction "supercommittee," asked it to recommend a plan, and gave it an ultimatum: If you fail, automatic spending cuts will be triggered, half from defense, and half from discretionary domestic programs, mostly shielding mandatory entitlements, such as Social Security.

The committee failed, and Congress gave itself until 2013 to solve the problem, extending its own deadline before the set of "budget sequestration" spending caps would take effect.

Those cuts would save about $1.1 trillion over 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office estimated after Congress passed the law, the Budget Control Act, which created the cliff's spending ultimatum.

In 2013, that means defense programs would see a cut of $54 billion, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)--but the Budget Control Act specifies that spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would be protected from any automatic cuts.

Entitlements wouldn't see the worst of it--but they wouldn't be exempt, either.

Outside of defense spending, $38.6 billion would be shaved, proportionally, from discretionary domestic spending programs other than veterans' medical care and Pell grants, according to CBPP. But Medicare would take a hit, with cuts to provider payments (theoretically protecting benefits) limited to 2 percent in any year. CBPP estimates $10.8 billion would be cut from Medicare providers in 2013. Another $5.2 billion in cuts would come from other mandatory programs, the largest being farm subsidies.

A handful of popular domestic programs would be exempt from any cuts, at all: Social Security, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and food stamps.

The fallout of all this, analysts say, would be a swift economic downturn.

Thanks mostly to the tax increases, many have predicted an immediate economic slowdown. In August, the Congressional Budget Office forecasted that the cliff would bring the U.S. down to negative .5 percent economic growth for 2013. By the fourth quarter of next year, CBO predicted, unemployment would rise to 9.1 percent.

"The economy would shrink by about 3.9 percent in the just the first quarter alone," said Jason Peuquet, research director at the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget. "You can be pretty sure that after at least a couple weeks we'd be feeling those effects."

While the cuts would happen over 10 years, and while the tax hikes might not depress income so drastically over just a few weeks, Peuquet said the cliff would damage confidence in the country's ability to pay its debts over the long term.

On the one hand, going over the cliff might not really mean going over it. The Budget Control Act mandated spending caps over 10 years, but Congress writes the laws and makes the rules. After the president and lawmakers wriggled out of their self-imposed ultimatum to pass a deficit-reduction package in 2011, punting the deadline to today, it's conceivable that Washington will re-write its own rules again.

Taxes have been adjusted retroactively in the past, and it's not as if Congress can't pass a new tax law tomorrow that would reapply the 2012 rates. Liberals have proposed that we should go over the cliff, to force Republicans to argue against a tax cut for the middle class. Underpinning their argument is a sense that the cliff is at worst a facade, and at least malleable.

None of the cliff's upshots sound too good. On the other hand, if Washington wants to save money regardless of how it could affect the economy, allowing tax hikes and across-the-board cuts is one simple way to do it.

Also Read

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/off-cliff-happens-154330652.html

the quiet man yellow cab dropkick murphys guernsey nit colcannon dystonia

Brittney Bullock: The Sad Truth About NRA's Proposal: There's Just Not Enough Good Guys to Go Around

After a week of silence, the National Rifle Association's (NRA) Executive Vice President, Wayne LaPierre, took the one week anniversary of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting to offer his solution to the nation's "alleged" gun problem.

His comments were utterly predictable and arguably not worth the wait.

LaPierre simply mirrored what other gun proponents had been saying since the tragedy, that is, we need to take a harder look at our violent culture, perpetuated by music videos, movies and video games, in addition to an expansion of gun sales by way of putting armed guards in every school across the country.

In a Sunday interview on Meet the Press, he reinforced his initial statements, arguing, "If it's crazy to call for armed officers in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy... It's the one thing that would keep people safe."

In the face of the "bad guy," as LaPierre explains it, we need a "good guy" to stand up for the innocents on the premises. And given that the NRA continues to resist any kind of assault weapons ban, it clearly still believes that we cannot take the actions of the disturbed minority to punish or infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners; this just so happens to be an argument that holds for movies and video games, but I digress.

The most intriguing takeaway from LaPierre's speech was the undefined logistics of his proposal. His statements left many wondering what the addition of armed, retired secret service members, officers and military personnel in the schools would really look like.

Because if we're going to do it, we better do it right.

We'll need to fight military-style fire with military fire. It won't be enough to stick one or even three uniformed police officers at the front doors of our schools with their conventional, .40 caliber pistols and call that sufficient protection. Just ask yourself: In a duel between you and this anonymous "bad guy," only one of you can have the 100-round assault rifle, the other gets the 13-round handgun; which weapon would you choose?

We need James Holmes, SWAT Team-style gear, complete with helmets, neck protectors, bullet-proof vests, helmets, shields and a little tear gas for good measure.

We need throat and groin protectors, ballistic leggings and gas masks. We have to eliminate any weak spots -- any at all that can be exploited in an indiscriminate spray of bullets, and essentially be prepared to turn an elementary school lobby into a war zone rivaling Baghdad faster than you can say "Bushmaster."

And welcome to the new militant America, where kids not only learn the importance of reading and writing in our schools, but also the necessity of the protection only a rifle can provide -- how the presence of an AR-15 is essential to their making it through the school day alive.

My heart breaks for this nation's children who unfortunately are at the mercy of a political storm that has been raging since long before they were born -- a storm that tries to balance our constitutional right to bear arms and the ethical responsibility of the government to protect its citizens from dangers it can easily eliminate or decrease.

It's nonsensical for the NRA to argue that even if we issue another assault weapon's ban, the "bad guys" will still find a way to obtain and use a gun for their future crimes. If that's the argument against gun regulation, then we might as well go forward and legalize marijuana nationwide, and cocaine and heroin, too. Because as we've seen, there are not enough penalties the government can enforce to keep drug users from obtaining their illicit substance of choice. But as evidenced by our strict drug laws, in a fight to mute a rampant drug culture, it doesn't mean we don't try.

My heart breaks for the possible realization of LaPierre's proposals, that the schoolhouse might not be safe as a direct result of its "Firearm-Free Zone" status, and that our only solution to keep our children safe is to strengthen the gun presence in our society, as I'm sure LaPierre would agree, it's not just our schools that are targets for such destruction.

As we saw in Aurora, Colo., there's danger in our movie theaters, the threat of violence looming by the roads we drive along every day, should an assailant decide to use the cars passing by for target practice. Our parking lots are unsafe, our shopping malls, college campuses, temples, churches, grocery stores, pet shops, soup kitchens.

As LaPierre has made us hauntingly aware, anywhere that there is not a gun presence, we are vulnerable, and yet the NRA, which has a real voice in this debate, can only point blame elsewhere -- anywhere but itself.

It refuses to acknowledge the hard truth of the matter, which is that there are simply too many bad guys out there with much too easy access to these high-caliber assault rifles. These people are everywhere and will continue to strike in big cities and small towns alike, no matter the consequences. But until we put an end to the availability of these kinds of weapons or start stationing armed guards every 10 yards across the entire country, we'll always to be vulnerable.

Gun proponents continue to surrender fire arms into the possession of the bad guys, pathetically offering, "If we just had more good guys out there... "

But the good guys can't be everywhere, and for that, my heart breaks for America.

?

Follow Brittney Bullock on Twitter: www.twitter.com/britsimoneb

"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brittney-bullock/not-enough-good-guys_b_2288689.html

mardi gras 2012 the secret world of arrietty cee lo allen iverson jr smith chris anderson rondo suspended

Column: Gun debate revives enduring American fight

WASHINGTON (AP) ? On the eve of a new year, a libertarian strain pulses through America ? a get-government-out-of-my-personal-life sensibility that cuts across ideologies and is driven by a younger generation's cultural attitudes.

We've seen it in gay-marriage legalization and marijuana decriminalization. And in the fact that, four decades after Roe v. Wade allowed abortion, there's little appetite among most for overturning it. Perhaps we've also seen this play out with guns, with a more limited role for government in regulating firearms.

But today, a mourning nation must square that shift toward fewer gun restrictions with a series of fatal mass shootings in the past few years, the latest claiming 20 elementary school students among the dead. And the pendulum may swing just as quickly back toward curbs on gun rights: A country that's become more tolerant on other cultural issues may end up bucking the trend on this subject.

Here's why: It can't be boiled down to "my body, my decisions."

The gun issue doesn't fit neatly into the libertarian lane in which the United States has been driving when it comes to gay marriage, abortion and marijuana ? the belief that people have the right to make their own decisions about how they live their lives, as long as they respect the rights of others to do the same. And that's because while it may be your right to own a gun, you can use it to harm others, thereby taking away their right to live their lives as they want.

This is not a new tension in America, a republic founded by men with libertarian leanings that has always struggled to strike the right balance between rights for one and safety for all.

The first settlers fled the big hand of Mother England, seeking a smaller government to protect basic freedoms ? and founding a nation built on the "inalienable" rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence acknowledged the stress in America's foundation, saying the new country's government would secure those rights, but people would have the authority to alter or abolish it if it were to become "destructive of these ends."

In modern times, libertarianism, which draws from both liberal and conservative influences, has reared its head often in American history ? most recently in today's tea party, which is uncompromising in pursuing a smaller government role in fiscal matters.

These days, 16 to 18 percent of adults in various surveys identify themselves as libertarians. But many more have libertarian views on individual issues even as they call themselves Republicans, Democrats or independents. It also can be a generational thing, with a Pew Research Center poll in December 2011 finding that 50 percent of Americans under age 30 had positive reaction to the label compared with only 25 percent of senior citizens.

The debate now under way underscores how different guns are from other social issues ? how this topic is not just about you, but about us.

There is a thicket of considerations. The fact that many people view gun ownership as a foundational right. Mental health. Urban vs. rural matters. Sports. Crime. Violence in video games and movies. Parental responsibility. "We know," President Barack Obama said, "this is a complex issue that stirs deeply held passions and political divides."

The multiple factors at play ? and the loss of young innocents ? could explain why, despite the nation's recent libertarianism on cultural matters, the Newtown, Conn., killings quickly spurred calls from across the political spectrum for at least a discussion of whether new limits should be placed on guns. This suggested a possible expansion of government in this realm.

"This awful massacre of our youngest children has changed us, and everything should be on the table," said Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. And Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, the senior Republican on the committee that would take up any legislation, said: "You've got to take all these things into consideration."

The NRA, the nation's largest gun-rights lobby, has promised opposition to more regulations, just as it helped ensure the federal assault weapons ban wasn't renewed in 2004 and state gun laws were loosened by legislatures.

Advocates for gay marriage, marijuana legalization and abortion rights also all have made significant recent strides. Each has pushed legislation in states with friendly political environments while also taking advantage of the country's changing mindset.

Consider that in the last election:

?Washington, Maryland and Maine became the first states ever to approve same-sex marriage by popular vote. Now nine states and the District of Columbia recognize gay unions.

?Washington state and Colorado voted to legalize recreational marijuana use, and Obama's administration signaled it wouldn't pursue those users, even though the drug is illegal under federal law.

?Several Republicans who took rigid stands against abortion rights lost. Among them: GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Then, only six weeks after the election, came Sandy Hook. And gun control jumped to the front of the national conversation.

In the days and weeks before, lawmakers in the GOP-led states of Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina and Pennsylvania considered proposals to loosen restrictions on employees keeping guns in their vehicles on work property, and Ohio's legislature passed a law allowing guns to be left in parked vehicles underneath the Statehouse.

A federal appeals court in Illinois struck down a ban on carrying concealed weapons, while Florida's GOP-led administration announced that 1 million people would soon have valid permits to carry them. Michigan's legislature also approved laws easing restrictions, though its Republican governor, Rick Snyder, later vetoed a measure allowing certain gun owners to carry concealed weapons in public places.

Public opinion polling has illustrated the trend since 2000, with more Americans now generally favoring the right to own guns over increased limitations on ownership. But there is also widespread support in surveys for reinstating the federal assault weapons ban and for limiting high-capacity magazines.

It is, for sure, a contradictory series of messages ? unsurprising for an issue that asks such an intricate question: In a world of weaponry unimaginable to the people who came up with the Second Amendment, how do you strike the right balance between the individual's right to bear arms and the government's role in protecting the public?

With the latest eruption of the gun debate, we've returned to the enduring fight over libertarian principles that we've kept going for more than 200 years ? the core tension between what's right for one of us and what's right for all of us.

Whatever happens with gun control in the aftermath of Newtown, the debate reveals what this generation faces as it tries to shape the nation it inherits: the enduring struggle to understand that delicate constitutional space that exists between my right to swing my arm around freely and your right not to be hit in the face.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE ? Liz Sidoti is the national politics editor for The Associated Press.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/column-gun-debate-revives-enduring-american-fight-083338502--politics.html

girl scout cookies screen actors guild royal rumble results sag awards 2012 kyra sedgwick honor killings mary tyler moore

In gun debate, two sides speak different languages - TwinCities.com

WEXFORD, Pa.?Inside the Big Buck Sport Shop, where mounted moose and deer heads loom over rifles, handguns, targets and ammunition, the customers have no doubt: More gun laws will not save lives.

Fifteen miles south, in the city of Pittsburgh, many confronted by a steady stream of gun violence are just as certain: To reduce the carnage, stricter gun control is needed.

This divide has existed for decades, separating America into hostile camps of conservative vs. liberal, rural vs. urban. As the nation responds to the massacre of 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Conn., the gulf has rarely felt wider than now.

After the gunman invaded an elementary school with a Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and magazines of 30 bullets each, there was a brief moment of unity amid the nation's grief. Across partisan divides, politicians said something must be done about weapons based upon military designs. Many wondered if even the National Rifle Association would adjust its staunch opposition to gun control.

Then both sides regrouped. With President Barack Obama pushing for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and memory lingering of Obama's divisive 2008 comment that some Americans "cling to guns and religion," positions hardened.

Listening to the public discourse, and to citizens in places like Pittsburgh and the Big Buck Sport Shop, people seem to be speaking different languages entirely. Communication has broken down amid a

flurry of accusations, denials, political maneuvering and catch phrases.

"You have to place some people in the category of 'you cannot communicate with them,'" Big Buck salesman Dave Riddle said Friday, standing between a rack of rifles and a glass case full of used handguns. "Their minds are set; they cannot change."

A short drive away, at the New Pittsburgh Courier newspaper, editor and publisher Rod Doss pondered how to tell gun enthusiasts about his belief that assault weapons should be banned.

"I don't know that they would hear me," Doss finally said. "Their culture is totally different. They've grown up around guns. It's part of their life and their lifestyle. It's second nature. Hunting, shooting, it's the love of guns."

Doss does not own a firearm: "I don't feel a need for any. I personally don't live in fear." His newspaper, which covers the African-American community, publishes detailed information on every Pittsburgh homicide because most are black-on-black crimes.

"I'm awestruck with their fascination with guns," Doss said of his suburban and rural neighbors. "When you look at it from that perspective, it's hard to relate to anything."

Locally, nationally, even globally, this is the issue that places people at odds?a fact seen by the passionate, often angry conversations that are ringing out across the world in the days since the Newtown shootings. Harry Wilson, author of "Guns, Gun Control and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms," sees common misperceptions on both sides.

Wilson, a Roanoke College political science professor, would like gun control advocates to know: "Gun owners are not idiots. Gun owners are not in favor of gun violence. Gun owners are in many ways like them, and would genuinely like to see gun violence reduced. Obviously they have a different solution. But they're people too, just with different perspectives."

"And what I would want gun owners to know is, the large majority of people in favor of gun control don't really want to take all of your guns."

Guns were inseparable from America even before their enshrinement in the Second Amendment. With guns we secured the nation's independence, seized vast territory from indigenous peoples wielding arrows and tomahawks, and forged an ethos of personal freedom. Today, according to most estimates, there are about 250 million guns in our nation of 310 million people.

America has a higher rate of gun deaths than most similarly developed nations: 3.2 firearm homicides per 100,000 people in 2009, according to a report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. That compared with a rate of 0.5 per 100,000 in Canada; 0.2 in Spain; 0.2 in Germany; and 0.1 in the United Kingdom and Australia. No data was available for Russia.

To many gun enthusiasts, though, these numbers have nothing to do with guns themselves.

With so many guns in circulation, they say, people intent on killing will always find a way to do it. Nor do they fault high-capacity magazines, because it can take only seconds to reload a standard 10-bullet version.

Some even say the solution to gun violence is more guns?to deter, and to fight back against the bad guys.

"The easy, lazy conclusion is that (gun violence) has to do with firearms," said Sam Liberto, a business consultant shopping in Big Buck with his two young sons. "We should look at the root cause: parenting or lack thereof, mental illness, video games. The underlying forces are probably far more important."

Liberto does think gun laws could be tightened, to track and collect more sale information. He's against an assault weapons ban but expects one to happen soon, as a first step to outlawing even more guns.

So after Newtown, Liberto hustled to buy the same type of semiautomatic rifle used by the school gunman. On his iPhone was a photo of his weapon's handiwork: an Osama bin Laden target that featured a face full of bullet holes.

"It's a target item," Liberto said of his purchase. "Unlike a hunting rifle or a sport shotgun it has less kick, a lighter weight. It's designed to be carried. It's just nice, a nice gun to shoot."

Liberto and Riddle, the Big Buck salesman, are officers of the Millvale Sportsmen's Club, where target shooters and hunters enjoy their pursuits. Riddle knows many people who enter competitions with the type of AR-15 used in Newtown.

The gray-bearded Riddle has been around firearms since he was born in rural Pennsylvania. To him, guns are no more dangerous than an axe or a bat.

What would he tell people who want more gun control?

"Let's go out and shoot a little bit," Riddle offers. "I'd take 'em out, introduce them to firearms, show them the safety aspects of it. I'd just go out and start shooting, have some fun. Shoot some paper targets, some cans. Shooting guns is a lot of fun, it really is."

That's incomprehensible to Pittsburgh resident Valerie Dixon, whose law-abiding 22-year-old son was killed in Pittsburgh a decade ago by a neighborhood thug with an illegal .357 Magnum.

"The original purpose of the Second Amendment was not a sport," she said. "I do think the laws need to be looked at. Look at lifestyles as they are today, as opposed to when they created the Second Amendment."

Dixon doesn't only blame guns for her tragedy. She said better parenting and education are among many other factors that need to change. But still: She says her son's killer was able to obtain the fateful gun within two hours.

"I believe in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms, but I believe there's a responsibility with our rights," said Dixon, who does not own a gun.

How to draw the line? That would require consultation and cooperation. Those who don't own guns might have to learn things from those who do. People who like to shoot military-style weapons might have to sacrifice some of their recreation.

Or sacrifice some of their way of life.

Over the Christmas holiday, James and Jennifer Shafer shot guns with their parents and young kids at their ranch an hour north of Pittsburgh. The Shafers feel the pain of parents who have lost children. The Newtown killings left them shaken. But the response scares them, too.

"You can't take away our right to protect ourselves," said James Shafer, a former Marine who has called his congressional representatives to voice his opposition to laws that limit guns.

"We're not going to give them up, that's plain and simple," he said.

"I don't know how to get on the subway in a big city," said his wife, Jennifer. "I've heard bad things about it, and I'm scared of it. But the subway is normal for other people . guns are the thread of our culture."

James' cousin, Erik Shafer, started buying guns a few years ago after he returned to his rural home and found it ransacked by burglars. Police took 20 minutes to arrive.

After listening to conversations about Newtown, "I honestly don't think there is a middle to meet in," said Erik Shafer, a small business owner with a wife and two young daughters.

Then what does the future hold? He sees no end to gun violence, no matter what laws are passed.

"How do you prepare yourself for an infinite way that people can be shot and killed?" Erik Shafer responded. "It's tough. I really don't know what the answer is."

???

AP Researcher Jennifer Farrar contributed to this report. Follow Jesse Washington on Twitter at http://twitter.com/jessewashington

Source: http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_22283745/gun-debate-two-sides-speak-different-languages?source=rss

texas rangers steve jobs meningitis bobby valentine bobby valentine nicki minaj miguel cabrera