Gun owners and gun control advocates need to realize how much their interests actually overlap. The should make common cause to insist on responsible gun ownership, similar to responsible beverage service policies at bars and restaurants. Most gun owners (including members of the NRA) readily agree on many critical controls: Background checks, registration, straw-purchase prohibitions, and restrictions on open-carry, guns in public places (especially on- and off-sale alcohol outlets), harsh penalties for ownership by felons and use of guns in crimes, etc. Both parties can hammer out agreements on levels for meaningful enforcement and implementation. So State-level and local jurisdictions efforts to create responsible gun ownership laws should do well. The local/state effort can flush out the extremes on both sides (who flourish in DC at the expense of moderates). Let the gun-nuts and the gun-haters gnash their teeth at each other on their own time. The rest of us can take back our community space and free it of guns, and keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them. Lets move away from wailing about victims toward responsible gun ownership as public policy we can all live with. Let's turn the NRA into a scaregrow that no longer controls Congress.
4
I am connected on Facebook with someone who is very pro-gun (I don't want to call her a friend because she isn't one, but we are connected for other reasons). She is always posting pro-gun messages on Facebook. Then I saw her other postings, and they are very racist. It occurred to me that perhaps the two are related - that she needs her guns to protect her from the Big Bad Black Man. There are probably many white Americans like that out there - who think they need protection against blacks. May not be p.c. to say it, but I'm convinced there is a racist element to all of this.
8
I wonder how many Americans realise that they are ridiculed by the rest of the world for their liberal, 'wild west' approach to gun control? The American siege mentality - the idea that I must be able to 'defend myself' - doesn't exist to anywhere near your level in other countries. Nations such as Australia, Britain and Japan have all proven that you don't need widespread gun use to 'survive'. Trust me - the rest of the world just shakes their heads at the bizarre attitudes of the gun lobby and wonders why more isn't done to keep your society from spinning further out of control.
8
The availability of a gun does not a murderer make. But the lack of one can get a citizen murdered.
4
How extraordinary that limiting the purchase of handguns to one a month could be considered controversial. America is democracy gone haywire.
8
There is no question that people on both sides of what is effectively a religious war will agree that people who both sides already agree are not supposed to possess firearms should continue to be forbidden to possess them.
This being a religious war, however, gun control activists and the people that bankroll them can be expected to be unstinting in their efforts to restrict the ownership of firearms to the greatest extent possible. Be it restrictions on how many firearms can be purchased in a given unit of time, how many bullets can be owned or bought, lawsuits designed to drive the retail cost of firearms higher, or other creative means intended to restrict access to firearms, these groups will be relentless in pursuit of their goals. As will their opponents.
This being a religious war, however, gun control activists and the people that bankroll them can be expected to be unstinting in their efforts to restrict the ownership of firearms to the greatest extent possible. Be it restrictions on how many firearms can be purchased in a given unit of time, how many bullets can be owned or bought, lawsuits designed to drive the retail cost of firearms higher, or other creative means intended to restrict access to firearms, these groups will be relentless in pursuit of their goals. As will their opponents.
1
As someone whose job requires traveling around the world, it's a simple fact that America is deplored for our irresponsible lack of sane firearm regulations. People around the world can't understand why Americans refuse to implement and/or enforce gun control laws despite resultant deaths and injuries, that have resulted even in the slaughter of children/Sandy Hook.
There's no way the founding fathers intended citizens to freely access weapons of mass destruction, when muskets were the firearms of their day. Assault weapons, large gun clips, insufficient background checks, all proven to be deadly, would not be covered under any amendment over the right to life itself. Would they allow law enforcement authorities to be outgunned by criminals? Really?
This dark side of America may be nothing more than lawmakers being bought and paid for by the NRA. Like it or not, that is as American as apple pie.
There's no way the founding fathers intended citizens to freely access weapons of mass destruction, when muskets were the firearms of their day. Assault weapons, large gun clips, insufficient background checks, all proven to be deadly, would not be covered under any amendment over the right to life itself. Would they allow law enforcement authorities to be outgunned by criminals? Really?
This dark side of America may be nothing more than lawmakers being bought and paid for by the NRA. Like it or not, that is as American as apple pie.
5
Watch out! The anti-gun folks are just adjusting their tactics. They now claim to support "gun safety" rather than "outlaw guns". And, the carpetbaggers are coming in to local elections to buy the election. In Washington they are already talking about more "gun safety" legislation they are planning. It is like the frog in the boiling water and it is time that everyone wakes up to the true agenda of these folks.
5
States need to start taxing ammo heavily and using the proceeds to study things which the NRA keeps hidden, such as determining whether conceal and carry laws really do lower crime. You would think the NRA would like for people to know this. But, for some reason, they block every study.
2
Many say that the U.S. lost its soul in Vietnam... Perhaps? I say that it was lost in Newtown, Connecticut.
8
Whatever works. May God bless Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign.
19
The NRA has become a terrorist organization had deserves to be dismantled and put on the terrorist watch list.
Not NRA members are like that but the leadership is. I think those members who agree with me should form their own organization thereby removing all the money from the current organization is constituted.
Not NRA members are like that but the leadership is. I think those members who agree with me should form their own organization thereby removing all the money from the current organization is constituted.
18
I find that people who make such statements have gotten zero information about the NRA from the NRA. All they know is what somebody (usually a hater or "news' organization) has told them. The NRA is to the 2nd Amendment what the ACLU is to the other nine in the Bill of Rights. As a civil rights organization, they unerringly oppose restrictions and barriers to the LAW ABIDING exercising their rights to buy, own and legally use guns. In the minds of the misinformed or dogmatic, this somehow gets convoluted into thinking that the NRA condones or enables the misuse of guns; this is utter rubbish. There is a vast gulf between typical American "gun culture" and gang/criminal culture.
One last thing: no other organization runs as many actual gun safety programs as the NRA, who train more police, military and civilian personnel in the safe handling and use of firearms than all other groups combined.
Still, some think as you do, while others think that the NRA isn't "extreme" enough, hence groups like the GOA (Gun Owners of America), the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation), NAGR (National Association for Gun Rights) and others.
One last thing: no other organization runs as many actual gun safety programs as the NRA, who train more police, military and civilian personnel in the safe handling and use of firearms than all other groups combined.
Still, some think as you do, while others think that the NRA isn't "extreme" enough, hence groups like the GOA (Gun Owners of America), the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation), NAGR (National Association for Gun Rights) and others.
6
The problem is simple. The USA has the largest violent crime prison population in the world and lenient parole practices result in many dangerous felons being released on a daily basis. There are over 300 million handguns in circulation and new technologies allow for the manufacture of almost un traceable new guns. Current restrictions on gun ownership are not enforced!! This new idea for gun control while sounding good and favored especially by those with no USA inner city experience only serves to disarm law abiding citizens. Criminals can easily arm themselves for a small price. I am retired and live in Medellin Colombia which has strict gun controls. The city's main areas are quite safe but all the criminals here are armed and the law abiding citizens are not. Does that make sense? Next the only place I have ever been attacked and nearly killed was one block from my apartment in Santa Monica California by two gang members. Without the legal pepper spray I had by luck in my pocket I would have been killed. Those two were never caught and without doubt have struck again somewhere. The USA is not some small country with defined borders its a wide open place made worse by Obama's open border policy. Any new restrictions have to be judged first by the enforcement of existing laws and a return to a secure border situation.
7
There is a middle ground in the gun debate and it is background checks. As gun owner I feel perfectly at ease with potential gun owners being vetted to see if they are competent and sane. In the county I live in you need to have an affidavit from three of your neighbors attesting to your good character, and then be interviewed by a judge before getting a permit to own a handgun.
16
I think reforming campaign finance is the answer to moving many important issues, including gun safety measures. Many of these elected officials who do not publicly support even the most common sense gun measures - like background checks - fear the money of the NRA, which can impact their next election. Money is why so many important issues are stuck.
13
Terrorists, criminals, drug dealers, and people who are mentally unstable. I can find nothing in the NRA charter that supports or advocates the rights of such people to have guns. So why has the NRA become the chief lobbyists to supply such individual guns? Citizens would be outraged if a proposal to allow known or suspected terrorists the rights to purchase sophisticated weapons were recommended by any policy person. Will it require terrorists using weapons to kill children to show people that the NRA supports terrorists by their opposition to simple background checks? If an organization in the US with suspected ties to terrorists outside the U.S. took the same position as the NRA, every law enforcement organization in the US would fall on them like a ton of bricks. So how does the NRA get away taking that position? How would the U.S. public react if that organization created huge stockpiles of automatic weapons and then used the Second Amendment as its smoke screen once the weapons were discovered?
11
Pretty much describes the present situation.
1
Using the term Gun rights is sick - guns do not have rights, people do. I do not understand why states do not make 'Well regulated militia' laws, create their militias and regulate who can be a member.
9
If Americans could just learn to love each other as much they love guns that would be a big move forward....
9
"Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia has proposed the restoration of the state’s limit on handgun sales to one a month." Why does anyone need to purchase a new gun every month? How sad that a minuscule act, meaningless act like this is considered a major improvement.
I worked overseas for years and my local friends couldn't understand the American attachment to guns. It is obvious that our domestically easy availability of guns is resulting in routine mass killings of innocent children and adults. We are the laughingstock of the world because there is no control.
My brother has a gun and believes the government is getting ready to begin indiscriminate killing of everyone. He is ready to protect himself.
Good grief. I wish the gun control movement the best. Fighting such ignorance is not bliss.
I worked overseas for years and my local friends couldn't understand the American attachment to guns. It is obvious that our domestically easy availability of guns is resulting in routine mass killings of innocent children and adults. We are the laughingstock of the world because there is no control.
My brother has a gun and believes the government is getting ready to begin indiscriminate killing of everyone. He is ready to protect himself.
Good grief. I wish the gun control movement the best. Fighting such ignorance is not bliss.
20
While you're at it, keep the mentally disturbed out of the voting booth, too.
5
first, the anti gun movement was not blocked in congress, IT WAS DEFEATED IN AN OPEN VOTE!
as for Congress being beholden to lobbies, i think the anti gun folks should check their facts, of course we all know facts bounce off them like a tennis ball on a brick wall, but none the less. Mr. Bloomberg has outspent the NRA over the last few years to push his failed agenda and lies. one of which we started off this article with, "blocked in congress".
Tell me all you anti gun folks, when yout bills are DEFEATED again at the state level or repealed as in the Miller, Heller, and Mcdonald cases, what are you going to do then?
the bill of rights is a list of rights NOT GIVEN BY GOVERNMENT, but are a list of RIGHTS THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT TOUCH. and one might want to consider the fact that the 2nd amendment is just that, the 2nd only to the 1st which is our right to peacefully assemble to petition for a redress of greivences.
as a responseable gun owner, safety and security are always paramount. all of the new bills proposed are not going to change that, just as they will not prevent a single crime. only law abiding citizens obey the law, not the criminals, and as we have seen tragiclly lately, those criminals also include some mentally ill.
as for Congress being beholden to lobbies, i think the anti gun folks should check their facts, of course we all know facts bounce off them like a tennis ball on a brick wall, but none the less. Mr. Bloomberg has outspent the NRA over the last few years to push his failed agenda and lies. one of which we started off this article with, "blocked in congress".
Tell me all you anti gun folks, when yout bills are DEFEATED again at the state level or repealed as in the Miller, Heller, and Mcdonald cases, what are you going to do then?
the bill of rights is a list of rights NOT GIVEN BY GOVERNMENT, but are a list of RIGHTS THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT TOUCH. and one might want to consider the fact that the 2nd amendment is just that, the 2nd only to the 1st which is our right to peacefully assemble to petition for a redress of greivences.
as a responseable gun owner, safety and security are always paramount. all of the new bills proposed are not going to change that, just as they will not prevent a single crime. only law abiding citizens obey the law, not the criminals, and as we have seen tragiclly lately, those criminals also include some mentally ill.
6
“I own three guns,” said Mr. McAuliffe, a Democrat. “I love to take my three boys hunting. This is not gun restriction, this is anticrime. I couch it in economic terms.”
How do you know McAuliffe is lying? You got it...
The Second Amedment is not about hunting or sports. It's not about "crime" either, at least from the perspective of gun running as McAuliffe wants to paint it.
How do you know McAuliffe is lying? You got it...
The Second Amedment is not about hunting or sports. It's not about "crime" either, at least from the perspective of gun running as McAuliffe wants to paint it.
8
I know folks who own both long guns and hand guns and most of them favor some sort of sensible regulation. Many NYT readers know these same kind of people. This movement will need these firearm owners at the polls and in their ads.
The NRA and other, even more strident groups, may give an assist by their own militancy. It can be used against them in a number of ways. If their members get real ugly with threats of violence, as has happened before, that too can be of use. Cliven
The NRA and other, even more strident groups, may give an assist by their own militancy. It can be used against them in a number of ways. If their members get real ugly with threats of violence, as has happened before, that too can be of use. Cliven
8
Still waiting for someone to explain how any of the measures proposed by Moms Demand Action, or any of the other gun control groups will prevent gun violence. How would they would have prevented Newtown, or any of the other tragedies in recent years. "Crickets"
4
It is not really difficult to understand.
1
In 2010, according to the United Nations, 67% of all homicides in the U.S. were conducted using a firearm. According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns. 61% of all gun-related deaths are suicides. In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides.
A 1992 report in the New England Journal of Medicine shows an association between household firearm ownership and gun suicide rates, finding that individuals in a firearm owning home are five times more likely to commit suicide.
The rising trend in homicide rates during the 80s and 90s was most pronounced among lower income and especially unemployed males.
However, some developed countries with strict gun laws have almost eliminated gun violence
The incidence of homicides committed with a firearm in the U.S. is greater than other countries. In the U.S. in 2009 United Nations statistics record 3.0 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, with where handguns are prohibited was 0.07 , about 40 times lower, and for Germany 0.2. Gun homicides in Switzerland however are similarly low, at 0.52 in 2010 even though they rank third in the world for highest number of guns per citizen.
Deadly mass shootings have resulted in considerable coverage by the media. These shootings have represented 1% of all deaths by gun between 1980 and 2008.
A 1992 report in the New England Journal of Medicine shows an association between household firearm ownership and gun suicide rates, finding that individuals in a firearm owning home are five times more likely to commit suicide.
The rising trend in homicide rates during the 80s and 90s was most pronounced among lower income and especially unemployed males.
However, some developed countries with strict gun laws have almost eliminated gun violence
The incidence of homicides committed with a firearm in the U.S. is greater than other countries. In the U.S. in 2009 United Nations statistics record 3.0 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, with where handguns are prohibited was 0.07 , about 40 times lower, and for Germany 0.2. Gun homicides in Switzerland however are similarly low, at 0.52 in 2010 even though they rank third in the world for highest number of guns per citizen.
Deadly mass shootings have resulted in considerable coverage by the media. These shootings have represented 1% of all deaths by gun between 1980 and 2008.
7
None of the measures being proposed by the gun control groups will prevent gun violence. None of them would have prevented Newtown, the Washington school shootings etc. So these measures only have 2 purposes, one is to restrict the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens and the other is to make some people feel good. Pathetic that some people can be so manipulated.
7
Incorrect
1
“Whether it’s on guns or immigration or tax reform, clearly Washington is broken,” Mr. Feinblatt said.
Ha Ha, Feinblatt, but it will start to heal this month.
Ha Ha, Feinblatt, but it will start to heal this month.
4
What the new NRA doesn't understand, because so many of them are pathetically uneducated, is that in the days when every male between 16 and 55 (varied with the colony) was required to keep a firearm and ammunition in his home or be fined, anyone carrying on the street when the militia had not been called out would have been arrested and disarmed for threatening the peace. This NRA needs to be disbanded and replaced by the NRA of my childhood and my grandfathers' time. LaPierre and his people are certifiably insane.
11
Actually just out for their own pocketbooks. That is as American as apple pie. But their industry connections need to be revealed by the free oress
Maybe if the narrative or euphemistic terms used to regulate guns is employed people will listen before more people are mercilessly gunned down. This is not a lobbyist campaign but should be the ultimate exercise in a collective display of what a safe society is meant to be.
2
The losses of the gun control liberal are the result of a recognition of a reality . . . . that dog just don't hunt no more.
We don't have a gun problem in this country, we have a problem with guns in the hands of the inner city population.
We don't have a gun problem in this country, we have a problem with guns in the hands of the inner city population.
6
Why is something so abundantly clear to the rest of the world and to a majority of Americans so far from the mental capacity of Congress.
8
So, Rose of New York thinks that 'If the anti-gun groups didn't lump all gun owners into mass murderers, they would get far further." That opinion is based on pure fallacy. I challenge her to name just one group who thinks that way. Most Americans feel that except for those with criminal plans, gun owners hold the best of intentions around the purchase and handling of guns. They are no different from, say, motor vehicle owners and homeowners, most of whom are law-abiding citizens. There is, however, separation. It comes by way of gun rights groups, such as the NRA who oppose any regulation that is aimed at greater public safety. Imagine if motor vehicle owners and homeowners shared that view. There would be much more carnage on highways and it's anyone's guess how many more homes would be falling or burning to the ground. Americans, who support the right to bear arms,are often heard proclaiming they are "law-abiding citizens." Fine! That, however, does not exempt them from sharing responsibilities around promoting greater gun safety. In that regard, unfortunately, they have a long way to go.
13
It doesn't matter what the gun laws are in America. This is and welcome to; the Holy Roman Empire in it's decline! United we stand, divide we fall. It doesn't take a genius to see we are the most divided we've been since the Civil War. That's my take on it at least.
7
If they wanted make headway on this, they would take steps instead of leaps. Metal illness is one step that could garner support from a lot of gun owners. The mass shootings are especially tied to mental illness. Thew Va. Tech. killer was on a court order to have psychological testing which he had ignored. A psychiatrist warned the police a month before Holmes went on his killing spree that he was a danger. Lanza in Connecticut and the Navy Yard shooter Alexis had mental health issues. If gun control advocates focused on the one group most seen in mass shootings, they would have a good chance. Then use that success to add others categories. The problem is that to select mental illness, political correctness steps in. So the control advocated throw a legal rope around a much much larger field and lessen the chance of success.
3
" Gun control groups say that although they are still dwarfed by the N.R.A., they have more money and are involved in more grass-roots activism than ever before. The N.R.A. was even heavily outspent in the Washington State referendum."
The question is: Is money the answer for gun control in the US?
The question is: Is money the answer for gun control in the US?
3
The term ' Gun Safety" instead of "Gun Control" made me to remember the justification on " e-cigarette " in place of conventional cigarette. According to smokers, e-cigarette is benign and the conventional cigarette is malign.
To some extent, I could draw the argument and the edge of e-cigarette over conventional cigarette.
But the justification on gun control just by verification is a proof to upgrading the procedure for issuance but not the control of the mind of a person in an event he forced to use the gun against someone.
To some extent, I could draw the argument and the edge of e-cigarette over conventional cigarette.
But the justification on gun control just by verification is a proof to upgrading the procedure for issuance but not the control of the mind of a person in an event he forced to use the gun against someone.
America today is not America of the 1940s, 1950s or early 1960s. Ozzie and Harriet no longer exist. Father doesn't know best. If there's even a father around. I grew up in the 1950s in the South Bronx and later Glens Falls NY. It was safe. I also went to a somewhat rural high school in South Central PA. During small game and deer season the guys and some teachers too, would come to school in their cars and pick-up trucks, a rifle or shotgun hanging on the gun rack or lying on the back seat. After school the kids would get their guns and head for the fields and forested area behind the school. It was the normal thing to do. The school also had a rifle team that practiced on the range in the basement. As did township police. There were never any accidental or other shootings. Our parents and many of our teachers were WWII veterans. The principal was a Marine who fought the Japanese at Tarawa. The Algebra teacher served and was wounded in Italy. And on and on. The male teachers served as role models and were good disciplinarians. School was peaceful, safe and there were guns. There were no drugs, no drug gangs and no "boys in da hood". Nor would it have been tolerated for even a moment. We didn't wear blue jeans to school. We dressed appropriately. We were expected to behave and be respectful. And we were. We also didn't have student murders, slaughter at the movies or gun control. We didn't need it. Now the bad guys are causing problems and you want to restrict guns?
27
Haven't you heard,Jay? The girls are taking over and I doubt you know which century you are in,but arms in the USA are out of control, especially when compared to the rest of the civilized world. Those who make money from guns are similar to those who have made millions from tobacco.Now there's a pair of mass-murdering groups for you to consider over the last 100 years. Greedy tobacco and arms manufacturers make Hitler look like a midget in the amount of misery they have brought to this planet. Women are gaining the front seats all over the world, and perhaps there are enough of them getting active to overtake male-dominated rule and ruination. They may even have time to help save the planet before it dies. The good guys haven't been able to stop the bad guys by their policies of confronting violence with violence. Perhaps the ladies will use different methods. Then you could move back to the Bronx?
1
Why are people so aggressive about gun control? Guns have positive and negative social impacts. If you want to protect the world, why not focus on issues with no social upside and much larger impact, perhaps smoking or trans fat??
3
Individual freedom is something we all treasure.
Collective freedom is a description of life that everyone in a democratic society enjoys and is entitled to. Free people elect representatives to govern them to insure this freedom. When elected representatives are frightened and threatened by part of an organization whose only purpose is the unlimited distribution of guns collective freedom is lost.
The legislative group of the National Rifle Association is the sponsor of unrestricted and dangerous gun laws in the United States. The other activities of the NRA involve gun safety and training.
Last year the legislative group of the NRA sponsored laws allowing blind people to have the right to own and use a gun.
Somebody tell me how that contributes to collective freedom.
Collective freedom is a description of life that everyone in a democratic society enjoys and is entitled to. Free people elect representatives to govern them to insure this freedom. When elected representatives are frightened and threatened by part of an organization whose only purpose is the unlimited distribution of guns collective freedom is lost.
The legislative group of the National Rifle Association is the sponsor of unrestricted and dangerous gun laws in the United States. The other activities of the NRA involve gun safety and training.
Last year the legislative group of the NRA sponsored laws allowing blind people to have the right to own and use a gun.
Somebody tell me how that contributes to collective freedom.
6
Nowhere in this debate is the simple, yet powerful, issue of insurance. All states (or almost all) require proof of insurance before issuing a drivers license or a vehicle license or, both.
If a gun owner's I.D. and permit (here in Illinois) was renewed annually with proof of insurance required, several desirable outcomes would ensue.
First, gun show sales would require gun owner I.D.s and that would be restricted to individuals with a modicum responsibility. The is, insurability.
Second, when things go awry, some form of remediation wild be available to the victims and further gun ownership restricted from irresponsible individuals.
Finally, possession of a gun by someone without insurance would finally bring a proportionate penalty endorsed by, of all people, the insurance companies.
If a gun owner's I.D. and permit (here in Illinois) was renewed annually with proof of insurance required, several desirable outcomes would ensue.
First, gun show sales would require gun owner I.D.s and that would be restricted to individuals with a modicum responsibility. The is, insurability.
Second, when things go awry, some form of remediation wild be available to the victims and further gun ownership restricted from irresponsible individuals.
Finally, possession of a gun by someone without insurance would finally bring a proportionate penalty endorsed by, of all people, the insurance companies.
9
I do not own a gun, yet I respect the right of others to own one if they so wish. What I do not support is the sheer lack of regulation shrouded by the 2nd amendment when by all accounts it has to do with $$$. As a civilian, living in an urban environment, I should not be able to purchase a weapon that has the capability of shooting hundreds of rounds and capable of mass destruction. I should also not be able to, without any detailed inquiry, be able to purchase numerous weapons either. Surely, the fact that the amount of weapons owned by private citizens equates to about 1 gun for every citizen of the USA says that there is something wrong with how we regulate guns?
4
Gun owners should have to buy liability insurance. Proof of insurance could be required to purchase guns or ammunition.
Aside from making us all a little safer, such a policy would uphold at least three values dear to conservative hearts. These are:
1) Personal responsibility;
2) The Second Amendment, which states that militias must be well-regulated; and
3) The invisible hand of the marketplace, which would quickly and accurately determine the true cost of owning a firearm.
Aside from making us all a little safer, such a policy would uphold at least three values dear to conservative hearts. These are:
1) Personal responsibility;
2) The Second Amendment, which states that militias must be well-regulated; and
3) The invisible hand of the marketplace, which would quickly and accurately determine the true cost of owning a firearm.
8
The whole situation is going to get worse in 2015 since the Republicans now control the Senate.
The Supreme Court declared the right to bear arms a kind of 'fundamental' right similar to the right of free speech.
There are murders in Europe including my native Czech Republic. As I read in the Czech newspaper, most of them are committed by using KNIVES, not guns.
Murderers exist everywhere. It is just bit more difficult to use a knife than a gun.
Both New York policemen recently murdered would have been safe from a knife but killed by a GUN.
But this is America and guns are our 'fundamental right'. Restrictions have to exist on a Federal level - there are no border patrol on our state lines...
The Supreme Court declared the right to bear arms a kind of 'fundamental' right similar to the right of free speech.
There are murders in Europe including my native Czech Republic. As I read in the Czech newspaper, most of them are committed by using KNIVES, not guns.
Murderers exist everywhere. It is just bit more difficult to use a knife than a gun.
Both New York policemen recently murdered would have been safe from a knife but killed by a GUN.
But this is America and guns are our 'fundamental right'. Restrictions have to exist on a Federal level - there are no border patrol on our state lines...
6
Referendums work excessively well in my country. As our politicians did not want to budge, a popular referendum sucessfully stopped to issue ammunition for the assault rifle every swiss citizen soldier keep at home.
This weapon is given to you by our government, and you keep it for most your adult life. In the past, I had my ammo box with my rifle as anyone else, with all my military gear at the ready in my basement.
But at some point, this ammo became an inconvenience, with too many suicide. The population decided that enough is enough after a debate and a vote. I did not feel my "freedom" was curtailed in the process. It was the sensible thing to do, even if I was not enthusiastic about it.
Referendums done with realism can go a long way. The proponents of the referendums asked to temove the ammo, not the rifle which would have failed. So, be careful, once voted, the decision has a strong legitimacy... for the winner.
This weapon is given to you by our government, and you keep it for most your adult life. In the past, I had my ammo box with my rifle as anyone else, with all my military gear at the ready in my basement.
But at some point, this ammo became an inconvenience, with too many suicide. The population decided that enough is enough after a debate and a vote. I did not feel my "freedom" was curtailed in the process. It was the sensible thing to do, even if I was not enthusiastic about it.
Referendums done with realism can go a long way. The proponents of the referendums asked to temove the ammo, not the rifle which would have failed. So, be careful, once voted, the decision has a strong legitimacy... for the winner.
8
Ammunition is the sweet spot, it is good for only 2 to 5 years.
1
I believe in my right of never to bear arms without infringing on the right to bear arms and in the protection of certain gun free zones eg. Schools, Universities, clinics, Hospitals, Hotels, places of worship etc. My respects to the Sandy Hook victims and all those who have been lost to gun violence and had their lives cut short.
2
In order to make good laws we need good information. The NRA has caused Congress to actually prohibit the use of federal funding of research and understanding of gun issues. This is the first step... Let's get hard facts and analyze them. All we are doing now is shouting past each other.
8
Under the quid pro quo of the law of contracts, the unarmed have the right to vet the would-be armed. Without that, gunners will dictate at gunpoint, as they obviously have here in the US.
5
Completely wrong. US citizens don't obtain the right to bear arms by contract, they have that right by virtue of the second amendment. Those rights, like those under the first, fourth
and 13th amendments, are not conditional.
The "law of contracts" and "quid pro quo" have nothing to do with it.
and 13th amendments, are not conditional.
The "law of contracts" and "quid pro quo" have nothing to do with it.
2
Fascinating the mention of the shooting in Washington state and the effect that had on Washington state passing its law.
The gun in Washington state case was owned by a POLICE OFFICER (Indian Reservation police are under federal and state laws police officers). In NY, Cali, Massachusetts, Maryland, ie the states with the most gun control, police are EXEMPTED from safe storage, magazine limits, waiting periods etc. So too are they now in Washington state. As New Yorkers know, Gov. Cuomo had a rewrite of NY-SAfe gun control passed two days after the initial passage with the an amended version exempting police, off duty police and retired police for mall the new laws.
The ballot initiative, which affects laws already in place and does NOT change the exemption in Washington State for police, would have had ZERO effect on the shooting that spurred its passage.
The gun in Washington state case was owned by a POLICE OFFICER (Indian Reservation police are under federal and state laws police officers). In NY, Cali, Massachusetts, Maryland, ie the states with the most gun control, police are EXEMPTED from safe storage, magazine limits, waiting periods etc. So too are they now in Washington state. As New Yorkers know, Gov. Cuomo had a rewrite of NY-SAfe gun control passed two days after the initial passage with the an amended version exempting police, off duty police and retired police for mall the new laws.
The ballot initiative, which affects laws already in place and does NOT change the exemption in Washington State for police, would have had ZERO effect on the shooting that spurred its passage.
3
Perhaps health insurance companies should start asking questions about gun ownership and charge higher premiums for those owning guns, given the chances that the gun is more likely to hurt the owner/ their family than be used in self-defense. Alternately, the companies should go after the people who shoot someone accidentally to get reimbursed for the health expenses they end up paying for the victim.
Maybe, gun ownership should require special insurance, much as car ownership does.
Maybe, gun ownership should require special insurance, much as car ownership does.
12
Big money special interests (the NRA, gun lobby) are in control of Congress. America needs new campaign finance reform legislation to remove corrupting influences on large, single-donor $$$ (e,g, - NRA, unions, Koch Brothers, George Soros) on American elections and government so We the People are heard as loud or louder than We the Special Interests.
Regarding guns, Long guns are for hunting. Proficient hunters are dangerous only to animals, not other humans. Shotguns are best for home defense, if you want to fight to keep your stuff.
Allowing guns to be carried on public streets when those carriers have not had training equivalent to a police officer is too dangerous. A citizen carrying a weapon in public is dangerous to innocents if that gun owner becomes emotionally unstable (angry, jealous, etc.), intoxicated or distracted. If a town is worried about criminals with guns, then hire and train more law enforcement.
The Second Amendment is not an absolute right. It has been regulated for improved public safety since the 1930s. The NRA Foundation Inc (the lobbying arm of the NRA) and the gun industry wants free access to guns to make more profits and have done too little to curb gun violence. Flooding the streets with more guns is not the answer. Gun owners should be licensed and guns should be registered and insured, just like Americans require for car ownership.
Regarding guns, Long guns are for hunting. Proficient hunters are dangerous only to animals, not other humans. Shotguns are best for home defense, if you want to fight to keep your stuff.
Allowing guns to be carried on public streets when those carriers have not had training equivalent to a police officer is too dangerous. A citizen carrying a weapon in public is dangerous to innocents if that gun owner becomes emotionally unstable (angry, jealous, etc.), intoxicated or distracted. If a town is worried about criminals with guns, then hire and train more law enforcement.
The Second Amendment is not an absolute right. It has been regulated for improved public safety since the 1930s. The NRA Foundation Inc (the lobbying arm of the NRA) and the gun industry wants free access to guns to make more profits and have done too little to curb gun violence. Flooding the streets with more guns is not the answer. Gun owners should be licensed and guns should be registered and insured, just like Americans require for car ownership.
10
To all those Americans who are seeking stronger gun control laws, you have my very best wishes. We in Australia (and I am sure the same applies to the rest of the world in general) are so tired of hearing of yet another tragedy caused by reckless, careless or deliberate use of firearms in the United States. I feel that it will be a violent and bitter struggle with people who have no sense of community or responsibility.
I receive emails from Josh Horwitz, the Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. I would urge responsible Americans to support this or some similar organization. I know that there are many, many Americans who support laws limiting the availability of firearms in your country.
I receive emails from Josh Horwitz, the Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. I would urge responsible Americans to support this or some similar organization. I know that there are many, many Americans who support laws limiting the availability of firearms in your country.
7
The marriage-equality model is better suited to movements seeking more rights, not more restrictions. The success of marriage equality at the state level is due to (1) a series of legal victories and (2) strong public support among a growing majority of Americans. Conversely, the gun control movement has suffered (1) consistent legal setbacks in cases across the country and (2) the lowest level of public support in American history.
Some prohibitionists already understand this. Despite collecting all the signatures needed to get their issue on the ballot, gun control advocates in Colorado recently decided to kill their own initiative rather than suffer the consequences of taking the issue directly to the voters (http://www.cpr.org/news/story/campus-gun-ban-measure-wont-be-colorados-n.... And the latest Pew and Gallup polls indicate that future democratic efforts to restrict guns may be even more likely to backfire.
Some prohibitionists already understand this. Despite collecting all the signatures needed to get their issue on the ballot, gun control advocates in Colorado recently decided to kill their own initiative rather than suffer the consequences of taking the issue directly to the voters (http://www.cpr.org/news/story/campus-gun-ban-measure-wont-be-colorados-n.... And the latest Pew and Gallup polls indicate that future democratic efforts to restrict guns may be even more likely to backfire.
9
We don't even have to restrict gun sales, just tax guns and ammunition at 800% like cigarettes in NYC and use the gun tax revenue to promote the dangers of firearms, fund medical care for the poor, fight obesity and domestic violence and finance R&D to produce alternative energy.
Put that in your pistol, NRA.
Put that in your pistol, NRA.
36
Gov of Va, Terry McAuliffe, looks just like the actor that played Gov of Nevada in Godfather. He woke up with a dead prostitute for dissing the Corleones. I suspect he would face the same fate if he went against the NRA.
1
What is it about the people who proudly like to drape themselves in the archaic 2nd amendment and declare to others that they own a gun or several guns, do they expect us to be impressed, respectful, afraid or all three? It just reminds one of how pathetic Charlton Heston became in his old age, when he went from supporting the 10 Commandments and ethnic minorities (in Ben Hur) as a young man to supporting the 2nd amendment and waving a rifle as an old man. Who's the target audience of this braggadocio that's inductive of insecurity and fear or anger and malice, the unarmed and peaceful that might end up being the targets of armed bullies?
Or is their target the authorities? This latter scenario plays out differently in our country doesn't it, whether you are well armed with guns like Cliven Bundy or only armed with loose cigarettes like Eric Garner? This sends the wrong message in a what claims to be a civil, fair and tolerant society.
Or is their target the authorities? This latter scenario plays out differently in our country doesn't it, whether you are well armed with guns like Cliven Bundy or only armed with loose cigarettes like Eric Garner? This sends the wrong message in a what claims to be a civil, fair and tolerant society.
7
This is brilliant. Incremental gun restrictions state-by-state is doable and will prove to Americans that the NRA lies when it says the entire Constitution will unravel if we pass gun restrictions. The rabid gun lobbies will of course challenge this legislation in court and will lose over and over, which will further undermine their argument.
Once again, the gays lead society in what is fashionable and how to do things proper!! werk...
Once again, the gays lead society in what is fashionable and how to do things proper!! werk...
5
I guess we have made some progress. The Aztecs sacrificed untold numbers of people to Huitzilopochtli because of superstitions and what we would call irrational fear about nature, famine, and the world. We sacrifice people to the almighty dollar, in thralll to the high priests of the gun industry, the NRA. Just like the common Aztec, we watch in terror as the sacrificial victims are picked out at random, at schools, at movie theaters, street corners, and department stores, and the high priests tell us that the God is not yet satiated. But hey, its the 2nd amendment, so it must be alright! USA! USA! USA! USA!
6
A few details, based on the comments below.
1. On the matter of guns, the Constitution is genuinely ambiguous. This is why we hve courts, and legislatures. So if you're unhappy, show the heck up to vote next time.
2. Are guns useful in self-defense? absolutely. It's just that most people, however much they chest-thump, will never, ever, defend themselves competently with a gun. Oh, and best self-defense ever invented? It's called, "society."
3. Gun violence, like all violence, is DOWN. This doesn't help eother side's argument.
4. Are all gun deaths preventable? Absolutely not, even if you care to live in a surveillance state. But Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook were eminently preventable: one was carriedout by a guy who'd been menacingly nuts fir a decade and bought his guns openly because VA's gun nuts blocked access to the ATF records, and the other carried out by a nutjob whose mom (a gun nut) gave him taining and easy access.
5. Mass killers mostly like big handguns andassault weapons. Suicides love guns because they're easy.
6. A CDC study has often been cited. It studied what needs to be studied, because Federal law prohibits doing the studies.
7. Hunters and target shooters are not your enemy. Neither are "liberals."
8. Modest proposal: decent research; universal background checks, no loopholes; high school gun classes, along with driver's and sex ed.
And could people please stop the "Red Dawn'" fantasies? If it gets to that, we've all already lost America.
1. On the matter of guns, the Constitution is genuinely ambiguous. This is why we hve courts, and legislatures. So if you're unhappy, show the heck up to vote next time.
2. Are guns useful in self-defense? absolutely. It's just that most people, however much they chest-thump, will never, ever, defend themselves competently with a gun. Oh, and best self-defense ever invented? It's called, "society."
3. Gun violence, like all violence, is DOWN. This doesn't help eother side's argument.
4. Are all gun deaths preventable? Absolutely not, even if you care to live in a surveillance state. But Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook were eminently preventable: one was carriedout by a guy who'd been menacingly nuts fir a decade and bought his guns openly because VA's gun nuts blocked access to the ATF records, and the other carried out by a nutjob whose mom (a gun nut) gave him taining and easy access.
5. Mass killers mostly like big handguns andassault weapons. Suicides love guns because they're easy.
6. A CDC study has often been cited. It studied what needs to be studied, because Federal law prohibits doing the studies.
7. Hunters and target shooters are not your enemy. Neither are "liberals."
8. Modest proposal: decent research; universal background checks, no loopholes; high school gun classes, along with driver's and sex ed.
And could people please stop the "Red Dawn'" fantasies? If it gets to that, we've all already lost America.
5
"Hunters and target shooters are not your enemy."
Please speak for yourself. Anyone who hunts animals is assuredly my enemy.
Please speak for yourself. Anyone who hunts animals is assuredly my enemy.
2
Based on the last national poll, there is a higher chance of a gun owner being a high school dropout than a post graduate. It is no surprise that the same powers that are against reasonable gun control are also against meaningful public education reforms.
Do we want our children to live in a society that seeks power through higher learning or through guns and intimidation? Given this context, any responsible parent (irrespective of their education level) will have second thoughts about the second amendment. Driving this issue to the state ballots is an encouraging move.
Do we want our children to live in a society that seeks power through higher learning or through guns and intimidation? Given this context, any responsible parent (irrespective of their education level) will have second thoughts about the second amendment. Driving this issue to the state ballots is an encouraging move.
4
Democracy will be a sound form of governance when smart people outnumber stupid people.
In other words: never.
In other words: never.
2
There is a strong cognitive disconnect here between those who "love" their guns and those who demand sensible restriction of deadly weapons. The civilian airplane industry is a great example of how data drives safety. In the early days of the spread of civil aviation, after the 2nd World War, there were numerous airplane crashes and lives lost. These were studied carefully and the lessons learned were used to develop safer airplanes and procedures. Through the 1970's and '80's, safety had improved a lot but there were still many incidents that resulted in loss of life. These were all studied in great detail and led to further refining technology and flying procedures. This has led to flying becoming an incredibly safe mode of transport.
It speaks volumes that we are clever enough to become the exemplar and the lead developer of airplane technology and safety but are still too inept to deal with a known and obvious danger in the form of easy access to deadly weapons - such as guns. Our nation's juvenile cowboy fantasies about defending oneself against any threat by packing some heat makes us the laughing stock of the world and leads to tragedy nearly every single day in some citizens life. When will we learn?
It speaks volumes that we are clever enough to become the exemplar and the lead developer of airplane technology and safety but are still too inept to deal with a known and obvious danger in the form of easy access to deadly weapons - such as guns. Our nation's juvenile cowboy fantasies about defending oneself against any threat by packing some heat makes us the laughing stock of the world and leads to tragedy nearly every single day in some citizens life. When will we learn?
7
Don't like guns? Then do yourself a favor and don't buy one. More for me.
6
The gun control issue is only a small part of it. It's the mindset. If you have a problem? Reach of a gun. You like playing with guns, so a certain percentage go bang and kill someone accidentally each year. Proper care is not taken or children are underestimated and they get hold of a gun with disastrous results. Americans are FRIGHTENED. Frighten to send their kids tos chool, frightened to go on the subway, frightened to go for a walk, frightened to drive, frightened to be at home. Frightened, frightened, frightened. They feel this deep seated Right to be able to defend themselves but don't really know what. Mash all this up and you have a society like no other outside places like Afghanistan and Somalia. And the US is a First World country. Deal with that complex , silly, lethal mindset THEN you can worry about gun controls. Good luck with that.
3
It's really time to re-think this issue.
What we should be doing is holding all gun owners, from manufacturers to dealers to final customers STRICTLY LIABLE for ALL harm caused by their owned guns and ammo regardless of who uses them.
Plus, on a nationwide level we need to pass meaningful federal legislation which makes all guns and ammo traceable.
As with cars, guns should have Certificates of Title so we know who owns what gun at any given moment.
And the ammo? When I buy eggs each egg is imprinted with a code. We can't do that with bullets?
Assign Strict Vicarious Liability to all owners of guns and ammo, including manufacturers, for whatever harm emanates from guns titled to them regardless of who uses them - just like with cars - while at the same time requiring all gun owners to carry Liability Insurance with high deductibles to indemnify those harmed by their guns. The high deductibles are to discourage wanton, frivolous gun ownership. You would only be be liable if your gun was stolen and you negligently facilitated the theft.
Do this and people will safeguard their guns and transfer them legally. You're not fool enough to leave your car parked on the street with the windows open and the keys in it are you? Do the same with guns and ammo.
None of this conflicts with that pesky Second Amendment.
What we should be doing is holding all gun owners, from manufacturers to dealers to final customers STRICTLY LIABLE for ALL harm caused by their owned guns and ammo regardless of who uses them.
Plus, on a nationwide level we need to pass meaningful federal legislation which makes all guns and ammo traceable.
As with cars, guns should have Certificates of Title so we know who owns what gun at any given moment.
And the ammo? When I buy eggs each egg is imprinted with a code. We can't do that with bullets?
Assign Strict Vicarious Liability to all owners of guns and ammo, including manufacturers, for whatever harm emanates from guns titled to them regardless of who uses them - just like with cars - while at the same time requiring all gun owners to carry Liability Insurance with high deductibles to indemnify those harmed by their guns. The high deductibles are to discourage wanton, frivolous gun ownership. You would only be be liable if your gun was stolen and you negligently facilitated the theft.
Do this and people will safeguard their guns and transfer them legally. You're not fool enough to leave your car parked on the street with the windows open and the keys in it are you? Do the same with guns and ammo.
None of this conflicts with that pesky Second Amendment.
10
But everyone needs a gun to protect themselves from the wild animals in Walmarts. After all, you don't know who you are going to run into at one, you might bump their shopping cart, and a shootout will ensue.
27
retail environment shootings are not limited to schlock houses like walmart.
there are shootings in upscale retail as well.
on november 28th there was a shooting at nordstroms in chicago so pack heat when you go there too.
there are shootings in upscale retail as well.
on november 28th there was a shooting at nordstroms in chicago so pack heat when you go there too.
2
Earth to David: No, We The People need guns, (and any other arms we need to bear) to defend ourselves from the wild animals in government who think they should be telling us how to live our lives. That is all the 2nd Amendment is about. The busybodies masquerade as reasonable, thoughtful, and concerned - always concerned - civic minded citizens. I'll even give that many of them start out that way. Then, all too often they become nothing but wanna-be tyrants. They get drunk on their power trips and get good at selling serfdom in the name of safety. There is nothing safe about it. If you like your Serfdom, you can keep your Serfdom, and don't worry; they'll tell you what to think. As for me, I'll take the risk of Freedom rather than the tyranny of Serfdom.
2
I want to thank all the legislators in Colorado and beyond who have had the guts to stand up to the gun lobby and vote for background checks. . I am sick and tired of my rights , those of my children, and grandchildren to live in a world that is NOT defined by gun ownership ( old school concept) being run over by those who wish to arm up and be quick draw McGraw.
28
The 2nd Amendment may have made sense in the 18th century when it may have been necessary to have militias and to bear arms for survival. However we live in a different society now and it is odd that this antique law has not been updated to be relevant to today's society.
So many young people are killed on the streets of cities such as Chicago because of the ease of obtaining guns.
Gun manufacturers, through their influence on the NRA, have too much influence on elected government officials who will not enact even simple laws,such as requiring background checks at gun shows.
So many young people are killed on the streets of cities such as Chicago because of the ease of obtaining guns.
Gun manufacturers, through their influence on the NRA, have too much influence on elected government officials who will not enact even simple laws,such as requiring background checks at gun shows.
30
"So many young people are killed on the streets of cities such as Chicago because of the ease of obtaining guns."
If that's the reason, then why are *more* young people being killed in Chicago, where firearms are tightly regulated, than in the surrounding areas from which they're being brought in?
It's not the firearms that are motivating violence, but the density of disaffected, frequently poorly educated and impoverished people in toxic environments (in more ways than one -- literally rife with industrial poisons, frequently with more vendors of alcohol and junk food than fresh produce, and a poor social climate from many many factors).
If you look at the US, the violence isn't remotely uniform, and in fact many communities are far safer than, say, London -- including areas which are also quite tolerant of firearms possession.
If that's the reason, then why are *more* young people being killed in Chicago, where firearms are tightly regulated, than in the surrounding areas from which they're being brought in?
It's not the firearms that are motivating violence, but the density of disaffected, frequently poorly educated and impoverished people in toxic environments (in more ways than one -- literally rife with industrial poisons, frequently with more vendors of alcohol and junk food than fresh produce, and a poor social climate from many many factors).
If you look at the US, the violence isn't remotely uniform, and in fact many communities are far safer than, say, London -- including areas which are also quite tolerant of firearms possession.
15
All FFL's must do a background check not only in their store but at gun shows so anyone telling you different is lying to you. In States where face to face transactions are allowed the private sellers must follow the same guidelines. In other-words if I sell a gun to a prohibited person such as someone who lives out of state I'm going to jail and since I value my freedom like others I'm not going to sell a firearm to such a person. So the laws are already in place and there is no reason to pass other laws that won't be enforced like the laws already on the books are not enforced.
2
Somehow I doubt the "states' rights" crowd will be OK with this.
10
There are about 90 guns per 100 citizens in the US of A. The next nation on the list is Serbia with less than 60/100. India and China have about 4 per 100. England has about 6 and even Russia has about 9 and Australia has 15. The number of deaths due to firearms is about 10 per 100,000 in the USA and 3.9, 0.5, 0.25, 0.86 in Serbia, India, England, Russia and Australia respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
These numbers reflect the incidents we hear about and the reports that describe them and then the analyses, such as this article, that follow. So we have evidence, we have the common sense understanding and we have near daily occurrences of deadly incidents that could easily be fixed but for lack of political will and the machinations of one evil organization - the NRA.
There is no reason, other than some juvenile power trip, for an average citizen to desire to possess a deadly weapon - it is a sickness.
We've identified the weaknesses in our current crop of Congresspersons - that they do now and will continue to put their narrow self interest of political survival above the interests of their constituents. The gun issue is yet another weakness to add to this list - yet another reason to demand performance and results or send them packing in the next election. Yet another reason to think well about the issues and vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
These numbers reflect the incidents we hear about and the reports that describe them and then the analyses, such as this article, that follow. So we have evidence, we have the common sense understanding and we have near daily occurrences of deadly incidents that could easily be fixed but for lack of political will and the machinations of one evil organization - the NRA.
There is no reason, other than some juvenile power trip, for an average citizen to desire to possess a deadly weapon - it is a sickness.
We've identified the weaknesses in our current crop of Congresspersons - that they do now and will continue to put their narrow self interest of political survival above the interests of their constituents. The gun issue is yet another weakness to add to this list - yet another reason to demand performance and results or send them packing in the next election. Yet another reason to think well about the issues and vote.
48
Your number is off for the U.S. The number is 4.5/100,000 not 10/100,000.
This is merely your opinion. --> "There is no reason, other than some juvenile power trip, for an average citizen to desire to possess a deadly weapon - it is a sickness."
I possess several deadly weapons and each has its own purpose.
This is merely your opinion. --> "There is no reason, other than some juvenile power trip, for an average citizen to desire to possess a deadly weapon - it is a sickness."
I possess several deadly weapons and each has its own purpose.
10
"Your number is off for the U.S. The number is 4.5/100,000 not 10/100,000."
I've provided a citation which also has detailed citations within it. You have not.
I've provided a citation which also has detailed citations within it. You have not.
20
Normal People are not having firearms might day ut calmly mostly criminals
Have those arms not for defending. But for
Force thé honest Citizens rob them and steal
Have those arms not for defending. But for
Force thé honest Citizens rob them and steal
I am a huge advocate of gun control. I hope this year we can make more advances against the outrageous public access to weapons of murder.
25
Good luck with that. We will be fighting you all the way.
14
@John Cope - Amen to that!
13
When was the last time a gun killed someone without a human with their finger on the trigger. Its not the gun its the people. People these days seem to think killing is ok.
3
No one is listening.
The word "Gun" simply sets off everyone's preconceived ideas about this endless debate. Millions of gun owners are lumped together as the enemy, millions of anit-gun enthusiasts are seen as the other enemy. The courts of the united states are deliberately adversarial. But that is where adversity belongs. Cant we as a nation take a step back, consider carefully the subtleties of what we are trying to decide for one another and see if there isnt room for at least some compromise? I sincerely believe there are significant compromises that 90% of the public would agree to. But everyone is shouting. And no one is listening.
The word "Gun" simply sets off everyone's preconceived ideas about this endless debate. Millions of gun owners are lumped together as the enemy, millions of anit-gun enthusiasts are seen as the other enemy. The courts of the united states are deliberately adversarial. But that is where adversity belongs. Cant we as a nation take a step back, consider carefully the subtleties of what we are trying to decide for one another and see if there isnt room for at least some compromise? I sincerely believe there are significant compromises that 90% of the public would agree to. But everyone is shouting. And no one is listening.
25
Guns are a mental illness in the US.
4
Proposals to stop the gun show loopholes and require universal background checks are hardly extreme but were dotted down by the NRA in spite of near universal support. As usual those on the right are not interested in compromise, it is their way or the highway.
6
"Millions of gun owners are lumped together as the enemy"
Certainly to families of any of the thousands and thousands killed each year with these despicable weapons, gun owners most certainly ARE the enemy.
Certainly to families of any of the thousands and thousands killed each year with these despicable weapons, gun owners most certainly ARE the enemy.
3
Limiting a person in Virginia to buying one gun a month? It's amazing how quickly we've forgotten the faces of those 20 first-graders and six educators in Newtown and how easy it is not to see the forest for the trees.
25
Anyone who thinks that a nation of 320 million with more guns circulating than people is not a sign of spiritual illness, particularly paranoia and a lack of trust in one's fellow countrymen and neighbors, just contributes to the malignancy that infects our national spirit. This illness infects all sectors of our culture with the sick populating wide swaths of the citizenry and its government, and many if not most ethnic groups. The states would do well to curb this illness by helping to disarm our populace, both civilian and government. We should become the examples and leaders in a global pacifist movement. We’ll all be the healthier and wealthier for it.
27
It's a sign of Freedom! And the veracity to maintain that Freedom!
1
This old man has been packing a pistol for 50 yrs. Bottom line is, I would rather have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it. Don't mess with my rights !! Our government does not enforce our laws and they do not need more laws to not enforce.
18
Your rights do not extend to making your surroundings a more dangerous place for others. Owning a weapon and extending this "right" to everyone makes the nation a dangerous place and highly unsafe. It's time to stop thinking selfishly and work for a greater good.
26
The people who legally carry guns aren't your problem. I will continue to selfishly put my family and myself above EVERYONE else. Just remember the police are never there when you need them. You rely on them to help you and you could end up raped or dead...or both.
Look up Warren v. District of Columbia.
Look up Warren v. District of Columbia.
10
Wrong.... easy access to guns is the problem. Easy legal access for you means easy legal access for someone who will use a gun for crime. It's not that difficult to understand, but it is this lack of thinking that is costing us innocent lives.
15
Good luck in Arizona we love our guns here and don't like gun grabbing liberals telling us what to do. The only reason Barber's lost wasn't greater is because Pima County is a democratic stronghold.
9
I laughed just as hard as the rest of you when Cheney shot his friend in the face, but that doesn't mean I want this happening on a daily basis with innocent people as the all-too-frequent victims.
12
that bane of beginning students.
"A whole chapter dwells on the ablative absolute, that bane of beginning students. Novices first learn to translate his factis as ‘these things having been done’, and later to distinguish among its possible meanings: ‘after’ or ‘because’ or even ‘if’ these things have been done, such and such an action may follow. Medieval theorists struggled to reconcile the ‘absolute’, or free and ungoverned, character of this distinctive construction with the regimen, or logical hierarchy, that ought to govern all syntax. The distinction matters. To take a famous example, the Latinate framers of the US constitution employed an ablative absolute in the Second Amendment: ‘A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.’ An interpreter who favoured regimen would argue that the ablative clause determines the sense of the main clause; hence, the state has the right to maintain an army. Those who favour the absolute, as American courts have done, bracket the militia clause and take the main clause to mean that citizens may own as many firearms as they choose. The difference between constructions amounts to roughly 12,000 murders (and 24,000 gun deaths, ed.,) a year.
from the LRB
"A whole chapter dwells on the ablative absolute, that bane of beginning students. Novices first learn to translate his factis as ‘these things having been done’, and later to distinguish among its possible meanings: ‘after’ or ‘because’ or even ‘if’ these things have been done, such and such an action may follow. Medieval theorists struggled to reconcile the ‘absolute’, or free and ungoverned, character of this distinctive construction with the regimen, or logical hierarchy, that ought to govern all syntax. The distinction matters. To take a famous example, the Latinate framers of the US constitution employed an ablative absolute in the Second Amendment: ‘A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.’ An interpreter who favoured regimen would argue that the ablative clause determines the sense of the main clause; hence, the state has the right to maintain an army. Those who favour the absolute, as American courts have done, bracket the militia clause and take the main clause to mean that citizens may own as many firearms as they choose. The difference between constructions amounts to roughly 12,000 murders (and 24,000 gun deaths, ed.,) a year.
from the LRB
13
Rubbish. Read the Constitution of PA, the State I live in. There is an individual right to bear arms UNRELATED to any militia service. This right is not overridden by your favorite tweaking and "interpretations" of the federal Bill of Rights. There is nothing to interpret.
11
The Supreme Court disputes your "interpretation".
10
Your constitution needs to be changed before a class room full of kindergartners or middle schoolers are murdered by some lunatic who is obsessed with some kind of paranoid fear or violent video games, or serial killers. Then your state constitution will be stained by the blood of innocent children.
7
It is true that voter initiatives may be the anti self defense groups newest tactic. However, I would not expect groups like the NRA and GOAL to sit idly by.
What is more is that every state that successfully passes one of these is acknowledging that its legislators fear the voters of self defense issues. If they did not fear the voters, they would pass them on their own and get the credit for enacting them.
When you look at what happened in Colorado you can see why the fear. Hickenlooper won reelection, but they lost their US senator, the state House representatives flipped Republican, and they nearly lost the state Senate. Not all of this were 2A issues, but that did play a major role.
What is more is that every state that successfully passes one of these is acknowledging that its legislators fear the voters of self defense issues. If they did not fear the voters, they would pass them on their own and get the credit for enacting them.
When you look at what happened in Colorado you can see why the fear. Hickenlooper won reelection, but they lost their US senator, the state House representatives flipped Republican, and they nearly lost the state Senate. Not all of this were 2A issues, but that did play a major role.
7
Excuse me? To suggest that allowing people - including those with serious mental illnesses - to own assault rifles in any way bolsters self defense is absurd. It's also offensive to the memory of those who lost their lives at the hands of a gun used incorrectly or in the wrong hands.
16
When you look at what happened in Colorado you can see why the fear. Hickenlooper won reelection, but they lost their US senator, the state House representatives flipped Republican, and they nearly lost the state Senate. Not all of this were 2A issues, but that did play a major role.
============
You assume gun control is popular when it isn't
============
You assume gun control is popular when it isn't
7
That was her point Campesino... reread....
It is not worth one child's life, a young black man, a hard-working police officer or anyone's else's life to HAVE to own a gun . . . . No one can say their ownership of a gun is more important than that . . . I dare you.
17
John, the point is no one should carry. . . . Look at Japan. Look at the UK re guns.
5
My Constitutional rights will not be reduced because of the acts of criminals. It is as important as free speech, women's right to vote, and protections against discrimination.
7
The ordinary gun owner makes his/her environment just that little bit more deadly... just look at the latest incident at the Walmart.
11
I read a great article in the NYT's a while back that said if auto, life, home insurance had gun safety included it would be prohibitively expensive to keep a handgun. Just like smoking increases life insurance and previous DUI's cause auto rates to go up. Having a handgun would meet these criteria and it would be virtually impossible to afford the insurance with the risks involved.
This would be a way to easily circumvent the gun industry which has moved from sales for gun collecting and hunting, into sales using scare tactics about home protection and hazy ideas about colonial militias. Look, we have a right to be safe in public places. Movies theaters, public schools, are all random targets for mentally ill people with handguns.
This would be a way to easily circumvent the gun industry which has moved from sales for gun collecting and hunting, into sales using scare tactics about home protection and hazy ideas about colonial militias. Look, we have a right to be safe in public places. Movies theaters, public schools, are all random targets for mentally ill people with handguns.
29
Do you have any evidence that the "mentally ill" are disproportionately responsible for gun crime?
2
"Look, we have a right to be safe in public places. Movies theaters, public schools, are all random targets for mentally ill people with handguns."
Rights don't enforce themselves. See people who take out restraining orders and are still stalked and attacked, for instance -- or, for that matter, people who are effectively refused justice because they don't have money and public defenders are severely underfunded and overworked.
If a venue refuses to provide sufficient security -- including accepting liability for incidents on the premises -- it should permit responsible adults to take reasonable measures to protect themselves, rather than deny them that *and* refuse to fill in the gap. Courthouses, airports, et cetera tend to provide that level but theaters practically never do.
Rights don't enforce themselves. See people who take out restraining orders and are still stalked and attacked, for instance -- or, for that matter, people who are effectively refused justice because they don't have money and public defenders are severely underfunded and overworked.
If a venue refuses to provide sufficient security -- including accepting liability for incidents on the premises -- it should permit responsible adults to take reasonable measures to protect themselves, rather than deny them that *and* refuse to fill in the gap. Courthouses, airports, et cetera tend to provide that level but theaters practically never do.
2
Do you have any evidence that the "mentally ill" are disproportionately responsible for gun crime?
======================
Hal fo all gun deaths are suicides. I would say suicide is a mental health problem, wouldn't you?
======================
Hal fo all gun deaths are suicides. I would say suicide is a mental health problem, wouldn't you?
4
Politics is full of hypocrites. On one hand, states are working hard to ban cigarettes, yet with the other making pot legal because voters support it as a "freedom" that they want.
21st Amendment brought back the ability to buy alcohol, even though it kills far more people and children and even worse is the main factor cited by case workers in hundreds of thousands of child abuse cases every year.
But we love our wine and that freedom. Same with texting and driving, even though a simple tech answer is available that if phone is moving faster then 5mph it disables the text function. We don't force Apple or Samsung to publish that code to save lives because again, we love the freedom even though that also kills more then most types of guns being discussed being banned.
Why not a simple system that says if you are a law abiding citizen you can enjoy your freedoms. But the first time you commit a crime greater then speeding you get an ATF stamp on your license and can't buy Alcohol, bullets, cigarettes, porn magazines, or drive in the left hand land for 10 years. Be simple and cheap to implement with everyone already checking ID and judges could understand it.
21st Amendment brought back the ability to buy alcohol, even though it kills far more people and children and even worse is the main factor cited by case workers in hundreds of thousands of child abuse cases every year.
But we love our wine and that freedom. Same with texting and driving, even though a simple tech answer is available that if phone is moving faster then 5mph it disables the text function. We don't force Apple or Samsung to publish that code to save lives because again, we love the freedom even though that also kills more then most types of guns being discussed being banned.
Why not a simple system that says if you are a law abiding citizen you can enjoy your freedoms. But the first time you commit a crime greater then speeding you get an ATF stamp on your license and can't buy Alcohol, bullets, cigarettes, porn magazines, or drive in the left hand land for 10 years. Be simple and cheap to implement with everyone already checking ID and judges could understand it.
4
As an American like the rest of you on here, I'm fully aware of the 2nd amendment and how seriously many people in this country take it. Guns are part of our culture. With that said, I must agree with most of you on here, it's true that people kill people, but guns allow you to kill far more quickly and efficiently, which puts them in a class all to their own, and why there must be laws in place to try and keep guns out the hands of the mentally unstable and petty criminals.
10
What good would background checks do. You have to have one to get a hazmat endorsement on your CDL and I have seen some crazies driving trucks hauling dangers loads. I don't think that they should have been driving anything yet they were out on the road.
1
It is well established that background checks do prevent felons and others who are on the registry from buying guns, but the loopholes around gun shows and private transfers are enough to undo all the restrictions. You might as well say that policing does not work because crime still exists.
5
We should focus on registering disturbed teenagers and limiting their access to guns.
Rarely do responsible adults misuse guns, but they are frequently used in self-defense.
Hypocrites and fools believe that only the police should have guns. This is a fantasy since criminals have vast arsenals and always will.
Bloomberg has armed bodyguards, do you?
Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit; you try getting one in Santa Cruz county where she was issued hers.
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
Rarely do responsible adults misuse guns, but they are frequently used in self-defense.
Hypocrites and fools believe that only the police should have guns. This is a fantasy since criminals have vast arsenals and always will.
Bloomberg has armed bodyguards, do you?
Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit; you try getting one in Santa Cruz county where she was issued hers.
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
13
How do you define "disturbed"? Is that a medical diagnosis? Is it made by state or private professionals? Who is considered a professional? Is it just psychiatrists and doctors, or would you also include social workers and registered nurses, maybe mental health counselors and teachers? Should there be substantive due process for the people accused of being "disturbed"? Should their family members lose their rights as well?
The revocation of the 2nd amendment for a person, who has not committed a crime, requires the loss of various other protections. The 1st amendment: the person must have said or done something that, while not criminal, is offensive to someone else, thus their freedom of expression is gone. 2nd: obviously the person's right to provide and protect themselves is gone, but their family members lose their rights too. 4th amendment: they and their family are subject to searches of their homes and private medical records. 5th: If their guns are taken, or if they are involuntarily evaluated, they don't have the right to remain silent. 6th: they and their family members often do not receive due process prior to deprivation of rights, and they can't confront their accuser in open court to contend the allegations. 8th: Subject to confiscation of property and involuntary commitment or evaluation, they aren't free from cruel and unusual punishment, which the UN defines as torture. And 14th: They, as a "disturbed" person are not equal before the law.
The revocation of the 2nd amendment for a person, who has not committed a crime, requires the loss of various other protections. The 1st amendment: the person must have said or done something that, while not criminal, is offensive to someone else, thus their freedom of expression is gone. 2nd: obviously the person's right to provide and protect themselves is gone, but their family members lose their rights too. 4th amendment: they and their family are subject to searches of their homes and private medical records. 5th: If their guns are taken, or if they are involuntarily evaluated, they don't have the right to remain silent. 6th: they and their family members often do not receive due process prior to deprivation of rights, and they can't confront their accuser in open court to contend the allegations. 8th: Subject to confiscation of property and involuntary commitment or evaluation, they aren't free from cruel and unusual punishment, which the UN defines as torture. And 14th: They, as a "disturbed" person are not equal before the law.
5
Disturbed is a euphemism I wrote, the correct word is "nut". Does this help you? The teenager in Connecticut who shot up that school was nuts for example.
8
When we speak about mental illness and violence, we need. To. Slow. Down. And. Consider. Every. Word. The allocation of separate and, admittedly, unequal rights is a recurrent cancer in our country. And the public dialogue that supports those legislative acts is nothing short of hate speech.
The Secret Service and FBI, among countless qualified professionals, have empirically proven that mental illness is not disproportionately responsible for crime. Most accept that about 4% of violent crime can be attributed to mental illness, yet “revoke their rights!” has become the rallying cry in legislation and the echo chambers of the internet. Politicians, having polled and listened to their constituents, enact legislation that uses terms like “grants access to treatment” to describe what the UN defines as torture.
To be involuntarily detained by deadly force and subjugated to forced medication under the SAFE Act in New York, one need not have committed a crime, threatened anyone, have a past history of violence, be using drugs or alcohol, or have a mental illness. The searches of private medical information and seizures of fire arms that often follow impact entire families, not just the “patient”, and don’t require due process. In a non-secular country that was built upon the separation of church and state, coercive psychiatry is the new religion, and a pseudo-science at best.
The Secret Service and FBI, among countless qualified professionals, have empirically proven that mental illness is not disproportionately responsible for crime. Most accept that about 4% of violent crime can be attributed to mental illness, yet “revoke their rights!” has become the rallying cry in legislation and the echo chambers of the internet. Politicians, having polled and listened to their constituents, enact legislation that uses terms like “grants access to treatment” to describe what the UN defines as torture.
To be involuntarily detained by deadly force and subjugated to forced medication under the SAFE Act in New York, one need not have committed a crime, threatened anyone, have a past history of violence, be using drugs or alcohol, or have a mental illness. The searches of private medical information and seizures of fire arms that often follow impact entire families, not just the “patient”, and don’t require due process. In a non-secular country that was built upon the separation of church and state, coercive psychiatry is the new religion, and a pseudo-science at best.
3
In a non-secular country that was built upon the separation of church and state, coercive psychiatry is the new religion, and a pseudo-science at best. That we allow such treatment of such vulnerable people is a testament to our refutation of science. But that we publically praise and promote the violent allocation of separate and, admittedly, unequal rights is tragic.
If mental illness, affecting 25% of the adult population annually, is responsible for 4% of violent crime, why would we support laws that target innocent people upon the basis of a protected characteristic? We need a process of truth and reconciliation. To begin such a process we have to stop the hate speech for long enough to acknowledge that we have a problem, and that the War On Mental Health isn’t working.
If mental illness, affecting 25% of the adult population annually, is responsible for 4% of violent crime, why would we support laws that target innocent people upon the basis of a protected characteristic? We need a process of truth and reconciliation. To begin such a process we have to stop the hate speech for long enough to acknowledge that we have a problem, and that the War On Mental Health isn’t working.
1
By all means, don't blame the people who actually commit the crimes. Blame the instrument.
We used to have a terrible problem with drug abuse in this country. All it took was the passage of a few simple laws and now we no longer have criminal drug addicts and murderous drug cartels, or a feral government that exploits a war on drugs to take the property of innocent people.
It will be the same with guns. It's not like anybody with a CNC milling machine, available on eBay for a few thousand bucks, could manufacture and sell guns. When we outlawed drugs, people didn't start making their own drugs.
When will we learn?
We used to have a terrible problem with drug abuse in this country. All it took was the passage of a few simple laws and now we no longer have criminal drug addicts and murderous drug cartels, or a feral government that exploits a war on drugs to take the property of innocent people.
It will be the same with guns. It's not like anybody with a CNC milling machine, available on eBay for a few thousand bucks, could manufacture and sell guns. When we outlawed drugs, people didn't start making their own drugs.
When will we learn?
8
"By all means, don't blame the people who actually commit the crimes. Blame the instrument."
You're right. The baby was to blame for killing her mother in Walmart.
Our idiotic and disgraceful lack of gun regulations—unique in the developed world—had nothing to do with it.
You're right. The baby was to blame for killing her mother in Walmart.
Our idiotic and disgraceful lack of gun regulations—unique in the developed world—had nothing to do with it.
10
The mother was grossly negligent in failing to retain custody of her weapon, much like a police officer should be terminated if he leaves his service weapon up for grabs in a public restroom -- which has happened multiple times. The safest location for that weapon was on her person, not in a purse she wasn't paying attention to -- *the* item which would be most tempting to an impulsive thief.
5
High cost insurance for gun owners with prequalifcation including blood tests for illegal drugs, alcohol and a psychological profile. No insurance no gun. Like driving a car..........
11
I grew up in Washington, Idaho, Montana and New Jersey. I am always so surprised how anti-gun people on the East Coast are. The problems with guns on the East Coast … in particular a place like New York City … is they have ridiculous gun laws (that are at the end of the day both non-American and illegal. I know no one in NYC wants to hear this but if more people carried guns there would be a significant drop in gun crimes. Quite frankly it is a disgrace to our Founding Fathers that New York City has ignored the Second Amendment … and gotten away with it. I know the Liberals love this fact, but if New York City ever had a West Coast person as Mayor who reversed this, you would see gun crime go down significantly. I guarantee it.
13
lol, there was a time when more guns were on the streets of ny...ever see the movie "the gangs of ny?" check it out... legal gun owners all of them
2
Improvements in economic conditions in the inner city and an end to the war on (some) drugs would do more to reduce gun crime than any gun prohibition scheme, however well-intentioned.
4
The murder rate and overall crime rate plummeted during the Great Depression. Not having a job or money does not cause normal people to shoot somebody.
7
The evidence does not bear that out. Countries with stricter gun laws have significantly less gun violence and homicide rates.
3
Nothing will happen because guns equal MONEY. The money spent on guns buys more of the people we "elect". It buys the propaganda to scare the citizens that the big bad wolf is going blow your house down and take your guns. Sure a bunch of little kids get killed, but they don't have a powerful lobby, so they are the price we pay to keep the money flowing from scared citizens to gun and ammo manufacturers, to the NRA, and to some guy us Americans elect so we can keep buying buying and selling guns. It's unamerican to even question this sacred cycle.
11
Those victories out west are due to the influx of California people.
10
Last time I read the amendment, it still read; " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "A well regulated Militia", still precedes, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. That Nancy Lanza, also a victim in MA. with dozens of guns and hundreds or rounds of ammo was fuel for her son's rampage does not read as "well regulated" on any level. Perhaps it is regional, people who grow up near urban areas don't feel as compelled, on average to amass and own guns. Perhaps living in a more rural area makes it more appealing thought, I am not a social scientist and can't connect on an emotional or visceral level with how shooting a target or killing animal constitutes "sport" however, to each their own. I find it the argument of the "slippery slope" a self-service position and one not that over time has not impeded to any great degree the ability of someone lawfully to own and maintain a gun, the sky is not falling and the Government is not out to get you of course unless you are paranoid.
9
The Supreme Court would disagree with you.
4
While any of us may well have an opinion about how to read, the only opinion that counts is that of the courts and, ultimately, that of the Supreme Court.
Having said that, I will recommend you read the two decisions, Heller (2008) and Macdonald (2009) that find on the issues relevevant to your mistaken beliefs.
Having said that, I will recommend you read the two decisions, Heller (2008) and Macdonald (2009) that find on the issues relevevant to your mistaken beliefs.
3
The Supreme Court also ruled that people could own other people. That doesn't make it right, or moral.
7
The Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions upheld the right of gun ownership in the HOME.
The Court did allow for restrictions outside of the home.
"right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose., nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Arguing about what the 2nd amendment means is useless.
The Court has decided and overturning these two decisions is unfortunately not possible.
The Court was not specific about what restrictions were allowed for guns in PUBLIC and what sorts of requirements could be required for carry permits.
Most gun deaths occur with hand guns.
We need to reduce the number of PUBLIC hand guns.
I would suggest gun safety advocates work on legislation that has stricter requirements for hand guns in public and make this legislation uniform in all states.
The key problem is PUBLIC hand guns.
The Court did allow for restrictions outside of the home.
"right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose., nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Arguing about what the 2nd amendment means is useless.
The Court has decided and overturning these two decisions is unfortunately not possible.
The Court was not specific about what restrictions were allowed for guns in PUBLIC and what sorts of requirements could be required for carry permits.
Most gun deaths occur with hand guns.
We need to reduce the number of PUBLIC hand guns.
I would suggest gun safety advocates work on legislation that has stricter requirements for hand guns in public and make this legislation uniform in all states.
The key problem is PUBLIC hand guns.
7
Concealed carry now exceeds 11 million and probably much higher. Permissive CCP laws started in the 1990s and if you look, the murder rate has been declining ever since. It is a spurious correlation? Maybe. Maybe not.
11
The following is from the September 25, 2008 Economist
FINLAND'S government is introducing tougher regulations on handguns following a mass shooting at a school on Tuesday September 23rd, the second in under a year. The country had been among the most lenient in the world, allowing 15-year-olds to keep a handgun under parental supervision, requiring no medical or psychological tests and no minimum wait for those buying weapons. The gun-death rate (whether murder, accident or suicide) in rich countries is highest where there are more guns: America, Switzerland and Finland are in the top four countries for gun ownership per person. The death rate in Britain, which banned handguns following a school shooting in 1996, is 0.1 for every 100,000 people
Death rate from guns per 100,000
Finland 4.6 Switzerland 6.2
New Zealand 2.3 South Africa 32.
United States 10.6 Austria 2.5
Australia 1.7 Israel 3.1
Canada 2.5 Brazil 18.
France 3.0 Germany 1.2
Belgium 3.7 England .1
Sweden 1.6
FINLAND'S government is introducing tougher regulations on handguns following a mass shooting at a school on Tuesday September 23rd, the second in under a year. The country had been among the most lenient in the world, allowing 15-year-olds to keep a handgun under parental supervision, requiring no medical or psychological tests and no minimum wait for those buying weapons. The gun-death rate (whether murder, accident or suicide) in rich countries is highest where there are more guns: America, Switzerland and Finland are in the top four countries for gun ownership per person. The death rate in Britain, which banned handguns following a school shooting in 1996, is 0.1 for every 100,000 people
Death rate from guns per 100,000
Finland 4.6 Switzerland 6.2
New Zealand 2.3 South Africa 32.
United States 10.6 Austria 2.5
Australia 1.7 Israel 3.1
Canada 2.5 Brazil 18.
France 3.0 Germany 1.2
Belgium 3.7 England .1
Sweden 1.6
7
The problem is hand guns carried in public by those who aren't supposed to own guns. Few permitted gun owners are ever involved in a crime.
I guess what's lost to me amid all the "I have a constitutional right to a gun" chest pounding, is WHY anyone feels the need to have a gun in the first place. What exactly does "to protect myself and my family" mean? You never hear in the papers a family being threatened with attack and the patriarch pulling out his gun and shooting the attacker to successfully protect them from harm. I mean, seriously, where are all those stories about people using their guns for successful protection? Apparently Gabrielle Gifford was pro-gun. How exactly did that help her on the day she was shot? And the mother of the Sandy Hook guy, who had a huge arsenal in her house, how'd that work out??
18
You probably should read more. There are stories of people protecting themselves/their family in the news every week.
6
There are thousands upon thousands of stories about Defensive Gun Usages.
Most don't get past local news, because successful DGUs are not part of the narrative they're pushing in national news. The only stories that get pushed to the national level are questionable instances where the spin of race can be applied. Those, and the ones posted on the Drudge Report.
Most don't get past local news, because successful DGUs are not part of the narrative they're pushing in national news. The only stories that get pushed to the national level are questionable instances where the spin of race can be applied. Those, and the ones posted on the Drudge Report.
6
The necessity of an armed people is demonstrated by a government that seems to have forgotten that We The People, and not the government, are the source of all sovereignty. The battle of Bundy Ranch seems to have been a lesson that many have forgotten if they even caught the lesson in the first place.
2
Gun control only affects the lawful good citizens.
Gun Control does NOT take guns from criminals such as dangerous drug dealers.
Take guns from citizens, criminals will own them. When criminals ambush cops, they circle the wagons and leave YOU vulnerable.
Gun Control does NOT take guns from criminals such as dangerous drug dealers.
Take guns from citizens, criminals will own them. When criminals ambush cops, they circle the wagons and leave YOU vulnerable.
3
Public shooting rampages have spiked in particular over the last few years.
Many of the attackers were heavily armed.
None of the shootings was stopped by an ordinary citizen using a gun.
Many of the attackers were heavily armed.
None of the shootings was stopped by an ordinary citizen using a gun.
19
They all occurred in "gun free zones" thereby making it impossible for law abiding folks to be armed....even you must see the irony here?
1
Actually, many are.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-w...
http://bearingarms.com/yes-concealed-carriers-have-stopped-mass-shootings/
Almost all mass shootings occur where it is illegal to carry a gun, by design. The shooters don't want armed citizens shooting back at them.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-w...
http://bearingarms.com/yes-concealed-carriers-have-stopped-mass-shootings/
Almost all mass shootings occur where it is illegal to carry a gun, by design. The shooters don't want armed citizens shooting back at them.
6
That's false.
Perhaps the best-known of this particular defense was by an assistant principal in 1997, in Pearl, MS.
A more recent carry-permittee success that stopped a mass shooting is the New Life Church shooting in CO.
Simple Googles for an article in Slate or at the site gunsnfreedom.com will provide several more.
Perhaps the best-known of this particular defense was by an assistant principal in 1997, in Pearl, MS.
A more recent carry-permittee success that stopped a mass shooting is the New Life Church shooting in CO.
Simple Googles for an article in Slate or at the site gunsnfreedom.com will provide several more.
8
I don't understand why so many Americans who don't need guns think they do. Seriously. People wind up getting shot in the USA for no reason simply because there are so many guns around, so many chances for something to go wrong.
I think the place to start on this is to tone down the political rhetoric-- not about guns specifically, but about everything -- and reign in fear-monger media personalities who scare their listeners to death about people they do not even know, probably will never meet, and are actually very nice people (young black men).
The epidemic of guns in the USA is a symptom of the deliberate murder by political actors of American societal cohesion. The logical conclusion of divide-and-conquer politics is a heavily armed populace scared to death of each other and imaginary bogeymen.
"They're going to take your job. They're going to take your hard-earned money. They're going to tax your hard-earned money and give it to THEM. They're going to break into your house, steal your TV, rape you."
Guns fill the void when solidarity has been killed. Solidarity has been killed in the USA.
I think the place to start on this is to tone down the political rhetoric-- not about guns specifically, but about everything -- and reign in fear-monger media personalities who scare their listeners to death about people they do not even know, probably will never meet, and are actually very nice people (young black men).
The epidemic of guns in the USA is a symptom of the deliberate murder by political actors of American societal cohesion. The logical conclusion of divide-and-conquer politics is a heavily armed populace scared to death of each other and imaginary bogeymen.
"They're going to take your job. They're going to take your hard-earned money. They're going to tax your hard-earned money and give it to THEM. They're going to break into your house, steal your TV, rape you."
Guns fill the void when solidarity has been killed. Solidarity has been killed in the USA.
46
Just the opposite in Illinois, apparently.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/04/gun-control-advocates-who-say...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/04/gun-control-advocates-who-say...
2
Doesn't anyone see the issue here about using the Second Amendment to provide a right to handguns? If I am in the militia I don't want some popgun.
Why can't I have a missile launcher, a tank, or an anti-tank weapon if I can have a .45 for the purposes of having a civilian militia? Seems to me that there is no need for anyone to have more than one handgun, and then only for a hunter to dispatch a wounded animal. Even that is shaky justification, as a rifle or shotgun would likely do as well. If you want a pistol for target shooting, require that it be kept at the range.
Why can't I have a missile launcher, a tank, or an anti-tank weapon if I can have a .45 for the purposes of having a civilian militia? Seems to me that there is no need for anyone to have more than one handgun, and then only for a hunter to dispatch a wounded animal. Even that is shaky justification, as a rifle or shotgun would likely do as well. If you want a pistol for target shooting, require that it be kept at the range.
2
You can, actually.
You can go buy a tank. Or an MRAP.
There are tens of thousands of fully-automatic machine guns privately owned by citizens. All you need is a background check, a $200 tax stamp, and access to someone willing to sell. They are not cheap. For people with money to burn and good moral character, the ATF is happy to let you own special things.
The 2nd says "arms" look up the definition of arms. Read the Federalist Papers about the militia.
You can go buy a tank. Or an MRAP.
There are tens of thousands of fully-automatic machine guns privately owned by citizens. All you need is a background check, a $200 tax stamp, and access to someone willing to sell. They are not cheap. For people with money to burn and good moral character, the ATF is happy to let you own special things.
The 2nd says "arms" look up the definition of arms. Read the Federalist Papers about the militia.
4
Glad to read the gun control movement is feeling emboldened. Common sense says there must be stricter oversight on who buys guns. Good, smart public relations can be effective here. And a good start is reminding Americans (who unfortunately have short memories) about the many gun tragedies we have experienced in just the last year.
10
You know with over 100 million gun owners one would think that the death rate would be 1,000 per 10,000 but its not. Seems to be a serious disconnect here.
When is a judge demonized as "activist?" Well, it depends....
The foes of common sense gun measures are going to the courts to short-circuit the will of the citizens who voted, freely and fairly to keep firearms out of the hands of domestic abusers, felons. the mentally unstable and children.
Can it be that these "conservatives" are seeking the protection of "activist" judges they believe are willing to overturn the will of the people as expressed directly or indirectly at the ballot box?
Who would ever have guessed?
www.endthemadnessnow.org
The foes of common sense gun measures are going to the courts to short-circuit the will of the citizens who voted, freely and fairly to keep firearms out of the hands of domestic abusers, felons. the mentally unstable and children.
Can it be that these "conservatives" are seeking the protection of "activist" judges they believe are willing to overturn the will of the people as expressed directly or indirectly at the ballot box?
Who would ever have guessed?
www.endthemadnessnow.org
6
Please tell me what is "common sense" about creating additional laws which will be, by definition only be followed by the law-abiding, so that criminals won't misuse firearms? "Activist" judges depends on ones perspective, I don't regard upholding the constitution as activism.
11
There isn't some "for crimes only" gun manufacturer....every gun used in a crime passed through a supposedly law abiding owner / dealer's hands. I'd love to hear one idea from the gun supporters how they are going to show some personal responsibility as a whole and exercise some self control.
7
"I'd love to hear one idea from the gun supporters how they are going to show some personal responsibility as a whole and exercise some self control."
The simple fact that 300 million guns don't sprout legs and sally forth to commit mass shootings on a daily basis tells you all you need to know about gun owners' "personal responsibility" and "self control", "as a whole".
The simple fact that 300 million guns don't sprout legs and sally forth to commit mass shootings on a daily basis tells you all you need to know about gun owners' "personal responsibility" and "self control", "as a whole".
6
There are over 100 million gun owners so I think we are exercising a great deal of control.
2
How about an automatic death penalty for using a gun in a murder? I favor guns, but I would love that law. Of course, the same liberals who don't want me to be able to protect myself from murderers also want the murderers to escape the death penalty. What a coincidence!
The second amendment is actually intended to protect the States that make up the United States of America: The states are the metaphorical equivalent of the 'colonies' that had to fight the 'central' authority aka the British rulers by organizing 'militias'. The bill of rights is about what the Congress and the government CANNOT do as opposed to what rights are given to citizens by the government.
Think about it this way: the Federal government controls the US military and the president is also the CIC of the national guards. In case there is an assault on the 'sovereignty' of the states, then the states should be able to create their own militias out of armed and trained citizens. Hence the prohibition against any restriction on gun ownership.
However, the rights enshrined in the constitution are not absolute. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater because you have first amendment right. Similarly, there is no reason why background checks cannot be conducted to ensure that felons, and people with mental illness are not given access to licensed weapons.
The problem is that felons are known entities but those with mental issues may be under the radar. Often, gun violence is committed by those with no prior criminal or mental health issues. (Insanity is more a defense strategy than a medical fact).
Gun control is not a panacea. Look at what happened in Sydney recently. There was senseless gun violence in a city that is part of a country with strict gun control laws.
Think about it this way: the Federal government controls the US military and the president is also the CIC of the national guards. In case there is an assault on the 'sovereignty' of the states, then the states should be able to create their own militias out of armed and trained citizens. Hence the prohibition against any restriction on gun ownership.
However, the rights enshrined in the constitution are not absolute. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater because you have first amendment right. Similarly, there is no reason why background checks cannot be conducted to ensure that felons, and people with mental illness are not given access to licensed weapons.
The problem is that felons are known entities but those with mental issues may be under the radar. Often, gun violence is committed by those with no prior criminal or mental health issues. (Insanity is more a defense strategy than a medical fact).
Gun control is not a panacea. Look at what happened in Sydney recently. There was senseless gun violence in a city that is part of a country with strict gun control laws.
6
But Australia does not have 35,000 gun deaths every year. And, it's absurd to imagine that if - by some cold snowball's chance in hell - the American military went rogue that you and your fellow gun owners would 1) successfully be able to organize an effective militia; and 2) if you did you and your pea shooters (compared to the American military's hell-fire drones, missiles, tanks, bombers, jet fighters, a *trained* military, etc.) would be wiped out in a matter of a few weeks.
Where is your organized militia NOW? You don't have one, and even if you did, it would be anarchy.
Why does the NRA and it's overlords, the gun manufacturers, insist on making America a more deadly place?
Where is your organized militia NOW? You don't have one, and even if you did, it would be anarchy.
Why does the NRA and it's overlords, the gun manufacturers, insist on making America a more deadly place?
8
The NRA is the most grass roots of organizations.... and no one wants America to be a deadly place. Some of our least "deadly" states are the one with most gun rights Vermont, much lower than our home state, in fact Texas has a lower gun murder rate as well. Also is it really fair to include the 2/3 of gun deaths that are from suicide, while Australia has about the same suicide rate as we do?
6
Well, US may have 35,000 gun deaths but has more people dying in car accidents. Moreover, 35,000 out of 320 million people here is about one-hundredths of 1 percent. if you apply the same percentage to Australia, they should have 2,000 gun deaths in a year. They probably do. Get the context. Numbers can lie but percentages may present a better picture.
1
There is a reason that nearly every county sheriff in Colorado opposed the universal background check law that passed there. That is because it is unenforceable without complete and total registration of every single firearm in the state. And complete registration is only possible if you search every person/place/property in the state and ensure that any firearms found there are registered. That will not ever happen. Universal background checks are the answer to a problem that doesn't exist. Every single firearm used in a mass shooting was legally purchased by a killer who passed background checks. Criminals that aren't able to pass a background check send their friends or family members who can pass the check to make the purchase. Magazine capacity limits are just as pointless. The Newtown shooter reloaded magazines several times before they were even half empty. When you have 10 minutes to shoot and no armed resistance you can just pack more reduced capacity magazines. Don't forget about the school shooter in Brazil who killed 12 children using only 6 shot revolvers. The notion that "if it saves even one child, it’s worth it" is ridiculous. So the next time when there are only 15 kids killed we can say, "good thing we passed that mag cap limit and background check expansion." This country needs to identify the real roots of violence and work to weed them out. Gun control is just a distraction that makes some people feel good about not tackling the hard issues.
20
The real roots of violence are well known. Violence exists in every country to varying degrees, but Americans have the dubious distinction of encountering violence by shooting each other at a rate that is fourth in the world, on a per capita basis - after Thailand, Nigeria, and Colombia. That is pretty shameful company to keep, wouldn't you agree?
10
"Every single firearm used in a mass shooting was legally purchased by a killer who passed background checks. "
That may very well be true. So is the fact that mass shootings are overwhelmingly performed by men. I haven't seen much discussion about that.
I think it's impossible to determine through a background check who is or will be a "responsible gun owner." Except for some hunting rifles, firearms should be banned. Even the British Bobbies don't carry firearms.
In 1996, after a school massacre in Dunblane Scotland, firearms, except some hunting rifles, were banned in the UK. We've had several school massacres and nothing's been done to remove firearms from nuts because you can NEVER know whose anger will become so uncontrollable that they won't shoot someone.
That may very well be true. So is the fact that mass shootings are overwhelmingly performed by men. I haven't seen much discussion about that.
I think it's impossible to determine through a background check who is or will be a "responsible gun owner." Except for some hunting rifles, firearms should be banned. Even the British Bobbies don't carry firearms.
In 1996, after a school massacre in Dunblane Scotland, firearms, except some hunting rifles, were banned in the UK. We've had several school massacres and nothing's been done to remove firearms from nuts because you can NEVER know whose anger will become so uncontrollable that they won't shoot someone.
4
Not just the Sheriffs but overwhelming majority of other rank and file police won't enforce it either.
Oh, and compliance is a paltry 5-7% if even that.
Oh, and compliance is a paltry 5-7% if even that.
6
Cars purchases are generally limited by what is affordable. The auto industry fought hard against seat belts and air bags. Their strategy was, cars are good, don’t let government regulations limit you. After much debate, the public woke up to the fact that they could have their cars, and their safety.
The gun industry has thwarted any safety legislation by falsely branding it as gun control by big government over individual law-abiding citizen rights. The words “individual rights” triumphs over “government controls.” By this simple strategy the gun lobby has been able expand the sale of guns beyond any developed country and on a par with some of the most dangerous regions in the world. Gun control vs. gun rights may be the most successful use of branding in any marketing campaign in US history.
Until there is a debate honestly pursued as it was with the auto industry, the tragic escalation of gun violence in our society will continue to escalate. Cars, when tragic accidents occur, don’t always kill the driver, as compared with guns, which kill whoever they are aimed at.
Comparing people who have lost loved ones to gun violence, to the same-sex marriage movement, may even help the NRA and only confuses the real issues – “insure domestic tranquility” and “protect the general welfare.”
The gun industry has thwarted any safety legislation by falsely branding it as gun control by big government over individual law-abiding citizen rights. The words “individual rights” triumphs over “government controls.” By this simple strategy the gun lobby has been able expand the sale of guns beyond any developed country and on a par with some of the most dangerous regions in the world. Gun control vs. gun rights may be the most successful use of branding in any marketing campaign in US history.
Until there is a debate honestly pursued as it was with the auto industry, the tragic escalation of gun violence in our society will continue to escalate. Cars, when tragic accidents occur, don’t always kill the driver, as compared with guns, which kill whoever they are aimed at.
Comparing people who have lost loved ones to gun violence, to the same-sex marriage movement, may even help the NRA and only confuses the real issues – “insure domestic tranquility” and “protect the general welfare.”
6
"Until there is a debate honestly pursued as it was with the auto industry, the tragic escalation of gun violence in our society will continue to escalate." The number of crimes using a firearm has been dropping for 30 years. Your statement has no basis in fact. Crime overall is down as well.
1
Pass all the restrictions you want and those determined to get guns and not deterred by laws will simply double their efforts to steal more guns. They could steal the guns from the national guard depot or they could take a backhoe from a city job site and use it to tear out the brick wall of a pawn shop but being criminals they will find a way.
8
Yes, and if someone is really determined to bash down your front door and violate your person and/or property, they will do it. So let's not bother to do anything about that, because criminals will always find a way. (sarcasm)
7
I'm Swiss citizen. I had my swiss army issued gun at home most of my adult life, done my eayrly military training and mandatory target practice. The law and culture are not anti gun, to say the least. I know it can be hard to change things in such environment and culture.
Hopefully the new strategy will work. Here as a small example, as our politician did not move, a successful popular referendum imposed the removal of ammo at home for military gun after too many sucide with them. It took times, but it succeeded.
You have a long way to go. Your gun situation is really stomach turning, but sometimes, ballot and small steps forward is the way to go.
Hopefully the new strategy will work. Here as a small example, as our politician did not move, a successful popular referendum imposed the removal of ammo at home for military gun after too many sucide with them. It took times, but it succeeded.
You have a long way to go. Your gun situation is really stomach turning, but sometimes, ballot and small steps forward is the way to go.
30
Switzerland - the country that didn't allow women to vote until 1990?
Honestly, we wouldn't have a problem with this issue if we didn't have inner-city crime issues, like you don't have. If you take away gang-banger warfare and drug crime our gun homicide numbers wouldn't be that much different than yours.
Honestly, we wouldn't have a problem with this issue if we didn't have inner-city crime issues, like you don't have. If you take away gang-banger warfare and drug crime our gun homicide numbers wouldn't be that much different than yours.
12
"Switzerland - the country that didn't allow women to vote until 1990?"
Try 1971.
Admittedly late, though your facts are wrong.
Further, the idea that this has the slightest bearing on gun fatalities, which are close to zero compared with the US, is aggressive lunacy.
Try 1971.
Admittedly late, though your facts are wrong.
Further, the idea that this has the slightest bearing on gun fatalities, which are close to zero compared with the US, is aggressive lunacy.
9
Sure we were late on women vote, and we have others sins if you ask me.
Well, I think your point is off topic, on most civilized countries, crimes of all sorts is a matter for the police. And, time and again, regulating strongly access to guns will go a long way. Of course, I can see you start from a very disastrous situation you created on yourselves (Which goes even more morbid after each school slaugther, and the horrible political inaction after, or "solution" like arming teachers, really ????)
But hey, you need to start somewhere and surely popular ballot will help to circumvent deaf politicians. It works well here, but it is a double edged sword: once decided by popular decision the matter can take decades to come back after a loss. Especially a big loss.
So I hope gun safety proponents will be careful and mesured, on step at the time. Courage.
Well, I think your point is off topic, on most civilized countries, crimes of all sorts is a matter for the police. And, time and again, regulating strongly access to guns will go a long way. Of course, I can see you start from a very disastrous situation you created on yourselves (Which goes even more morbid after each school slaugther, and the horrible political inaction after, or "solution" like arming teachers, really ????)
But hey, you need to start somewhere and surely popular ballot will help to circumvent deaf politicians. It works well here, but it is a double edged sword: once decided by popular decision the matter can take decades to come back after a loss. Especially a big loss.
So I hope gun safety proponents will be careful and mesured, on step at the time. Courage.
2
I live in Florida. It is a "shall issue" state. If you apply for and pass Florida's strict requirements for legal concealed carry, you "shall" be issued a permit. There are 1.3 million concealed permits in Fl. PA and Texas are close behind. My community, The Villages has 120,000 retired senior citizens in 55,000 homes. Many of the folks here are retired police and military. There is literally no crime in The Villages. There are no drug gangs, no robberies, no drive-by shootings and few if any assaults. We have a neighborhood watch that comes by every home several times a day. The community is gated with pictures taken of every person and vehicle that enters. The Sheriff also patrols. Why are we crime free? This is a predominately white, upper-middle class community. It is also well armed. Many thousands of residents have guns in their homes, cars, trucks and even their golf carts. Thousands of Villages residents have permits to carry concealed. An attempt at crime here is not advisable. There are two elements to safety; One is the composition of the neighborhood. The second is security provided by an alert population of well armed men and women. Take or restrict the firearms of this community and the seniors would be sittings ducks. But not here. Thinking of holding up the elderly couple walking their dog? Or thinking of assaulting those seniors going slowly to their car in the movie or mall parking lot? Think twice! You may not walk away. Armed seniors are safe.
22
Exactly. I worked in the field of law enforcement for 35 years. If the average person understood who they are sharing their community with they would have trouble sleeping at night. The majority of dangerous criminals are not behind bars, just roaming communities awaiting their turn at incarceration.
11
Look at Illinois.
Crime is tapering off as criminals realize that there are now concealed carry holders lurking around the state.
Crime is tapering off as criminals realize that there are now concealed carry holders lurking around the state.
9
Steve /Vermont - I am Army vet (enlisted 1966 at age 19) and also worked for PA State Police in their statistical research dept. at central HQ. Learned some interesting things there. The majority of criminals are not behind bars! Living in a "good quality" community makes a real difference. Steve, please be my neighbor!
On our street there is one retired Massachusetts State Trooper and several army and Marine vets. We have enough retired veterans here to field at least 2 combat brigades. The Villages is a very secure, peaceful and good place to retire. All of us abhor gun violence. However no one here is going to be a victim.
On our street there is one retired Massachusetts State Trooper and several army and Marine vets. We have enough retired veterans here to field at least 2 combat brigades. The Villages is a very secure, peaceful and good place to retire. All of us abhor gun violence. However no one here is going to be a victim.
4
Change the name to soften up the marketplace. Revise "gun control" to "gun safety" - make it a non-threatening, all-inclusive, gender-neutral, family-friendly, protect-the-homeland, support-the-police, save-the-children, wave-the-flag, pledge-your-allegiance, stand-by-me, no-brainer whitewash of what it is really all about: an application of draconian and stringent laws that allow for eventual confiscation. Or, if it doesn't go that far, it becomes so restrictive and beset with legal contingencies and consequences, that ownership of any firearm, becomes prohibitively expensive and almost an impossibility.
And, never let a crisis go to waste.
To defuse any comments that I am a right-wing gun nut conservative wacko - let me add that I have been a registered democrat since 1968 and have NEVER voted republican. But a political agenda is still a political agenda regardless of which party one belongs to, and attempts to circumvent the supreme law of the land - which, last time I checked, was the Constitution - should be nullified.
Background checks, licenses, fees, training, safety, gun locks, gun safes are all great things - and responsible gun owners will agree - and ought to be encouraged.
But ownership ought to be an individuals' prerogative and not one that is limited only to our over-militarized police nor decided by draconian state or government edicts and executive orders.
And, never let a crisis go to waste.
To defuse any comments that I am a right-wing gun nut conservative wacko - let me add that I have been a registered democrat since 1968 and have NEVER voted republican. But a political agenda is still a political agenda regardless of which party one belongs to, and attempts to circumvent the supreme law of the land - which, last time I checked, was the Constitution - should be nullified.
Background checks, licenses, fees, training, safety, gun locks, gun safes are all great things - and responsible gun owners will agree - and ought to be encouraged.
But ownership ought to be an individuals' prerogative and not one that is limited only to our over-militarized police nor decided by draconian state or government edicts and executive orders.
20
Why do you think the police have become over-militarized? Might it be because criminals are able to get ANY gun or ammo they want, any time they want? If you were a cop, wouldn't you want to protect yourself against that, or would you opt out to put yourself in harm's way? Incidentally, that "harm's way" has been brought about by the ceaseless distribution of guns all across this land - 300million+ guns. NO other nation on earth suffers from this pathology - not one.
The only "draconian" thing we have going re: gun laws is the absurd meme that guns "protect" people. They don't. If they did, we wouldn't have 35,000 gun deaths every year, with the odds for a person dying by gunfire is s/he owns a firearm. Facts!
The only "draconian" thing we have going re: gun laws is the absurd meme that guns "protect" people. They don't. If they did, we wouldn't have 35,000 gun deaths every year, with the odds for a person dying by gunfire is s/he owns a firearm. Facts!
12
Being an LEO isn't even in the top ten most dangerous occupations in the country; it's not even close, really, and most police are in fact very, very safe.
That doesn't stop small-town PDs from pretending there's a Big Bad Terrorist Threat and acquiring ridiculous MRAPs and riot armor they can then use to knock over people for barbering without the proper licensing.
That doesn't stop small-town PDs from pretending there's a Big Bad Terrorist Threat and acquiring ridiculous MRAPs and riot armor they can then use to knock over people for barbering without the proper licensing.
1
About 40% of gun purchases occur thru private sales at gun shows, flea markets, thru classified ad or among friends , all with no background check.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold [the Columbine killers] were 17 and prohibited by federal law from buying guns from a licensed dealer.
Klebold asked his 18 year old girlfriend [who was eligible to buy] to get guns for him and Harris. She balked when she went to a licensed dealer and was asked to fill out the NICS form. She did not want a written record for doing something illegal; buying guns for a minor.
So she went to a gun show where no background check or NICS form was required. She bought guns which she gave to Klebold and Harris.
Klebold and Harris killed twelve students and one teacher and wounded more than 20 others.
Universal background checks save lives.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold [the Columbine killers] were 17 and prohibited by federal law from buying guns from a licensed dealer.
Klebold asked his 18 year old girlfriend [who was eligible to buy] to get guns for him and Harris. She balked when she went to a licensed dealer and was asked to fill out the NICS form. She did not want a written record for doing something illegal; buying guns for a minor.
So she went to a gun show where no background check or NICS form was required. She bought guns which she gave to Klebold and Harris.
Klebold and Harris killed twelve students and one teacher and wounded more than 20 others.
Universal background checks save lives.
25
About 40% of gun purchases occur thru private sales at gun shows, flea markets, thru classified ad or among friends , all with no background check.
===================
The "40%" figure is a feeble factoid based on a single 1994 study:
It was based on a phone survey in 1994 where 251 people who'd bought a gun in the previous two years were asked if they got it from a licensed dealer, who would've been required to run a background check.
The survey found that 64.3 percent thought they got their gun from a licensed dealer, and the study's authors assumed the remaining 35.7 percent did not. Somehow this was rounded up to 40 percent.
In 2012, PolitiFact.com asked one of the study's authors — Philip Cook of Duke University — if he thought the stats were still good. He replied:
"The answer is I have no idea. This survey was done almost 20 years ago. … It's clear there are a lot of transactions that are not through dealers. How many, we're not really clear on it. … We would say it's a very old number."
The other author of the study — Jens Ludwig at the University of Chicago — was asked by the Washington Post last year to re-examine the survey's data.
He found, the Post reported, that "gun purchases without background checks amounted to 14 to 22 percent" of total sales.
http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/09/13/fact-checker-gun-background-che...
===================
The "40%" figure is a feeble factoid based on a single 1994 study:
It was based on a phone survey in 1994 where 251 people who'd bought a gun in the previous two years were asked if they got it from a licensed dealer, who would've been required to run a background check.
The survey found that 64.3 percent thought they got their gun from a licensed dealer, and the study's authors assumed the remaining 35.7 percent did not. Somehow this was rounded up to 40 percent.
In 2012, PolitiFact.com asked one of the study's authors — Philip Cook of Duke University — if he thought the stats were still good. He replied:
"The answer is I have no idea. This survey was done almost 20 years ago. … It's clear there are a lot of transactions that are not through dealers. How many, we're not really clear on it. … We would say it's a very old number."
The other author of the study — Jens Ludwig at the University of Chicago — was asked by the Washington Post last year to re-examine the survey's data.
He found, the Post reported, that "gun purchases without background checks amounted to 14 to 22 percent" of total sales.
http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/09/13/fact-checker-gun-background-che...
3
That 40% number is wrong and has been debunked repeatedly. How about we open up the National Instant Check System (NICS) so private parties can do instant background checks?
4
I refer readers to page 73 in the paper back edition of the book, Gunfight, by Adam Winkler for a source on the gun show loophole and what percentage of gun sales escape background checks.
But suppose it were 20% instead of 40%.
What is so horrible about closing that 20% loophole.
Isn't the real problem that gun nuts see ANY gun safety measure as one step toward total confiscation of guns.
So even if a Columbine massacre would have been prevented with universal background checks, the universal checks must be opposed.
But suppose it were 20% instead of 40%.
What is so horrible about closing that 20% loophole.
Isn't the real problem that gun nuts see ANY gun safety measure as one step toward total confiscation of guns.
So even if a Columbine massacre would have been prevented with universal background checks, the universal checks must be opposed.
5
This whole debate would render itself moot if we actually read the Constitution. The Constitution allows our military (hint, not private citizens) to bear arms. We've grossly distorted both the letter and intent of that text.
It reminds me of the pedantic parsing of the Affordable Care Act. If we want to understand the writer's intention, why don't we ask them? With the ACA we have that luxury, although even with the Bill of Rights we can reasonably imagine what the founders intended. Would they have endorsed assault rifles in the hands of untrained civilians? They didn't even imagine the advent of semiautomatic weapons and almost certainly wouldn't have endorsed their use by everyday folks.
It reminds me of the pedantic parsing of the Affordable Care Act. If we want to understand the writer's intention, why don't we ask them? With the ACA we have that luxury, although even with the Bill of Rights we can reasonably imagine what the founders intended. Would they have endorsed assault rifles in the hands of untrained civilians? They didn't even imagine the advent of semiautomatic weapons and almost certainly wouldn't have endorsed their use by everyday folks.
16
Nor did they imagine the internet.... But here you are, using it to exercise your 1st Amendment right!
Technology changes with time, rights do not.
Technology changes with time, rights do not.
14
This whole debate would render itself moot if we actually read the Constitution. The Constitution allows our military (hint, not private citizens) to bear arms. We've grossly distorted both the letter and intent of that text.
====================
Many legal scholars and the Supreme Court disagree with you. Read it:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
As many commenters here have said about the Affordable Care Act - It's. The. Law.
====================
Many legal scholars and the Supreme Court disagree with you. Read it:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
As many commenters here have said about the Affordable Care Act - It's. The. Law.
8
You may wish to actually read the specific language in the Second Amendment regarding the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The actual intent of the language has been debated in our Courts and by our legislative bodies for a couple of hundred years now with the net result basically being that gun ownership by private citizens is a Constitutional Right.
Personally, I have wished this Amendment to be abolished completely, where the manufacture, sale or ownership of a firearm becomes a federal crime. No one, but no one may have a firearm, period. No one.
It'll never ever happen here in America but at least our First Amendment guarantees our right to dream and otherwise express such a notion.
The actual intent of the language has been debated in our Courts and by our legislative bodies for a couple of hundred years now with the net result basically being that gun ownership by private citizens is a Constitutional Right.
Personally, I have wished this Amendment to be abolished completely, where the manufacture, sale or ownership of a firearm becomes a federal crime. No one, but no one may have a firearm, period. No one.
It'll never ever happen here in America but at least our First Amendment guarantees our right to dream and otherwise express such a notion.
4
Why 10 bullets are not enough to mow down an intruder remains beyond me.
(No no, the 'remains' in the previous sentences is *not* a ghoulish cadaver joke. . . ).
If I only got one thing, I'd go for magazine size. The 23% rise since 2000 in gun-rights-first, unlimited-magazines people does shock me. It is smart, tho, to *begin* -- even if the rest of the civilized world looks at us as starkly barking mad.
(No no, the 'remains' in the previous sentences is *not* a ghoulish cadaver joke. . . ).
If I only got one thing, I'd go for magazine size. The 23% rise since 2000 in gun-rights-first, unlimited-magazines people does shock me. It is smart, tho, to *begin* -- even if the rest of the civilized world looks at us as starkly barking mad.
11
Why 10 bullets are not enough to mow down an intruder remains beyond me.
==================
What if there are 3 or 4 or 5 intruders? Is there some clause in the "criminal rulebook" that says you can only be attacked by one person at a time?
==================
What if there are 3 or 4 or 5 intruders? Is there some clause in the "criminal rulebook" that says you can only be attacked by one person at a time?
4
How many gun violence victims are struck with the 11th or greater bullet? I'd wager it would not reduce the number of gun deaths by more than fractions of a percent if at all.
5
Nobody thought you needed more than 10 bullets to keep firing at the cadaver of a felled intruder. Not funny.
Violent crime was up in my city in '14. Fifty-five homicides, nearly all accomplished with a hand-gun. And LaPierre's lunatics tout guns for the blind. I don't really see a way out of Wayne's world of insane gun violence, except to emigrate to another, more civilized country. Which is definitely under consideration.
24
Were any of the gun crimes in Tacoma committed by a blind person? I don't see what crime statistics in Tacoma have to do with a blind individual's constitutional rights?
2
Gun controllers are on the wrong side of history.
Historical trends on American's opinions on gun rights show that the tide is rolling out on gun control.
Gun laws should be made more strict - 47%
Gun laws should be relaxed or kept the same - 52%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
It's more important to:
Protect the right to own guns - 52%
Control gun ownership - 46%
http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/domestic-issues/gun-control/
Historical trends on American's opinions on gun rights show that the tide is rolling out on gun control.
Gun laws should be made more strict - 47%
Gun laws should be relaxed or kept the same - 52%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
It's more important to:
Protect the right to own guns - 52%
Control gun ownership - 46%
http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/domestic-issues/gun-control/
12
@Campesino
Well, we're out to change that so-called 'history'. In fact, we're going further back in history...to the 19th century in fact. The so-called 'wild west' era of the American frontier had gun laws that would be next to unthinkable in most places today. No guns allowed within city limits; checking guns in with the sheriff until leaving town, etc.
The NRA peddles a fictional interpretation of the 2nd amendment, one that unfortunately has been upheld in our time, but would've been thrown out of courts before 1930. We are determined to go back to that more sane, and reasonable, interpretation of civilian gun ownership.
Well, we're out to change that so-called 'history'. In fact, we're going further back in history...to the 19th century in fact. The so-called 'wild west' era of the American frontier had gun laws that would be next to unthinkable in most places today. No guns allowed within city limits; checking guns in with the sheriff until leaving town, etc.
The NRA peddles a fictional interpretation of the 2nd amendment, one that unfortunately has been upheld in our time, but would've been thrown out of courts before 1930. We are determined to go back to that more sane, and reasonable, interpretation of civilian gun ownership.
6
The NRA peddles a fictional interpretation of the 2nd amendment, one that unfortunately has been upheld in our time, but would've been thrown out of courts before 1930. We are determined to go back to that more sane, and reasonable, interpretation of civilian gun ownership.
===================
Brave words. Right to lifers have been saying the same thing since 1973 - what has that gotten them?
But the wind is against you. You've lost public opinion and you've lost in the Supreme Court and all the while the number of guns increases and the gun death rate decreases.
===================
Brave words. Right to lifers have been saying the same thing since 1973 - what has that gotten them?
But the wind is against you. You've lost public opinion and you've lost in the Supreme Court and all the while the number of guns increases and the gun death rate decreases.
7
@fatboyfatboy
Sure, its easy to think that now, but you read the article, the latest gun safety measures passed weren't in NYC but out west in 'broad America'. Either way, minds can be changed. No one ever thought we'd ban alcohol consumption with a constitutional amendment...but eventually, with the right civic engagement, and perserverance, it happened. Of course, in this case we're NOT talking about banning anything, just something more reasonable than 'any weapon in any amount at any time by anyone'.
Sure, its easy to think that now, but you read the article, the latest gun safety measures passed weren't in NYC but out west in 'broad America'. Either way, minds can be changed. No one ever thought we'd ban alcohol consumption with a constitutional amendment...but eventually, with the right civic engagement, and perserverance, it happened. Of course, in this case we're NOT talking about banning anything, just something more reasonable than 'any weapon in any amount at any time by anyone'.
4
Hopefully the tweaking of the message does not signal any softening of the efforts by gun control forces to control guns. The simple fact is that gun violence is enabled by gun ownership, and disabled when gun ownership is strictly regulated, as in Japan. Gun control is good for society.
There is no need to eliminate second amendment rights, but supporters of gun control should continue to press for draconian limits on how guns are marketed, tracked, and used. A better model than the gay marriage movement is the "abortion control" movement in Texas, which has forced the closure of of 58 of the original 66 Texas abortion clinics (fundtexaschoice.org).
There is no need to eliminate second amendment rights, but supporters of gun control should continue to press for draconian limits on how guns are marketed, tracked, and used. A better model than the gay marriage movement is the "abortion control" movement in Texas, which has forced the closure of of 58 of the original 66 Texas abortion clinics (fundtexaschoice.org).
2
When the second amendment was ratified in 1791, guns were owned by many citizens. The amendment has been interpreted by many to mean "the right to bear arms to support a militia or for collective security," as opposed to the NRA's position of "anyone can own any weapon for any reason."
Only fifteen years prior, the country had fought a bloody war for independence. Many who fought against the British, whether in local militias or General Washington's army, often used their own weapons. Citizens truly needed weapons to protect themselves against an occupying army of British soldiers, not to mention for hunting or protection against Native Americans who were beginning to realize their land and way of life was slowly being taken away.
If those who ratified the second amendment could have foreseen AK-47's and the like, it seems they would have worded the amendment more succinctly. Does one need to be able to fire scores of bullets per minute to go deer hunting? If those intent on killing innocent people with automatic rifles had no access to these weapons because these guns were outlawed, they could probably use weapons that held perhaps six to nine bullets. But at least they would be unable to kill as many people, and it would give law enforcement a fighting chance to bring down the shooter. Sadly, in a society that knows too much violence, outlawing automatic weapons and instituting strict background checks with no loopholes may be our best hope.
Only fifteen years prior, the country had fought a bloody war for independence. Many who fought against the British, whether in local militias or General Washington's army, often used their own weapons. Citizens truly needed weapons to protect themselves against an occupying army of British soldiers, not to mention for hunting or protection against Native Americans who were beginning to realize their land and way of life was slowly being taken away.
If those who ratified the second amendment could have foreseen AK-47's and the like, it seems they would have worded the amendment more succinctly. Does one need to be able to fire scores of bullets per minute to go deer hunting? If those intent on killing innocent people with automatic rifles had no access to these weapons because these guns were outlawed, they could probably use weapons that held perhaps six to nine bullets. But at least they would be unable to kill as many people, and it would give law enforcement a fighting chance to bring down the shooter. Sadly, in a society that knows too much violence, outlawing automatic weapons and instituting strict background checks with no loopholes may be our best hope.
9
More to the point, if the Founders could've forseen a standing military (which didn't exist until the 20th century) which included a national guard under state control unless invoked for federal duty, I'm quite sure the 2nd Amendment would've been worded differently. But even as it stands, it still takes a willful interpretation to make it read as a 'right' to individual ownership. That kind of reading would've been thrown out court before the 1930s. Its only in the modern era that *some* legal scholars have pushed this idea of an individual right of ownership.
7
Sadly, in a society that knows too much violence, outlawing automatic weapons and instituting strict background checks with no loopholes may be our best hope.
===============
My goodness. How many times do you have to tell gun-banners that automatic weapons are already illegal.
===============
My goodness. How many times do you have to tell gun-banners that automatic weapons are already illegal.
9
When the First Amendment was ratified do you think the founding fathers envisioned someone being able to invent out of whole cloth a philosophy of an organization, such as you have done with the NRA ("anyone can own any weapon for any reason") and having that broadcast around the world?
3
The problem isn't the weapon, and the authors of both article 13 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Second Amendment knew that it is the people. So the solution isn't banning some weapon or another it is about re-establishing what the first clause of the Second Amendment calls for: A well-regulated militia.
While bearing arms has been considered simply a matter of personal protection, the Second Amendment makes it clear that it is also for national defense and therefore that well-regulated militia must be answerable to the civil authority and that means the states have to step up to their responsibility to provide training, qualification as well as screening to all citizens who want to bear arms. Not only in self-defense but in matters of state security. This leads to what both the police forces and military already do - qualification by weapon type. Having served in the military I know you cannot draw a weapon that you are not qualified to operate and that you must re-qualify frequently. Finally, if/when you use your weapon you are answerable to the UCMJ.
Have the state re-establish their citizen militia, set screening and qualification standards for all types of weapons and then issue a biometric ID Card that states clearly what types of weapons (as well as ammunition) that the holder is authorized to hold. This should weed-out the people with problems that should not be bearing arms.
While bearing arms has been considered simply a matter of personal protection, the Second Amendment makes it clear that it is also for national defense and therefore that well-regulated militia must be answerable to the civil authority and that means the states have to step up to their responsibility to provide training, qualification as well as screening to all citizens who want to bear arms. Not only in self-defense but in matters of state security. This leads to what both the police forces and military already do - qualification by weapon type. Having served in the military I know you cannot draw a weapon that you are not qualified to operate and that you must re-qualify frequently. Finally, if/when you use your weapon you are answerable to the UCMJ.
Have the state re-establish their citizen militia, set screening and qualification standards for all types of weapons and then issue a biometric ID Card that states clearly what types of weapons (as well as ammunition) that the holder is authorized to hold. This should weed-out the people with problems that should not be bearing arms.
11
The United States ranks highest in rate of gun ownership, far surpassing #2 Yemen. Not surprisingly, we have a higher rate of gun deaths than all advanced countries, and higher than many 3rd world countries. We rate just above the many violent and dysfunctional countries of South America and Africa.
We have 270,000,000 million guns (or more) in the U.S. The next largest total is 46,000,000 in India.
These are awful, embarrassing, shameful statistics that should shame every man and woman in this country - especially our elected representatives.
How can we talk about making the world "safe for democracy" when we can't even make our country safer by passing strong gun safety laws?
We've had Columbine, Gabby Giffords, Aurora, and Newtown. We've had so many horrible, sickening, violent tragedies that would not have happened if we had stronger gun laws.
Maybe the state-by-state approach will lead to better gun control. I hope so, for the thousands upon thousands who will be murdered or injured or commit suicide this year and every year, year after year after year.
If the Founding Fathers were alive today writing a Constitution, I bet the 2nd Amendment would be left out, as it should be.
We have 270,000,000 million guns (or more) in the U.S. The next largest total is 46,000,000 in India.
These are awful, embarrassing, shameful statistics that should shame every man and woman in this country - especially our elected representatives.
How can we talk about making the world "safe for democracy" when we can't even make our country safer by passing strong gun safety laws?
We've had Columbine, Gabby Giffords, Aurora, and Newtown. We've had so many horrible, sickening, violent tragedies that would not have happened if we had stronger gun laws.
Maybe the state-by-state approach will lead to better gun control. I hope so, for the thousands upon thousands who will be murdered or injured or commit suicide this year and every year, year after year after year.
If the Founding Fathers were alive today writing a Constitution, I bet the 2nd Amendment would be left out, as it should be.
24
Eric I challenge you to support your assertion that stronger gun laws would have prevented Columbine, Gabby Giffords, Aurora and Newtown. All those would have happened regardless of any law. Persons bent on evil will never be deterred from gaining the means of doing it.
5
Mart, you say all of those tragedies "...would have happened regardless of any law." You don't know this. This is just an excuse to do nothing.
Suppose there was a law that would not allow a person to buy a gun if there was someone with a mental illness living in the house, or at least required very specific safety measures so only the owner could get access to the gun. That would have prevented Adam Lanza from getting access to his mother's guns; it might have prevented Netwon.
Strong gun laws can't prevent all murders. But it's likely they can make a significant dent. There's evidence that our lax gun laws lead to our high level of gun violence.
It makes no sense - it's unconscionable, really - not to try to make this a safer country. Many countries with far lower levels of gun violence have strong gun control laws. I don't think that's an accident.
Suppose there was a law that would not allow a person to buy a gun if there was someone with a mental illness living in the house, or at least required very specific safety measures so only the owner could get access to the gun. That would have prevented Adam Lanza from getting access to his mother's guns; it might have prevented Netwon.
Strong gun laws can't prevent all murders. But it's likely they can make a significant dent. There's evidence that our lax gun laws lead to our high level of gun violence.
It makes no sense - it's unconscionable, really - not to try to make this a safer country. Many countries with far lower levels of gun violence have strong gun control laws. I don't think that's an accident.
10
Last I checked, murder is already illegal in most jurisdictions with some rather serious penalties attached for violating the law. I don't think another law will really make any difference.
5
Perhaps we need some regulation of lobbies as well as guns. But as for guns it is not a question of not allowing people to have guns it is more the notion that we need to try and make sure that those that do purchase guns are screened to try and make sure they are stable enough to not hurt themselves or others.
3
Get rid of the guns, and the cops will be safer on the streets as well. There will be fewer crimes committed with guns, and that can only protect the public and the police. The GOP folks who are politicizing the tragic losses of life for the cops here in NYC seem only to care about authority and hurting Mayor DeBlasio. If they really cared about the NYPD (and other police departments across the US), they would be lobbying for stricter gun controls.
13
If disarmament is that good for everybody let the government disarm first. I trust my own firearms far more than I trust any in the hands of government agents.
7
You are defining yourself as a good guy with a gun, then.
2
In Washington state, I learned that background check initiatives must be carefully read by a voter like myself because additional sentences are added to such documents to broaden their scope. While the initiative here was pitched solely as a background checks for all proposed law, the document was 17 pages long, which should have been a clue in and of itself that there was more to it.
For me, one end-result is that if you visit me and we go out on my farmland to target shoot, I am legally a felon if I hand you one of my rifles to shoot or we trade off rifles in the field. Now that behavior can be done at a shooting range. The closest shooting range to me is some 45 miles away and why would I go when I have my own land, reached only by gravel road? Technically, I am suppose to drive to the nearest shop to pay $50 to get a temporary transfer and background check of the person that I'm sharing it with. And when we are done, we do it again. It's a 25 mile drive for me to that place.
And how is this even enforceable? If it's not, why is it part of the law?
I have a collection of guns that have increased substantially in value over the years. My husband, now passed on, collected them for decades. Selling them is going to be far more onerous now. The background check must be done in-state and in-person. And there is a waiting period, I think it is 30 days, to boot. Sure does restrict the market of prospective buyers.
For me, one end-result is that if you visit me and we go out on my farmland to target shoot, I am legally a felon if I hand you one of my rifles to shoot or we trade off rifles in the field. Now that behavior can be done at a shooting range. The closest shooting range to me is some 45 miles away and why would I go when I have my own land, reached only by gravel road? Technically, I am suppose to drive to the nearest shop to pay $50 to get a temporary transfer and background check of the person that I'm sharing it with. And when we are done, we do it again. It's a 25 mile drive for me to that place.
And how is this even enforceable? If it's not, why is it part of the law?
I have a collection of guns that have increased substantially in value over the years. My husband, now passed on, collected them for decades. Selling them is going to be far more onerous now. The background check must be done in-state and in-person. And there is a waiting period, I think it is 30 days, to boot. Sure does restrict the market of prospective buyers.
12
I am a life member of the NRA. I live in one on the"Evil Gun States" I have constitutional carry which means it is nobodies business if a wearing a concealed hand gun or not. In Wyoming Gun control is how well you can aim. We don't have gang violence, we don't have mass shootings, we don't have much in the way of violent crime at all. I am secure in my home. it is safe to walk the streets at night. Why do you suppose that is?
21
Do you think it is because you live in the least populous state?
11
It probably has a lot to do with the extremely low population density in WY. Based on this data, WY is not particularly representative of the rest of the country, and elsewhere people have concerns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
11
Bet, that's probably part of the reason, which is why this shouldn't be Federal issue.
5
In America I appreciate that this is a real conundrum. Most of my American non-hunting friends state quite clearly that they are not sure if they need a gun at home or not. Usually the discussion concludes "if all neighbours have one I feel I need one too but if I am the only one I might as well skip it.
1
The number one threat of gun violence has to be gangbangers and repeat violent offenders. Guns also obviously are in domestic violence, workplace violence, mass incidents and suicides, but the vast moajority of shootings and deaths come at the hands of people in gangs (or "cliques" if we must) and people with prior gun offenses.
David Kennedy http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Shoot-Fellowship-Violence-Inner-City/dp/16081... convincingly made the case that many gangbangers carry guns because they are afraid their rivals are carrying guns. This leads to shootouts in broad daylight where innocent bystanders get shot, the instant escalation from petty slight to murder, and a seemingly endless cycle of retaliatory shootings. Kennedy says that if each group believes that the penalty for having a gun will be severe and will be applied evenhandedly, then they will not carry their guns on the street.
It's an interesting take on the problem.
If you don't touch all the bases though, you'll just be chasing your tail. If you "crack down" on illegal gun possession, but the penalty winds up being a few months in the county jail. You haven't accomplished anything.
David Kennedy http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Shoot-Fellowship-Violence-Inner-City/dp/16081... convincingly made the case that many gangbangers carry guns because they are afraid their rivals are carrying guns. This leads to shootouts in broad daylight where innocent bystanders get shot, the instant escalation from petty slight to murder, and a seemingly endless cycle of retaliatory shootings. Kennedy says that if each group believes that the penalty for having a gun will be severe and will be applied evenhandedly, then they will not carry their guns on the street.
It's an interesting take on the problem.
If you don't touch all the bases though, you'll just be chasing your tail. If you "crack down" on illegal gun possession, but the penalty winds up being a few months in the county jail. You haven't accomplished anything.
4
It is appalling how many Americans believe that the US Constitution records the rights of American citizens. The document actually lists a specific set of powers the people delegated to government to be exercised for the common welfare, and the Bill of rights that amends it clarifies specific powers denied to Congress and other branches of the federal government. There is no "right to bear arms" memorialized in the second amendment, but there is a prohibition to Congress to ban the state militias that enforced slavery in the South.
10
Before you flame me, I don't have a gun and don't want one but I am rather glad the hysterical anti-gun movement does not want guns because they are too emotional to own one. They are the types most likely to use one in a heated moment.
I believe the police are behind this movement because they routinely demand new laws against that which they don't like, and they always get those new laws about everything and anything. The story tells me it's a cop movement.
There is no movement against gun violence in Television and Movies. Why not? This paper supports freedom of speech, as do I but they are conspicuously absent of media criticism.
I would hope that no gas be poured on the flames of this issue as it has all the hallmarks of the anti-slavery movement just prior to our uncivil war.
Lets all keep it real and calm, please.
I believe the police are behind this movement because they routinely demand new laws against that which they don't like, and they always get those new laws about everything and anything. The story tells me it's a cop movement.
There is no movement against gun violence in Television and Movies. Why not? This paper supports freedom of speech, as do I but they are conspicuously absent of media criticism.
I would hope that no gas be poured on the flames of this issue as it has all the hallmarks of the anti-slavery movement just prior to our uncivil war.
Lets all keep it real and calm, please.
2
You are absolutely right! Most police support the Second Amendment, it is just the chiefs, who are the lap dogs of the politician who hired them, that are expressing opposition.
6
Elected police chiefs like Sheriff Clark in Milwaukee are not anti-gun. It's the hired ones who spew the sentiments of the city councils that hire them.
1
I live in the state that passed that ballot measure.. but it's not enough.. not even close. No one outside the military should own assault rifles. No one outside the military should be able to fire dozens of round at a time. There's no reason a non-murderer would need these capabilities. Meanwhile, it's quite possible for these weapons to be turned on their owners or used for rampages.
Underlying both the lack of legislative progress and the spate of mass shootings is a philosophy of fear. Why did gun sales skyrocket after President Obama's election? Many are afraid of having a black president, that we're open to immigrants, that we treat LGBT people as humans. They're afraid and they're angry.
Yoda said something that applies to this situation and to many others: "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
Fear of America changing leads to reflexive contempt for anyone who tries to make society more equal and safe for everyone. Civil rights and gun safety form two pillars of an effort to ensure this country is one of the people, and not controlled by any group just because it wields deadly force. #BlackLivesMatter is about protecting all of us from the tyranny of the paramilitary.
Hatred borne of fear leads people to do reckless and sad things that end up hurting themselves.. a person will take a gun to Wal-mart only to have it turned on them by their unknowing toddler.
Fear leads to our ultimate undoing.
Underlying both the lack of legislative progress and the spate of mass shootings is a philosophy of fear. Why did gun sales skyrocket after President Obama's election? Many are afraid of having a black president, that we're open to immigrants, that we treat LGBT people as humans. They're afraid and they're angry.
Yoda said something that applies to this situation and to many others: "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
Fear of America changing leads to reflexive contempt for anyone who tries to make society more equal and safe for everyone. Civil rights and gun safety form two pillars of an effort to ensure this country is one of the people, and not controlled by any group just because it wields deadly force. #BlackLivesMatter is about protecting all of us from the tyranny of the paramilitary.
Hatred borne of fear leads people to do reckless and sad things that end up hurting themselves.. a person will take a gun to Wal-mart only to have it turned on them by their unknowing toddler.
Fear leads to our ultimate undoing.
8
Well, I for one own a cadre of guns and I suspect you live on the other side of the Crascades, as far away from me statewise, philosophically and lifestyle-wise as is possible in this state. Gun sales spiked among people like me because of the knowledge of the liberal stance on gun ownership, which is restrictive. Increased demand occurred because of a belief that a decrease in supply was imminent.
I have many neighbors and friends who are gun owners. I also live just outside of a small town where there is zero crime. Yes, that is accurate. And yes, there is a plethora of guns. As I said earlier, we have a gun range here but not a grocery store or bar. Fear? I know of no fear expressed by anyone here. In fact, the only time I come across it is within the media or from online forums. But it's certainly not part of the conversation here.
Do we want home protection because we live in the rural part of the state and have a half-time policeman? Sure. And that means a locked gun does me little good in the middle of the night. That's reasonable. Do we use our guns for recreation? You bet. Skeet is fun. Do we hunt for food? Of course. Why wouldn't we hunt the deer and elk that eat the grain crops of area farmers and who, with populations not maintained, end up dying during the winter in a cruel death.
As I have said before and I say again, I support banning or restricting all guns for city people. But please, leave those of us whose lives are rural alone.
I have many neighbors and friends who are gun owners. I also live just outside of a small town where there is zero crime. Yes, that is accurate. And yes, there is a plethora of guns. As I said earlier, we have a gun range here but not a grocery store or bar. Fear? I know of no fear expressed by anyone here. In fact, the only time I come across it is within the media or from online forums. But it's certainly not part of the conversation here.
Do we want home protection because we live in the rural part of the state and have a half-time policeman? Sure. And that means a locked gun does me little good in the middle of the night. That's reasonable. Do we use our guns for recreation? You bet. Skeet is fun. Do we hunt for food? Of course. Why wouldn't we hunt the deer and elk that eat the grain crops of area farmers and who, with populations not maintained, end up dying during the winter in a cruel death.
As I have said before and I say again, I support banning or restricting all guns for city people. But please, leave those of us whose lives are rural alone.
13
Quite simply gun sales spiked because people apprehended that gun bans might come into effect, not for any of the other heated reasons that you suppose.
6
Liberals claim they only want "reasonable" restrictions, but they really desire a full ban. We're not stupid.
21
Yeah so let's not make any progress. Let the killings continue!
6
Progress would include locking up violent criminals. But since violent, criminal, parasitic thugs are an important Democratic constituency, that'll never happen.
11
There are plenty of gun murders and violence in strong gun control areas.
4
Facts about gun crimes: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homi...
Before commenting on the dangers of gun ownership, we ought to perform some research.
Gun homicides have dropped by over 50% over the past 20 years while the number of guns available has increased. The rate of gun ownership appears to have decreased. Statistics are fun...and confusing.
More than half of all gun-related deaths are suicides, mostly by people over 65.
Blacks tend to kill blacks; whites tend to kill whites. No surprise, because most homicides involve people who know one another. No person of race A appears to say, "Hey let's go kill a person of race B, C, etc.”
These are facts from .gov and similar sites: Blacks accounted for 72.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008...in 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery.
Death in the U.S. by gun is exaggerated by hysterical media and the always-complaining left into sounding like a widespread and huge problem...it is not. What is a huge problem is the ubiquity of ignorance/intellectual laziness.
Before commenting on the dangers of gun ownership, we ought to perform some research.
Gun homicides have dropped by over 50% over the past 20 years while the number of guns available has increased. The rate of gun ownership appears to have decreased. Statistics are fun...and confusing.
More than half of all gun-related deaths are suicides, mostly by people over 65.
Blacks tend to kill blacks; whites tend to kill whites. No surprise, because most homicides involve people who know one another. No person of race A appears to say, "Hey let's go kill a person of race B, C, etc.”
These are facts from .gov and similar sites: Blacks accounted for 72.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008...in 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery.
Death in the U.S. by gun is exaggerated by hysterical media and the always-complaining left into sounding like a widespread and huge problem...it is not. What is a huge problem is the ubiquity of ignorance/intellectual laziness.
23
@ rwruger - No one on the left, especially those who read this paper, want to be "confused" by the facts. They have an agenda and that is the only "fact" they need.
11
Somehow, in your stats blizzard, you forgot to mention that the US has a gun homicide rate six times that of the next worse First World nation.
In a sane world, if a nation suffered a disease that was that much worse than any other nation there would be a huge outcry.
Heck the US, and especially the right wing, went bananas over Ebola, which caused, what, one death?
In a sane world, if a nation suffered a disease that was that much worse than any other nation there would be a huge outcry.
Heck the US, and especially the right wing, went bananas over Ebola, which caused, what, one death?
10
A big part of the problem is the change in communications during the past 50 years. The 24/7 news cycle that now provides immediate access by anyone anywhere to news occurring anywhere in the world or nation has created awareness of incidents that simply was not present decades ago. You combine that with the immediacy and massive number of participants in social media and we have ears and eyes from coast-to-coast filled with news occurring in each of our neighborhoods, unlike ever before.
Instead of one killing in our town, we now learn of 300 killings in our state and massively more nationally. We are deluged with the information.
Of course, we believe the more crime, more gun violence, more gun deaths are occurring. Why wouldn't we?
Instead of one killing in our town, we now learn of 300 killings in our state and massively more nationally. We are deluged with the information.
Of course, we believe the more crime, more gun violence, more gun deaths are occurring. Why wouldn't we?
3
The same people who think that government has a right to "regulate" guns and carry out of existence think that the government has no business "regulating" whether pregnant women murder their children or whether homosexuals get to "marry" other homosexuals.
9
And the same people who want no gun regulation want to say what a woman can do with her body --- they even want to control who can have contraception -- and what kind of contraception. They want to nose around in our bedrooms.
But hands off our guns! No safety devices! Every mentally ill person, every disgruntled person, every ex-con, every abusive spouse -- can have as many guns and as much ammunition as possible.
But hands off our guns! No safety devices! Every mentally ill person, every disgruntled person, every ex-con, every abusive spouse -- can have as many guns and as much ammunition as possible.
5
No, actually, it's you liberals that try to protect the "rights" of violent criminals and the insane, not us.
6
The same people who want to ban abortion (a practice I personally find abhorrent) want to make it harder to obtain birth control and impossible to have sex education in schools.
How on earth do you equate marriages with deaths?
How on earth do you equate marriages with deaths?
1
Instead of the headline "gun control" I'd much rather the terms used are gun safety. With over three hundred million guns in private hands you can forget gun control. When we talk of making driving safer we don't talk about car control.
6
I find it ironic that the same people here arguing for more gun control, thus requiring you to depend on police for protection, are the same ones saying cops are just out lookin to shoot unarmed people. Which is it?
11
Oh come on. This is a serious issue. So get serious.
6
No one associated with this movement has made anything resembling a stand against police officers shooting unarmed suspects.
The republicans do not want gun control because the gun lobby helps elect them. So don't all of you that voted for them complain! You will be poorer, more hungry and cold plus unemployed - and if they get their way, without health insurance.
11
This is wonderful news. Count me in. I have been happily supporting Everytown for the last year or so and have been impressed with the work they do with the money I donate.
8
I just hope that all the gunners understand that the Earps--like all the other frontier marshals they idolize--got into the OK Corral because they believed in, and were enforcing, strong gun laws.
4
Whatever does the Gunfight at OK Corral have to do with the culture war between a minority of people and the majority supporting the Second Amendment?
We should ban bullets and guns.
6
There is a system in place to repeal a Constitutional Amendment.... Have at it!
I seriously doubt this idea will ever drum up enough support outside of most liberal echo chambers, though.
I seriously doubt this idea will ever drum up enough support outside of most liberal echo chambers, though.
4
@ Kevin Cahill - "We should ban bullets and guns."
...and violent people and people who use guns in the commission of a crime and people who illegally posses guns and crazy people who do not value human life and stupid people who can't use a gun safely and people who think banning things will stop crime.
...and violent people and people who use guns in the commission of a crime and people who illegally posses guns and crazy people who do not value human life and stupid people who can't use a gun safely and people who think banning things will stop crime.
6
Sure, why not? That same idea worked well during Prohibition, right?
8
OK ,why are guns going up I 95 N.,because of the extreme restrictions in the Northern states.Why do criminals need guns in the Bronx ,Camden and the state of CT. ,because crime is out of control there ,not because of the anti gun legislation.What did stop and frisk do in NY city,stopped gun crime ,so now,they stopped stop and frisk,because it is unfair to the criminals. Why just not let them all out of prison,well Democrats have and are in the process of that now.
7
That is not why stop and frisk was banned. It is so frustrating when people deliberately choose not to understand an issue.
3
Dude! Slow down and work on your punctuation.
5
When I was a kid in South Jersey it was very normal to have a gun for hunting. And there were a smaller number of people who seemed to like to shoot skeet or practice at a gun range (we had a range 1/2 mile from my house). But we never heard gun owners speaking in a paranoid manner about "protection" from some theoretical attacker/boogie man. That has changed as the NRA has moved away from sport shooting and has become a marketing arm of the gun manufacturers. That organization has been very effective about getting its membership to make the worst assumptions about their fellow Americans. So.....If you're a gun owner who thinks it's "helpful" or "brave" to carry a semi-automatic handgun into a mall, church or school, please know this: most of us do not *want* or appreciate your "help" in this manner. Sure, I know that the NRA will disagree with me on this. For the same reason the Coca-Cola Company will tell you to drink more Coca-Cola. Please use your gun at a range or for hunting.....but otherwise leave it home, locked and in a secure place. Thank you.
209
I live on farmland just outside of a town of 400 where it is normal, as you wrote, to have a gun. Just as you described, there's an active skeet range in this tiny town, where there is no grocery store or bar or even a gas station! But there's a well-maintained, beautiful skeet club and around the corner, a gun store. The nearest freeway is some 90 miles away. So, I'm just saying, we're very rural but certainly not an impoverished area by any means. Although I do have guns for hunting and for protection as I live alone and we only have a half-time young cop, I have rarely heard anyone talk about guns and protection. The majority of gun talk is about hunting deer, elk, pheasant, and about the next skeet competition. And yes, we do shoot guns off range...why drive for nearly two hours to and fro to a gun range when we can shoot on our own farmland?
6
Guns are now and always have been used for self-defense. That's what they are for now and that's what they were for when you were a kid in South Jersey.
7
That 'normality' you speak of correlates far better with the rise in hopolophobic irrationality by Democrat politicians when they found they could pander to ignorance in the general public. And your desire for no help correlates far better with the agenda of Democrats wishing to maintain maximum control over urban populations.
Neither of these two characteristics have produced a safer big city run by Democrats, have they?
Neither of these two characteristics have produced a safer big city run by Democrats, have they?
1
We talk about the importance of gun ownership vis-a-vis the right to free speech, since the Second amendment is so close to the First.
And yet, look what has happened to free speech.
We bully each other online using Twitter, hashtags, and comments, for the purpose of narrowing speech into its perceived correct form.
I don't think the Second amendment has a place any more, and I expect not to be bullied for saying so, since the First still applies. If we allow ourselves to think the thoughts, we might find the deeper problems underlying violence, and their solutions.
And yet, look what has happened to free speech.
We bully each other online using Twitter, hashtags, and comments, for the purpose of narrowing speech into its perceived correct form.
I don't think the Second amendment has a place any more, and I expect not to be bullied for saying so, since the First still applies. If we allow ourselves to think the thoughts, we might find the deeper problems underlying violence, and their solutions.
5
So, you are using one Amendment to express your opposition to another Amendment written at the same time?
...No bullying here, just pointing out the hypocrisy involved.
I respect BOTH of the Rights listed here, and *I* expect not to be harassed, bullied, or restricted by those who do not have the same respect for personal freedom.
...No bullying here, just pointing out the hypocrisy involved.
I respect BOTH of the Rights listed here, and *I* expect not to be harassed, bullied, or restricted by those who do not have the same respect for personal freedom.
5
The second amendment is placed where it is in the Bill of Rights because the founders knew it was the only way the people could pretect their rights in the first amendment.
2
Kal-el: Do you ever wonder why amendments are called amendments? They are additions to the Constitutions. That's how prohibition came to be. Would you have respected the amendment to ban booze?
Would you respect the removal of the Second Amendment? I think not.
Would you respect the removal of the Second Amendment? I think not.
2
I think the reporter should define 'largely' and 'small' in the sentence, "The NRA, which raises millions of dollars a year largely from small donors..." Exactly what percentage? How much money is small? Or are you distinguishing between individual gun owners and gun manufacturers and high-volume gun sellers? It sounds like a sentence pulled verbatim from an NRA press release. I believe the NRA would like people to believe it speaks solely for recreational hunters (who often do not object to background checks), but in fact, it represents multi-billion dollar corporations.
4
@ bpdpeoil - "Exactly what percentage?"
The same percentage of "largely small donors" who gave to the Democratic election fund in 2008!
The same percentage of "largely small donors" who gave to the Democratic election fund in 2008!
4
May this be the start of we the people wresting influence away from the lobbyists and the right wing minority's grip on our culture of weaponry. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one mother stepping up in memory of a child would be alive were it not for the shameful proliferation of guns, particularly automatic weapons capable of mass murder. We will hear the blather of fear-stoking and the faux right to bear muskets but in our hearts we are a nation of moderation and the NRA has pushed us well past the tipping point of reason and common sense.
9
The National Rifle (Marketing) Association can't stand the thought of losing one gun sale, no matter what the consequences for our society. That's why they oppose expansion of background checks, any restrictions on ammunition sales, safety or insurance requirements, etc., and regularly gin up hysteria over Obama coming to take our guns away from us. I'm sure that Obama derangement syndrome is responsible for a major uptick in gun sales.
At least when the tobacco industry was marketing cigarettes to kids, the kids would have a few good decades ahead of them before they succumbed to the ill effects of all that smoke. Sadly, far too many children, and adults, have their lives shortened by guns far more than cigarettes would have.
At least when the tobacco industry was marketing cigarettes to kids, the kids would have a few good decades ahead of them before they succumbed to the ill effects of all that smoke. Sadly, far too many children, and adults, have their lives shortened by guns far more than cigarettes would have.
11
I think you'll be surprised by the depth of local opposition to these measures.
5
I did not vote for the NRA, but they seem to have more power than the voters do, who overwhelmingly want to see better gun safety.
11
I strongly support the Second Amendment and though I am siding with the left on many things firearms ownership is not one of them.
The only good thing I can see about a Republican Congress is that it will prevent erosion of our right to own firearms.
Part of the reason the Democrats cannot win much of the working class white vote is their idiotic stand on firearms ownership. Faced with the choice of voting for a Democratic candidate that supports restriction on gun ownership but is otherwise in line with my view and a Republican candidate who has does not support my other views but supports the Second Amendment. I will vote for the Republican. Some day the Left will wake up on this issue.
The only good thing I can see about a Republican Congress is that it will prevent erosion of our right to own firearms.
Part of the reason the Democrats cannot win much of the working class white vote is their idiotic stand on firearms ownership. Faced with the choice of voting for a Democratic candidate that supports restriction on gun ownership but is otherwise in line with my view and a Republican candidate who has does not support my other views but supports the Second Amendment. I will vote for the Republican. Some day the Left will wake up on this issue.
14
Just go be a Republican, OK? You're not fooling anybody with pretending to "side with the left," particularly sinceyou don't appear to know what that means.
10
No. The left or let's just say citizens with a moral code and values, have their rights taken away by people such as yourself and live in the fear of going to malls, their children safe in school, attending movies and now even going to Walmart who supports open carry. It's crazy that the rest of us have to put up with the insane NRA and followers and their kill, kill, kill, mentality. Yes, the fear of losing the right to own thousands of boxes of ammunition and assault weapons is the urge to shoot that thing. You are encouraging that behavior.
8
"I strongly support the Second Amendment ...."
Pray tell which part -- the well-regulated militia part?
Pray tell which part -- the well-regulated militia part?
5
What is mind blowing is that a mother can be shot and killed by their two year old son, in a public place, and the pro-gun crowd does not bat an eye. They always say that people get shot by people, not guns. Does that apply to two year old people?
23
I will bat my eyes, hope that helps.
2
The woman that was killed by her 2 year old was a normal, non-crazy, nuclear research scientist with no criminal record. Which proposed gun control law do you think would have prevented her from obtaining a gun?
The answer, of course, is: none. Gun control might prevent some deaths, but it would not have prevented this one.
The answer, of course, is: none. Gun control might prevent some deaths, but it would not have prevented this one.
5
So gun "accidents" don't count? Since when? Does that family get a "do over"?
7
I'm an American living abroad. People in comment sections are always checking in with reasons why the rest of the world thinks Americans are bad, terrible, nuts, crazy, etc, and none of those are true.
However, on the proliferation of guns in the US, this is one thing where foreigners actually do think Americans are out of their minds. And they're right.
However, on the proliferation of guns in the US, this is one thing where foreigners actually do think Americans are out of their minds. And they're right.
52
How is Budapest? I've always wanted to go.
1
Viewing police behavior, the spy agencies, Homeland Security,and all the rest, people wanting to disarm the citizens are naïve at best, devious maybe.
10
Many of us would rather have the cops "oppressing," us than you lot "protecting," us.
At least with the cops, you can take 'em to court.
At least with the cops, you can take 'em to court.
4
No, actually, the cops rarely are forced to go to court.
10
"Taking them to court" isn't doing much good these days.
7
How does the supremacy clause effect these efforts? Federal law allows the ownership of what Liberals call assault weapons and details the steps to be taken to acquire them.
6
It's "affect," and you might want to learn what your own side's arguments are: typically, you guys swear up and down that states' rights and the Second Amendment trump any and all Federal law or regulation.
3
And liberal individuals acquire guns while constantly introducing new legislation to deny law abiding taxpayers to right to defend themselves. California state legislator Leland Yee never voted for a gun law which ultimately he could not ignore in order to illegally pay off his casino styled bets at getting elected for any available office.
4
If the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is the 11th Commandment.... how do we make it a viable tool for social good? Perhaps, the best way to protect the right to bear arms, is to organize the law-abiding citizens who want guns to narrow and police that right by toughening up restrictions for obtaining and maintaining guns.
If you are lawful, does it matter if you have a background check?...Does it matter if you have to register your guns?...Does it matter that you can't carry a gun in public?....Does it matter if your magazine size is limited?....Does it matter if you are required to take a periodic gun safety refresher course to renew a license?
For the lawful, none of those requirements should impinge on freedoms and the Second Amendment. However, they just may winnow out those who have guns for malicious intent....and curb the senseless tragedies of present day gun violence.
Sensible gun safety policy doesn't deprive lawful owners of guns; it protects neighborhood children and innocents from misguided and disturbed miscreants bent on ignoring the law. It is a policy that mandates states to protect individual citizens who respect the law.
If you are lawful, does it matter if you have a background check?...Does it matter if you have to register your guns?...Does it matter that you can't carry a gun in public?....Does it matter if your magazine size is limited?....Does it matter if you are required to take a periodic gun safety refresher course to renew a license?
For the lawful, none of those requirements should impinge on freedoms and the Second Amendment. However, they just may winnow out those who have guns for malicious intent....and curb the senseless tragedies of present day gun violence.
Sensible gun safety policy doesn't deprive lawful owners of guns; it protects neighborhood children and innocents from misguided and disturbed miscreants bent on ignoring the law. It is a policy that mandates states to protect individual citizens who respect the law.
6
If you don't intend to leave your fingerprints at a crime scene, does it matter if we fingerprint you right now? If you are not up to no good at night, does it matter if we put you under a curfew? If you are not a drunk, does it matter if the state rations your alcohol purchase? If you are not teaching your children bad things, does it matter if we bring them in for periodic re-education?
We already have a way to winnow out people who have guns for malicious intent: jail. Liberals object to our putting people there, but it is making the crime rate drop, year after year after year.
We already have a way to winnow out people who have guns for malicious intent: jail. Liberals object to our putting people there, but it is making the crime rate drop, year after year after year.
3
THe gun nut speaks. It doesnt matter how many children are killed by your fellow gun nuts.
5
and it doesn't matter how many children are killed in your Gun Free Zones?
1
Well, I guess this make sense: gun restrictions are like expanding rights for gays to get married, EXCEPT:
a) there is no second amendment for gay marriage
b) voters didn't support gay marriage, judges did
Otherwise yes, they are exactly the same
a) there is no second amendment for gay marriage
b) voters didn't support gay marriage, judges did
Otherwise yes, they are exactly the same
8
Judges went and upheld the Constitution...which, one notes, you lot cheered for when the pro-gun rights Court decisions came down.
2
[[a) there is no second amendment for gay marriage]]
Gay marriage falls under Amendment XIV, which reads:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
[[b) voters didn't support gay marriage, judges did]]
This will shock you, but when people sue, judges are the people who are called on to resolve disputes.
Gay marriage falls under Amendment XIV, which reads:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
[[b) voters didn't support gay marriage, judges did]]
This will shock you, but when people sue, judges are the people who are called on to resolve disputes.
1
Voters in Maryland, Maine, and Washington voted for marriage equality in 2012. Please don't distort the facts.
Most Americans support same-sex marriage. Most Americans also support sensible gun safety laws.
Most Americans support same-sex marriage. Most Americans also support sensible gun safety laws.
1
Live by the gun, die by the gun. Since human beings are not always rational, mild-mannered creatures, we are far likelier to use our guns on ourselves or our families than on any intruder. If you don't want the arguments and hurt feelings that we all experience to end in bloodshed, don't buy a gun, even though it is your right.
Rights are one thing, but adult judgment is something else.
Rights are one thing, but adult judgment is something else.
15
If you honestly believe that you are not rational enough to safely own a gun, by all means please abstain.
11
We HAVE to allow teens to walk around the shopping mall with a weapon that can shoot through the engine block of your car.
It says so right here on this crinkled up piece of trash someone wrote back in the 18th century!
It says so right here on this crinkled up piece of trash someone wrote back in the 18th century!
10
That "crinkled up piece of trash" you refer to was written in 1791.
Also, judging by your obvious disdain for the Constitution, you should consider changing your screen name....
You are most certainly NOT the voice of any America that I recognize!
Also, judging by your obvious disdain for the Constitution, you should consider changing your screen name....
You are most certainly NOT the voice of any America that I recognize!
5
Now that President Obama has foreshadowed a vigorous-duck culmination for his presidency with courageous and effective executive action on immigration, he is well positioned to issue a desperately needed Executive Order on gun control. Any nation that cannot secure the safety of its elementary school children in their classrooms is unworthy of survival. Period. It's high time for an American president to face-up to the ire of the lunatic-fringe element in the NRA and use his clear constitutional power as Commander-in-chief under Article II, combined with his clear constitutional power under the Second Amendment to ensure "a well regulated militia" by establishing clear rules and regulations for the ways and places in which "the people" "keep and bear arms." And the myopic decision of the Scalia Court on the Second Amendment should not hinder such necessary Executive Action, for that decision belongs in the SC trash bin along with Plessy; courageous Executive Action will get it there sooner rather than later.
12
In the wake of the riots in Ferguson, MO, NYC, LA, and other locations, it is imperative the general public enact Castle Doctrine laws for their own self defense because the police seem incapable of terminating the street thugs, rioters, looters, arsonists and anarchists. The 2nd Amendment provides the right to firearm ownership. Many states already have concealed carry permits. If you are not in an area that allows for these things, then get organized and sue your local and state authorities because they will lose in the Federal court system. Last but not least do not vote for the gun control crowd because 6 years of Obama and holder misapplication of justice has been a travesty. Arm yourselves America and stamp out the anti gun politicians!
12
I see, so you want ordinary citizens to pack some heat and go after the street thugs, rioters, looters, arsonists and anarchists? You want to fight anarchy with anarchy? Boy, there's some deep thinking right there.
17
Why is it "hair on fire" 24/7 with you people? It really begins to look like some form of mental illness.
5
As I just wrote:mental health assessment needed for you and your threats.
4
Ferguson has taught us all a myriad of lessons.
Maybe not all of them are obvious or politically correct.
Maybe not all of them are obvious or politically correct.
8
Yes, we learned that prosecutors have serious conflict of interest issues with officer involved shootings.
5
Love the Times and its rapid anti-gun sentiments. Have any of you even bothered to look up the number of gun deaths (i.e. see FBI table 8 homicides), in this country? Hate to break your preconceptions with actual facts but here goes. For the last 20 plus years homicide gun deaths have steadily gone down despite increased population growth and a vast increase in gun ownership (especially among women). The left goes insane over the issue of the AR15, yet when I ask one how many people are killed by rifles in this country, I get guesses ranging from 2000-5000 a year. Actual homicide numbers in 2013 were 8545 gun deaths of which 285 where rifles. The 33k-35K gun deaths being brandished around are mostly suicides where if there was no gun, they’ll use a rope or jump. You actually have a higher percentage of getting killed by a knife, hands/feet, or a blunt object then you do by a rifle (note Table 8 again). But the left goes bat crazy on these rifles when frankly it’s not an issue. So with all the doom and gloom, out of control gun hype by the media, the numbers simply do not back that image.
17
So if gun deaths due to rifles are not the major form of gun death, gun advocates will be ok with banning handguns? Thanks, that is good to know.
2
Sure, the situation is great. No School slaugther(s) in 2015, the teachers are packing now. See, Everything is fine and going in the right direction.
2
The FBI stats are true, but how can you possibly say that a knife, hands and feet are more dangerous than a rifle. Fewer people are likely using rifles because they are much harder to concel than a pistol, and when you add up all homicides in America, according to the FBI, nearly 70% are done with a firearm.
4
The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution states "......of the people…" well who are 'the people"? Canadians driving through to Mexico, Mexicans driving to Canada? It must be determined that a gun toting person is "....of the people...." so that citizens have some sense of community and expectations of responsible behavior. Who has a better method of determining "the people" than through background checks? In the 21st century we need to be unified in our commitment to the constitution and it’s requirements of the citizens. That means clearly defining those who are “of the people” and those who remain without constitutional protection.
There is not a loss of liberty in background checks. Rather there is an affirmation of rights, and liberties for “the people”.
There is not a loss of liberty in background checks. Rather there is an affirmation of rights, and liberties for “the people”.
2
The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to possess firearms. I possess five. If a majority of the citizens of the U.S. want to abridge that right, then they have the ability to redress the Congress with their grievance in order to amend the Constitution. Until that happens and it is confirmed by Congress I will continue to possess and use my firearms as guaranteed and accorded by the Constitution.
13
Are you a part of a "well-regulated militia"? 'Cause according to the Constitution you are supposed to be...
9
Your reading of that Constitutional text can be compared with that of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately for you, but fortunately for free people, your reading is incorrect.
6
Just so you know, no Court has ever said that there are unlimited gun rights.
"Free people," my foot. You've got guns confused with liberty, even as you recite the same old slogans in the same old ways, without thinking.
"Free people," my foot. You've got guns confused with liberty, even as you recite the same old slogans in the same old ways, without thinking.
7
Do you think African-Americans feel safer with only the police having firearms? But this ideal is pushed by gun control advocates as common-sense as the police can be held accountable. Yet recent high-profile, non-indictments of white officers shooting black youth to death say otherwise.
8
If African-Americans have firearms and do not shoot back, the firearms do not help them. If police feel threatened, they will shoot first and often.
1
Arron: "Do you think African-Americans feel safer with only the police having firearms?"
Right, it is all about the African-Americans, and not the arrogant selfishness of the gun nuts.
Right, it is all about the African-Americans, and not the arrogant selfishness of the gun nuts.
2
We must repeal the 2nd amendment. It is obvious to all, (including NRA members whether they admit or not) that gun ownership is nothing like free speech, or the right to a speedy public trial etc. They are not the same and everyone knows it. Yet we cling to this idea that the right to a deadly weapon is somehow similar to the freedom of peaceable assembly. They are not the same and never will be. It is as plain as the color of the sky. We must repeal the 2nd amendment.
236
That would require 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the state legislatures. Do you think there is any realistic chance of that happening?
5
There is a clearly defined process for doing exactly as you describe, get to work.
10
Naïve beyond belief.....good luck, have you seen the recent Pew poll.
12
As we saw in Idaho, gun holders put everyone at risk. It isn't even safe to go into a store and stand in line next to a mother and child. It was pure good luck that for once the blow fell hardest on the instigator and not some innocent victim.
The ordinary citizen's right to life has to be protected over the rights of those who would kill or harm them. Evidence and reason make the case for gun control. The rest is detail.
The ordinary citizen's right to life has to be protected over the rights of those who would kill or harm them. Evidence and reason make the case for gun control. The rest is detail.
31
It horrifies me to feel this way, but I was glad to read that it was the gun owner who had died rather than some unlucky bloke who was in the Walmart buying party fixings for New Years Eve.
6
As a lifelong gun owner, and believer in the right to bear arms as fundamental to our collective American identity I am worried, but also emboldened by the continued threats to our 2nd amendment rights. Despite the liberal media's relentless efforts to paint the NRA as Goliath to the gun control movement's David, the truth is the opposite. The NRA and the American's whose rights it champions is under siege by billionaires with a despotic agenda. I hope that Americans don't let them succeed in taking away yet more of our freedoms.
16
"The NRA and the American's whose rights it champions is under siege by billionaires with a despotic agenda."
I have not read a more ridiculous, self-serving statement in many a day. Sorry but playing "victim" as a gun advocate is ludicrous and insulting. The victims are the people who are dead or maimed because of our cowardly politicians and the self-centered people who support vile organizations like the NRA, the gun lobbies.
I have not read a more ridiculous, self-serving statement in many a day. Sorry but playing "victim" as a gun advocate is ludicrous and insulting. The victims are the people who are dead or maimed because of our cowardly politicians and the self-centered people who support vile organizations like the NRA, the gun lobbies.
4
Well.....we the people for gun safety will just have to fight you for our rights won't we?
3
The NRA is a wealthy, powerful organization supported by gun makers and a mass of scared civilians. It is not weak, threatened, endangered, or powerless, and it is certainly not a victim. It is an enabler of obscene amounts of violence and unrest.
2
As a gun owner, I fully applaud this effort. I have property in western NC, on a trout stream and a mile from national forest. Yesterday, while just enjoying the day, there was a gun shot practically under our window. To my absolute horror, someone had shot one of a pair of herons that nest nearby. We were so accustomed to them, we named them and enjoyed watching them fish and interact with the otter family who also frequent our area. I cannot express my outrage at this unfathomable act of meanness. I don't know what legal measures could have prevented this, however, it's clear that something needs to change. The shooter, coward extraordinaire, camouflaged and hidden in the woods got away despite our efforts and immediate assistance from NC Fish & Game.
What if this person decides next time that it might be fun to shoot our pets, or even one of us? What if a grandchild had been outside and the bullet ricocheted? The brutal murder of this elegant and exotic bird that graced us with his presence, has left me with a sadness, and disgust for "humanity" that will probably remain always. Watching him die, was excruciating.
What if this person decides next time that it might be fun to shoot our pets, or even one of us? What if a grandchild had been outside and the bullet ricocheted? The brutal murder of this elegant and exotic bird that graced us with his presence, has left me with a sadness, and disgust for "humanity" that will probably remain always. Watching him die, was excruciating.
43
What if? Do you really need to ask? You would be standing over a dead child. You could shoot a gun that has a bullet ricochet and could be responsible for the killing of a beautiful animal or a precious child. That's what if.
7
@swm: maybe I am misunderstanding the tone of your reply, but no - I don't really have to ask - I'm not stupid, and really don't appreciate the lecture. This was an inexcusable act by a vicious person with a gun. The "guns for everybody no matter who/what" crowd are the ones those questions were directed to.
1
Deb, You are clearly a sensitive, thoughtful person, and I mean no disrespect, however you raised some very serious 'what ifs' in a forum that allows for debate, and that as a parent I have very strong feelings about. An inexcusable act and an accidental act can have the same outcome.
2
Until NY SAFE was passed I was a legal firearm owner. Now I have several items including one rifle and two high-capacity magazines that are now illegal to own. Do I plan to modify or dispose of these items? No.
11
Having lived abroad, I appreciate the wisdom of the founding fathers had in including the second amendment. I don't take it for granted. My family lives in a country where guns are banned but armed criminals act with impunity while law abiding citizens can only cower and wish they had the right to selfdefense. That being said, I also appreciate the awesome responsibility that comes with the right to bear arms - a responsibility surely expected by our founding fathers.
10
The wisdom of a campaign for "gun safety" was lost on gun legislation advocates after Sandy Hook, and the advisability of confining their goals to reduction of specific factors that had demonstrably caused the Newtown shooting was apparently rejected.
Unfortunately -- for me, given my preference for strong gun control laws -- the intervening years have shown that states are a successful laboratory for attacking state statutes that uphold a lower-than-federal standard of civil rights. It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court will take the opposite tack now.
It might be better for advocates to focus on federal civil rights that are (arguably) in specific and demonstrable conflict with black letter 2d amendment rights.
Unfortunately -- for me, given my preference for strong gun control laws -- the intervening years have shown that states are a successful laboratory for attacking state statutes that uphold a lower-than-federal standard of civil rights. It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court will take the opposite tack now.
It might be better for advocates to focus on federal civil rights that are (arguably) in specific and demonstrable conflict with black letter 2d amendment rights.
1
The term "gun-rights groups" is an incomplete term especially when referring to the NRA. The term should be "gun-rights-above-the-right-to-live groups."
12
This is the kind of unhelpful and self absorbed rhetoric which alienates the honest gun owning public not to mention the 5mm members of the NRA. Your chances of getting killed by a firearm are miniscule even in NYC.
8
Yeah good luck with that. Supporting gay marriage and opposing gun rights are not even in the same American socio-political galaxy. The U.S. Constitution guarantees equal rights under the law (e.g., gay marriage), and also the right of the people to keep and bear arms. See the difference, utopian progressives?
10
Because it's necessary for the security of a free state which is defended by the militia.
Actually, no it doesn't. Every Supreme Court disagrees with you, including this one. As has repeated by many except those who continue to express your view, there are mitigating other terms (militia, well-regulated) in the 2nd amendment that qualify and diminish what you call a guaranteed right.
2
I hate guns. Hate em but if I felt the need to protect myself and my family, I want the option to own one. Self-defense is a basic human right and no state should be able to prevent me from defending myself or my household. Am I supposed to leave my most basic human rights up to the discretion of the police?
49
Yes, every other country in the world demands that from its citizens.
9
The only one is who asking you to is the NRA-created bogeyman they use to frighten gun owners into given the NRA money.
2
Most the planet does not consider a gun a necessary component of "human rights."
Buy a dog.
Buy a dog.
9
The gun control and same sex marriage issues are not really analogous.
The difference between the continued pursuit of greater gun control & the laudable spread of same sex marriage in the states is that the former is for more restrictions on individuals & greater government control over the citizenry, whereas the latter is for greater freedom for individuals to live their lives as they themselves decide.
Thankfully the American people are still more pro-freedom than not. That is why gun control support has sagged, while approval of gay marriage has blossomed.
The difference between the continued pursuit of greater gun control & the laudable spread of same sex marriage in the states is that the former is for more restrictions on individuals & greater government control over the citizenry, whereas the latter is for greater freedom for individuals to live their lives as they themselves decide.
Thankfully the American people are still more pro-freedom than not. That is why gun control support has sagged, while approval of gay marriage has blossomed.
9
I have no problem with someone owning a legally obtained gun - just as I have no problem with someone choosing to smoke or drink alcohol, or eat foods that lead to morbid obesity.
America is a nation defined by individual liberties. But the freedom to exercise those liberties does not mean freedom to exercise them without paying your fair share into the risk pool for society.
If you own a gun, your household is more likely to be a site of a gun shot injury - this is fact. If you smoke, you're more likely to utilize expensive health care resources - same as if you drink alcohol to some excess, and the same as if you eat yourself to a dangerous weight.
Pay for it. If you own a gun, smoke, drink or become morbidly obese, you should have to pay a fair amount of money into some sort of fund - you should have to pay for your higher risk behavior so the rest of us don't have to pick up the bill.
Tax people at every turn of dangerous behavior, and at the very minimum society won't have to worry as much about how to pay for their accidental gun shot wounds, their heart disease, liver cirrhosis or cancer.
America is a nation defined by individual liberties. But the freedom to exercise those liberties does not mean freedom to exercise them without paying your fair share into the risk pool for society.
If you own a gun, your household is more likely to be a site of a gun shot injury - this is fact. If you smoke, you're more likely to utilize expensive health care resources - same as if you drink alcohol to some excess, and the same as if you eat yourself to a dangerous weight.
Pay for it. If you own a gun, smoke, drink or become morbidly obese, you should have to pay a fair amount of money into some sort of fund - you should have to pay for your higher risk behavior so the rest of us don't have to pick up the bill.
Tax people at every turn of dangerous behavior, and at the very minimum society won't have to worry as much about how to pay for their accidental gun shot wounds, their heart disease, liver cirrhosis or cancer.
114
Oddly, Obamacare has put the insurance argument to rest. Time for some new talking points.
4
Shouldn't we then also tax pompous, self righteous indignation? Better yet, let's mandate that everyone be strong, good looking and above average. And if you live in or close to places likely to be attacked by terrorists, disgruntled citizens or aliens, your life, health, auto and homeowners insurance premiums should reflect the added risk. Folks in Langley, McLean, Fairfax, etc. should pay a hefty surcharge on their taxes for the extra security the rest of us are obliged to provide. Of course members of congress who smoke, drink, eat too much or lie will be exempt.
6
Just as a homeowner with a swimming pool in her backyard pays more for home-owner's insurance, someone who owns a gun should be required to carry insurance to indemnify others in the case of an accident. What if the toddler in Idaho had shot and insured one of his cousins instead of killing his mother?
7
In September of this year, California passed a first-of-its-kind bill authorizing the issuance of restraining orders that would confiscate firearms possessed by any close relative who might pose a threat. To me, that seems like a big deal -- a first meaningful restriction after seemingly endless failure. Californians made admittedly modest progress, but nobody else was making any. I think this follows the gay marriage model of reform and is the way to go. It should be clear by now that emotional campaigns following major shootings don't work. Small steps can. Folks who have despaired of progress should recognize that progress is made one step at a time.
2
"...who might pose a threat".
You're right, that IS a big deal!
Since when is it acceptable to circumvent "Due Process of Law" and the 4th Amendment?
You're right, that IS a big deal!
Since when is it acceptable to circumvent "Due Process of Law" and the 4th Amendment?
5
The restraining order works just like a domestic restraining order. It is issued upon specific allegations by a potential victim. Courts have repeatedly upheld them because, as any female victim of abuse can tell you, their enforcement is pretty spotty. Constitutional arguments like yours have repeatedly been made and seem reasonable. But they have not prevailed. This is not a final answer in gun matters, any more than in domestic matters. But it is a step forward.
There are huge stretches of the country that are VERY unlike New York City, vast rural and mountainous expanses where you may not see a uniformed law enforcement officer for a week or more. Protecting your family takes on a much different perspective when you live far from town or city. A gun can be all that a man has to protect his family and property from those who would do them harm.
People in these areas are not anti-"gun safety," but they fear the incrementalism of anti-gun proponents: first it's more stringent background checks, then it's restrictions on magazine size, later certain types of guns are banned, and finally the right to own a gun is taken away. They are leery of any first step in the direction of gun control.
People in these areas are not anti-"gun safety," but they fear the incrementalism of anti-gun proponents: first it's more stringent background checks, then it's restrictions on magazine size, later certain types of guns are banned, and finally the right to own a gun is taken away. They are leery of any first step in the direction of gun control.
13
Right, just like the requirement to have seat belts in cars led to the requirement to have airbags which led to the banning of cars. Oh, wait.
8
See Chicago and California for proof.
1
"Protecting your family"
Sorry but the "Charles Bronson" rationale is ridiculous at best, and is more likely disingenuous. Some people like to shoot guns. Just admit it. Then we can discuss selfishness and civic responsibility.
Sorry but the "Charles Bronson" rationale is ridiculous at best, and is more likely disingenuous. Some people like to shoot guns. Just admit it. Then we can discuss selfishness and civic responsibility.
2
"The gun control movement...using the same-sex marriage movement as a model to take the fight to voters on the state level."
Uh, didn't same-sex marriage lose at the ballot box only to win in court? Gun control has lost in court and lost in federal elections. Now, based on one ballot issue in one state, the thinking is they have a winning strategy? Good luck with that. The article says it best: "Candidates who backed gun control mostly lost in the midterm elections, even after groups spent millions on their behalf."
There is a reason Republicans have greater control at the state level than ever before, 68 of 98 partisan state legislative chambers; Democrats flogging losing issues such as gun control.
Uh, didn't same-sex marriage lose at the ballot box only to win in court? Gun control has lost in court and lost in federal elections. Now, based on one ballot issue in one state, the thinking is they have a winning strategy? Good luck with that. The article says it best: "Candidates who backed gun control mostly lost in the midterm elections, even after groups spent millions on their behalf."
There is a reason Republicans have greater control at the state level than ever before, 68 of 98 partisan state legislative chambers; Democrats flogging losing issues such as gun control.
13
Uh, didn't same-sex marriage lose at the ballot box only to win in court? Gun control has lost in court and lost in federal elections. Now, based on one ballot issue in one state, the thinking is they have a winning strategy? Good luck with that. The article says it best: "Candidates who backed gun control mostly lost in the midterm elections, even after groups spent millions on their behalf."
======================
Amazing thought process isn't it?
Especially the cognitive dissonance about passed ballot initiatives prohibiting same sex marriage being overturned by courts.
======================
Amazing thought process isn't it?
Especially the cognitive dissonance about passed ballot initiatives prohibiting same sex marriage being overturned by courts.
Nonsense and misdirection.
Cars still kill more people in the USA than any other method. Cars have killed more US citizens annually than guns since 1916. It is so common we don't consider auto deaths a problem. That is collective psychosis.
Over 110 children are backed over and killed by the family car every single year in the USA. So 5.5 Newtown Massacres happen every single year thanks to the family car. You never hear about it because it is not spectacular enough.
Gun deaths of children under 19 year of age also pale in comparison to drowning, fire, poisoning, and suffocation. In most states, death by firearm is not even important enough to register in the statistics. Autos are always number 1.
The CDC tells us that 60% of gun deaths in the US are suicides. A Harvard Law study tells us that the presence of firearms does not affect suicide rates. Japan is gun-free, but has a suicide rate 4x higher than the USA.
According to the FBI, 87% of US gun murders are carried out by felons who possess a gun illegally. Same dataset states that 78% of firearm VICTIMS have a felonious history.
Criminals killing criminals, yet gun control seeks to affect ONLY the non-criminal, law-abiding gun owner.
Like me.
Cars still kill more people in the USA than any other method. Cars have killed more US citizens annually than guns since 1916. It is so common we don't consider auto deaths a problem. That is collective psychosis.
Over 110 children are backed over and killed by the family car every single year in the USA. So 5.5 Newtown Massacres happen every single year thanks to the family car. You never hear about it because it is not spectacular enough.
Gun deaths of children under 19 year of age also pale in comparison to drowning, fire, poisoning, and suffocation. In most states, death by firearm is not even important enough to register in the statistics. Autos are always number 1.
The CDC tells us that 60% of gun deaths in the US are suicides. A Harvard Law study tells us that the presence of firearms does not affect suicide rates. Japan is gun-free, but has a suicide rate 4x higher than the USA.
According to the FBI, 87% of US gun murders are carried out by felons who possess a gun illegally. Same dataset states that 78% of firearm VICTIMS have a felonious history.
Criminals killing criminals, yet gun control seeks to affect ONLY the non-criminal, law-abiding gun owner.
Like me.
16
Further, if one subtracts the "black on black" gun violence, the stats for gun injury and death mirror other developed countries. However, combine mental illness (which this country pitifully attempts to address), and alcohol and drugs with gun ownership and you have a tragedy on the prowl. The same can be said for automobiles and drugs and alcohol. Keeping guns from law abiding citizens is a thug's dream
7
I can understand what you mean about vehicles, but cars are not used as weapons and many, many more people are driving cars at any one time, which means you will have many more chances of people being killed in car accidents, which could be a reason why their numbers are higher.
1
Wow the deaths by other means makes the deaths by guns ok because there are fewer ones.......mind boggling logic here
1
I myself own a glock 40 caliber handgun, shot it with my 18 year old daughter and her boyfriend last week, fun was had by all. When at home the gun is close at hand ( I have no small children) and the lord have mercy on the intruder that enters my home in this castle doctrine state, for I assure you I shall have absolutely none. That said it is outrageous that it is easy to get an AR-15 assault rifle or similar gun ( the Sandy Hook weapon) and bring it into your home. Nobody needs it unless they are expecting a surprise ISIS attack presently, or they find themselves beset on all sides by big cats during the commute to work. Want to fire an AR-15 or similar weapon? Rent it and return it. There must be a measure of sanity in the gun debate, lest their be further Sandy Hooks.
8
Odd. Many small-town police departments are militarizing (uniforms, weapons, armored vehicles), justifying their excesses by citing the possibility of a surprise ISIS attack materializing presently in Pleasantville. Should it surprise us if some of the hoi polloi share their concern, and arm themselves, willing to rise as a militia in such an event?
1
"for I assure you I shall have absolutely none"
How sad that scorn for and distrust of our fellow citizens so strongly characterizes the pro-gun lobby.
How sad that scorn for and distrust of our fellow citizens so strongly characterizes the pro-gun lobby.
1
This will not be easy as gun lobby is so powerful and not enough politicians have the courage to address this problem. How many Americans were killed or wounded by gun violence in 2014? This figure should be publicized.
3
BLB, do a little homework before you start talking about "this problem". Take 30 seconds to do a web search on FBI Homicides Table 8 and you'll see the real numbers which show "this problem" is steadily going down for both gun and rifle homicides for the last 20 years. Stop getting your facts from a 2 minute sound bite on some mass media station with an agenda. So there you go, the figures are published (8454 homicides in 2013 of which 285 were done by rifles), and they simply do not back the "out of control gun carnage' image that is being published by the media or people who are clueless.
5
It seems that Nanny Bloomberg hasn't learned his lesson.
No one likes a hypocrite who wants take guns away from the people while he drives around in an armored limousine with bodyguards.
Also, no American is going to turn in his or her gun under any circumstances after what happened in Ferguson.
No one likes a hypocrite who wants take guns away from the people while he drives around in an armored limousine with bodyguards.
Also, no American is going to turn in his or her gun under any circumstances after what happened in Ferguson.
14
"clearly Washington is broken,” Mr. Feinblatt said. “You have to influence the federal government at the state."
Too bad for the Left, after the midterms Republicans now have historical domination at the state level, controlling 68 of 98 state legislative bodies, and now 31 Governorships. The NY Times conveniently neglects to mention this.
So even disguised as "gun safety", there is little chance the gun control issue will be successful on the state level.
Too bad for the Left, after the midterms Republicans now have historical domination at the state level, controlling 68 of 98 state legislative bodies, and now 31 Governorships. The NY Times conveniently neglects to mention this.
So even disguised as "gun safety", there is little chance the gun control issue will be successful on the state level.
7
Fact: Gun controls work - see Australia or the U.S. Capitol Building as examples.
Fact: Gun restrictions are Constitutional - see the words "well-regulated".
Fact: Lax gun laws are the reasons too many Americans needlessly die. See the news recently tracing the gun used in the senseless killing of two NYC police officers.
Fact: The only reason we don't have reasonable laws to protect us (universal background checks, limits on high-capacity magazines, gun registration) is because of the profit-over-life-minded NRA and their supporters.
Fact: Gun restrictions are Constitutional - see the words "well-regulated".
Fact: Lax gun laws are the reasons too many Americans needlessly die. See the news recently tracing the gun used in the senseless killing of two NYC police officers.
Fact: The only reason we don't have reasonable laws to protect us (universal background checks, limits on high-capacity magazines, gun registration) is because of the profit-over-life-minded NRA and their supporters.
7
Most of the traction that the pro-gun control got after Newtown has been crushed by the NRA. Unfortunatly, it's going to take a future tragedy and a higher body count than Sandy Hook for any serious conversation about guns to happen again. Truly sad.
4
I get so tired of the "my second amendment rights" scream. Have you read the only 2 decisions on the second amendment issued by the most conservative court in modern times? You don't have a right to walk down main street packing an open carry or concealed carry weapon. Your federal rights end with the pistol you keep for protection in your home. Try carrying that rifle slung over your shoulder when you shop for groceries in Virginia and walk down an aisle in Maryland and you will be body-slammed to the floor. Thank goodness intelligence prevails and please don't compare drug war fatalities in Baltimore with your rural lifestyle. I've lived in Baltimore all my life and witnessed one purse-snatching.
6
Isn't that "most conservative court in modern times" the same court that approved of same sex marriage and approved of the Obamacare law?
5
After a tragedy involving guns, the pro-gun groups are quick to compare them to hammers, and blame the gunman. Two police officers were murdered in Brooklyn almost 3 weeks ago by a gun. The reaction from the pro-gun crowd: blame the mayor. It's rhetoric that drowns out any serious conversation about this important subject.
7
Police anger toward elected authorities in NY and police killings of unarmed citizens throughout U.S. are best arguments against restricting gun ownership too much. Cops have guns and, worse, they are organized.
4
THIS Past summer the NRA floated the proposition that advancement of school children in grade should be contingent on their passing a fire arms proficiency test.
IF this was the case, I guess the dead eye Idaho 2 year old who shot his mom in the head in Walmart should be off to university now instead of preschool.
BUT as we all know, more guns make us all safer.
IF this was the case, I guess the dead eye Idaho 2 year old who shot his mom in the head in Walmart should be off to university now instead of preschool.
BUT as we all know, more guns make us all safer.
10
Unfortunately the victim stored her weapon in an unsafe manner. We shouldn't abridge the rights of millions due to the negligence of 1 person.
3
As long as even one state has loose gun laws there will be a flow of illegal guns out of that state into the more restrictive states. There are gun runners leaving New York City ,driving to Virginia, and coming back to the city and making good money selling weapons illegally. This is why real change can only come from federal laws, which doesn't look like it will happen any time soon.
1
How can you know that somebody is mentally unfit to purchase and keep a firearm if you have a healthcare system that doesn't cover 50 million Americans? Let's just keep on doing what we do best: practice violence, on each other, on foreign countries.
2
I would like the reporter who wrote this article to cite her sources for the information that the NRA is largely supported by small donors. The NRA is heavily subsidized by the gun manufacturing industry.
3
The internet is your friend.
"The National Rifle Association of America, on the other hand, reported $227.8 million in revenues in 2010 — nearly half of which came from member dues ($100.5 million) and program fees ($6.6 million)."
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/do-assault-weapons-sales-pay-nra-salaries/
"The National Rifle Association of America, on the other hand, reported $227.8 million in revenues in 2010 — nearly half of which came from member dues ($100.5 million) and program fees ($6.6 million)."
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/do-assault-weapons-sales-pay-nra-salaries/
3
Bullets are people, too.
Support the NRA and more senseless gun deaths.
Support the NRA and more senseless gun deaths.
10
Ballot initiatives were passed overwhelmingly in some states to ban same-sex marriage only to be overturned by judges as unconstitutional. Why wouldn't the will of the majority to control or ban certain guns meet a similar annulment?
3
Because in both cases, there is the Constitution. In the first instance, there's the equal protection clause. In the second, there's the phrase "well-regulated".
3
To the Framers ”well-regulated" meant highly trained or properly functioning, not proscribed by law as people interpret the meaning today.
4
To the Framers, arms meant muskets.
2
And just how do gun control folks plan on disarming the gangs that have no problem getting illegal guns to kill each other as well as innocent victims? Do they really believe ballot initiatives will stop the street corner buying and selling? There will always be a way to get a gun for these thugs. Go after them, not the safety conscious gun owner who goes through the background checks and does it right.
8
That's a really good point. Career criminals aren't going to be hampered by the regulations mentioned in this article. Do you think it's possible that the gun safety initiatives could succeed in other contexts though? Maybe these regulations would be more effective in preventing gun crimes by less sophisticated assailants: the mentally ill, known wife beaters, etc.
In my own life, I worry more about someone going off the deep end and shooting up my wife's office or my kid's school than some gangster in a part of the city we frankly never enter.
I could see where someone with a history of mental illness might object on discrimination grounds. Perhaps it's just a scare tactic by the gun safety folks. I'd like to see some numbers on how many people would actually get rejected weapons by the policies outlined here. Also, how many violent crimes have been committed by those people.
In my own life, I worry more about someone going off the deep end and shooting up my wife's office or my kid's school than some gangster in a part of the city we frankly never enter.
I could see where someone with a history of mental illness might object on discrimination grounds. Perhaps it's just a scare tactic by the gun safety folks. I'd like to see some numbers on how many people would actually get rejected weapons by the policies outlined here. Also, how many violent crimes have been committed by those people.
4
America suffers 33,000-35,000 deaths by gun *every year*. We are 4th in the world in death by gun - after Thailand, Nigeria, and Colombia. It's a fact that if you own a gun, you are more likely to die from gunshot than someone who doesn't own a gun. Aside from our outsized gun death numbers, consider the 10's of thousands of injuries caused by guns.
The NRA is little more than a gun manufacturers lobby; they are, in fact, akin to a terrorist organization because they regularly oppose even the most basic safety laws and gun safety innovations. The NRA has enabled the distribution of more than 300 million guns to American gun owners. No other country in the world has this problem in such numbers!
What is most disappointing is that the NRA uses its funding from gun manufacturers to threaten politicians with loss of their position, and it works!
Last, the perverse arguments made by the NRA, and even the stacked Supreme Court about "the right to bear arms", resembles nothing of the intention of the 2nd Amendment. Where is the NRA's *organized* militia. Where is there ANY organized American militia outside of the National Guard or the US military.
What makes me laugh is that if, by a 10 billion to one chance, the American military would go rogue, that all of these chest-beating, "rah-rah" NRA types think their pea shooters would stand a chance. It's laughable and tragic at the same time.
The NRA is little more than a gun manufacturers lobby; they are, in fact, akin to a terrorist organization because they regularly oppose even the most basic safety laws and gun safety innovations. The NRA has enabled the distribution of more than 300 million guns to American gun owners. No other country in the world has this problem in such numbers!
What is most disappointing is that the NRA uses its funding from gun manufacturers to threaten politicians with loss of their position, and it works!
Last, the perverse arguments made by the NRA, and even the stacked Supreme Court about "the right to bear arms", resembles nothing of the intention of the 2nd Amendment. Where is the NRA's *organized* militia. Where is there ANY organized American militia outside of the National Guard or the US military.
What makes me laugh is that if, by a 10 billion to one chance, the American military would go rogue, that all of these chest-beating, "rah-rah" NRA types think their pea shooters would stand a chance. It's laughable and tragic at the same time.
13
So many falsehoods in your comments I'm not even sure where to begin. First off, your 33K deaths by guns implies people killing each other. In fact, homicides by guns is 8454 in 2013 (see FBI homicides table 8). The majority are suicides which bluntly speaking, if they did not have a gun they would jump or use a rope. Read the Federalist papers and get up to speed on your talking points. The founders wanted an armed populace to curtail the power of a Federal government. Finally, your most laughable is the US Military going rogue to do what, gun confiscation? The Military would disolve and its members would defend the 2nd amendment. I doubt you have ever served let alone know anyone in uniform, otherwise you would know how stupid you comment is.
7
Thailand, Nigeria, Columbia, all involved in battling insurrections of one sort or another. We have nothing of the sort and come in fourth! Absolutely amazing. The civilized world must be laughing at us and rightly so.
3
"Laughable" sums up your entire comment.
4
Violent crime rates are at the lowest levels we've seen since the 1950s and yet gun ownership is at the highest levels we've ever seen and gun rights are as liberal as we've seen in decades. Clearly increased gun ownership has not increased violence and carnage. We are doing a great job at reducing violent crime. We should all be happy. Given the amount of serious problems we have in this country, gun ownership is really pretty low on the list. We would be well served to let this issue go and focus our resources on actual problems.
10
A civilized American society would repeal the 2nd amendment or at least amend to ban all handguns outside one's own property.
4
It's a good thing we're so uncivilized!
12
Few points.
1) Universal background check is a horrible concept because it was designed by people very anti gun and who don't understand the system. Requiring FFL/Form 4473 is burdensome and infringing. Requiring of temporary transfers is just asinine.
2) In Colorado, the gun control is not very popular and has very little compliance and no enforcement. None. Nota. No arrests, no interest in arrests. They are pile on laws, nothing more. Well, other than they infringe on law abiding gun owners. Poll after poll has shown majority in Colorado do not suppor the new gun laws.
3) The CO Senate seats held by Dems and were recalled after the new gun laws did go back to Dems in November. However, despite the best efforts of the Democratic party to be the party of gun control, there are pro gun Dems out there and one of them won a recalled Senate seat in CO. IOW, BFD.
4) Hickenlooper is so wishy washy, he will tell you likes/supports the new gun laws, or doesn't depending on the day of week and who the audience is. He is on record admitting they are largely unenforceable and especially admitted the magazine ban wasn't a good idea.
5) Hickenlooper also barely won his reelection against a re-purposed GOP candidate that ran for Gov in 2006 and lost then by 17 points. It was a 3 pt loss this time. Hick won by the seat of his pants in a race he should have won big. If not for his support of more gun control.
1) Universal background check is a horrible concept because it was designed by people very anti gun and who don't understand the system. Requiring FFL/Form 4473 is burdensome and infringing. Requiring of temporary transfers is just asinine.
2) In Colorado, the gun control is not very popular and has very little compliance and no enforcement. None. Nota. No arrests, no interest in arrests. They are pile on laws, nothing more. Well, other than they infringe on law abiding gun owners. Poll after poll has shown majority in Colorado do not suppor the new gun laws.
3) The CO Senate seats held by Dems and were recalled after the new gun laws did go back to Dems in November. However, despite the best efforts of the Democratic party to be the party of gun control, there are pro gun Dems out there and one of them won a recalled Senate seat in CO. IOW, BFD.
4) Hickenlooper is so wishy washy, he will tell you likes/supports the new gun laws, or doesn't depending on the day of week and who the audience is. He is on record admitting they are largely unenforceable and especially admitted the magazine ban wasn't a good idea.
5) Hickenlooper also barely won his reelection against a re-purposed GOP candidate that ran for Gov in 2006 and lost then by 17 points. It was a 3 pt loss this time. Hick won by the seat of his pants in a race he should have won big. If not for his support of more gun control.
9
Look what happened in CT. They passed their assault weapons law and were met with massive civil disobedience. There are tens of thousands of new felons in Connecticut and the government has no idea what to do about it. The government bluffed and the citizens called them on it. No one registered their AR-15's or their large capacity magazines.
10
Look what happened in CT. They passed their assault weapons law and were met with massive civil disobedience. There are tens of thousands of new felons in Connecticut and the government has no idea what to do about it.
================
Similar situation in New York. Civil disobedience
================
Similar situation in New York. Civil disobedience
1
1. The US is the only Western, developed democracy where a two year old accidentally kills his mother by reaching in her purse and shooting her pistol while they were out shopping. Something like this happens regularly. The US is the only Western, developed democracy where civilian police regularly shoot and kill unarmed citizens. This happens because the police are rightfully worried that everyone is carrying a weapon.
2. The Congress and Supreme Court may thwart attempts to limit "the right to bear arms" but they cannot overturn local efforts to control the behavior of those who do. Local ordinances can establish no shooting zones, for example. They can require gun sellers to hire specially licensed security guards. They can add taxes to the sale of guns and ammunition.
3. Insurance companies give discounts for those who engage in safe behavior, i.e., they charge more for those who engage in risky behavior. Gun ownership is risky behavior.
4. The social model that should be followed is how cigarette smoking in public has been severely limited. Private businesses and residences should ban guns from the premises. Separate areas for those with weapons could be set up in some establishments. Many smokers have quit because of the social disapproval and isolation. This strategy can be applied to guns, too. Parents should not let their children visit friends if there are guns in the houses of the friends.
2. The Congress and Supreme Court may thwart attempts to limit "the right to bear arms" but they cannot overturn local efforts to control the behavior of those who do. Local ordinances can establish no shooting zones, for example. They can require gun sellers to hire specially licensed security guards. They can add taxes to the sale of guns and ammunition.
3. Insurance companies give discounts for those who engage in safe behavior, i.e., they charge more for those who engage in risky behavior. Gun ownership is risky behavior.
4. The social model that should be followed is how cigarette smoking in public has been severely limited. Private businesses and residences should ban guns from the premises. Separate areas for those with weapons could be set up in some establishments. Many smokers have quit because of the social disapproval and isolation. This strategy can be applied to guns, too. Parents should not let their children visit friends if there are guns in the houses of the friends.
9
The US is a Republic, not a Democracy. Big difference.
I'm all for businesses banning guns on their premises.
Every gun owner will boycott their establishments, rightly so.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/02/smallbusiness/open-carry-guns-restaurants/
I'm all for businesses banning guns on their premises.
Every gun owner will boycott their establishments, rightly so.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/02/smallbusiness/open-carry-guns-restaurants/
The most important thing to do is register voters and get people to the polls.
5
Why do these freedom lovers stop with guns? Shouldn't we be allowed to have anti-aircraft missiles, (following an NRA safety course in their proper use, naturally) ? Why rely on big government to protect you and your family from a possible foreign air assault? Further, since the 2nd amendment addresses the issue of protection from overzealous government, the only way to counter them is with FULL access to ALL military hardware--automatic weapons, tanks, napalm, fighter jets, atomic bombs.
Who are THEY to tell an American citizen he can't have an ICBM in his back yard?
Who are THEY to tell an American citizen he can't have an ICBM in his back yard?
3
Why do these freedom lovers stop with guns? Shouldn't we be allowed to have anti-aircraft missiles, (following an NRA safety course in their proper use, naturally) ? Why rely on big government to protect you and your family from a possible foreign air assault? Further, since the 2nd amendment addresses the issue of protection from overzealous government, the only way to counter them is with FULL access to ALL military hardware--automatic weapons, tanks, napalm, fighter jets, atomic bombs.
Who are THEY to tell an American citizen he can't have an ICBM in his back yard?
Who are THEY to tell an American citizen he can't have an ICBM in his back yard?
3
Gun control advocates are misguided. Gun massacres are only the visible manifestation of deep cultural malfunction. By this, I mean economic injustice, racism, suburban purposelessness, and the mental illness to which these things give rise. Band-aids don't work. Outlawing guns will simply cause desperation to morph-- probably into more dangerous form, viz. Boston Marathon-style bombings. An obvious analogue is trading Saddam Hussein for pan-Islamic guerilla solidarity in the form of the Islamic State. Problems must be addressed at their root.
This is one side of the coin.
The other side is that political rights cannot be secured absent a confident citizenry. The founding fathers recognized this. Drones kill innocents all over the world every day, and these drones may come home to roost. As MLK pointed out, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
This is one side of the coin.
The other side is that political rights cannot be secured absent a confident citizenry. The founding fathers recognized this. Drones kill innocents all over the world every day, and these drones may come home to roost. As MLK pointed out, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
7
I don't think the two year old who shot his mother in a grocery store was incensed over socioeconomic imbalances in the urban landscape.
68
Wow, keith-e; pro-guns and pro-MLK in the same comment. And, by the way, the so-called founding fathers did not believe in an armed citizenry to ensure confidence. Nice try.
7
I concern myself with the big picture.
Can we please just divide up the country and let all those who want guns be in one part and all those who want to live without guns live in the other part. I want to live where only the police and the military have guns.
3
I saw a movie once where only the police and military had guns.
...It was called "Schindler's List".
...It was called "Schindler's List".
8
May I suggest Cuba or North Korea?
5
This wouldn't even be an issue except for the archaic second amendment.
If that were to be repealed, then we could decide if we want to allow people to carry in public places, objects that are designed for the sole purpose of killing the people around them.
If that were to be repealed, then we could decide if we want to allow people to carry in public places, objects that are designed for the sole purpose of killing the people around them.
2
Maybe we can get rid of that pesky First Amendment, too, while we're at it?
I happen to think that you have far too much freedom of speech...
I happen to think that you have far too much freedom of speech...
8
Archaic?
Self defense is a natural and eternal right.
Self defense is a natural and eternal right.
9
Our new law here in WA is already working, barring a convicted felon from buying a gun at a gun show a couple weeks ago. I worked on this campaign with very dedicated volunteers who are sickened by gun violence, the tepid political response to the problem, and the extremist influence of the NRA. We are now a force to be reckoned with and will push for additional, sensible legislation at the state level. The tide has indeed turned!
9
I think this makes eminent sense. As does the rewording of what proposed gun limits are all about. Much as marriage equality made more sense than 'same-sex marriage,' so does gun safety much over gun control, which is negative and threatening.
Isn't safety and accident prevention what gun safety all about? I'm still haunted by the New Years incident in Idaho where the 2-year old found his mother's loaded pistol, in her open handbag, and he managed to kill her. While I doubt any of the gun safety legislation would change the potential for similar acts, I'd like to see more efforts to ensure that gun-owners act responsibly with loaded weapons around kids. I never ceased to be amazed at how careless people are with guns, which matches the spirit of our current freewheeling gun culture, fostered and aggravated by the NRA.
Isn't safety and accident prevention what gun safety all about? I'm still haunted by the New Years incident in Idaho where the 2-year old found his mother's loaded pistol, in her open handbag, and he managed to kill her. While I doubt any of the gun safety legislation would change the potential for similar acts, I'd like to see more efforts to ensure that gun-owners act responsibly with loaded weapons around kids. I never ceased to be amazed at how careless people are with guns, which matches the spirit of our current freewheeling gun culture, fostered and aggravated by the NRA.
4
On the other hand, if every child of a gun owner shot their parents, the problem would soon take care of itself.
11
As long as even one state has loose gun laws there will be a flow of illegal guns out of that state into the more restrictive states. There are gun runners leaving New York City ,driving to Virginia, and coming back to the city and making good money selling weapons illegally. This is why real change can only come from federal laws, which doesn't look like it will happen any time soon.
1
Follow the gay marriage strategy? I kind of hope they do. When it gets closer to home, when it affects people personally, I think they'll find more, not less, support for meaningful (by which I mean effective) gun controls. I support the rights of people to be able to walk around, go to school, drive their cars without losing their right to live.
4
Tim B. As we all know, correlation does not equal causation. Canada and the UK do have more stringent gun laws, but they are also different societies with different values.
I understand that we need stricter gun laws, but what kind? What gun law would have stopped the Newtown killings?
I understand that we need stricter gun laws, but what kind? What gun law would have stopped the Newtown killings?
8
A ban on high-capacity magazines would be a good start.
4
Fact: Gun controls work - see Australia or the U.S. Capitol Building as examples.
Fact: Gun restrictions are Constitutional - see the words "well-regulated".
Fact: Lax gun laws are the reasons too many Americans needlessly die. See the news recently tracing the gun used in the senseless killing of two NYC police officers.
Fact: The only reason we don't have reasonable laws to protect us (universal background checks, limits on high-capacity magazines, gun registration) is because of the profit-over-life-minded NRA and their supporters.
Fact: Gun restrictions are Constitutional - see the words "well-regulated".
Fact: Lax gun laws are the reasons too many Americans needlessly die. See the news recently tracing the gun used in the senseless killing of two NYC police officers.
Fact: The only reason we don't have reasonable laws to protect us (universal background checks, limits on high-capacity magazines, gun registration) is because of the profit-over-life-minded NRA and their supporters.
11
'The National Rifle Association is well attuned to its foes’ shift in focus. “We will be wherever they are to challenge them,” said Andrew Arulanandam, the group’s spokesman.'
Translation: "We will be wherever they are to challenge common sense, intelligence, basic safety and and any simple efforts that would decrease the gun death rate in the United States."
Dollars Over People; Greed Over People.
Nice despicable country.
Translation: "We will be wherever they are to challenge common sense, intelligence, basic safety and and any simple efforts that would decrease the gun death rate in the United States."
Dollars Over People; Greed Over People.
Nice despicable country.
133
Gun control advocates may feel better pursuing their goals of disarming ordinary law abiding citizens however, they will have an infinitesimal effect on gun violence.
7
Our social and economic peers also have mental illness, gangs, poverty, etc.
But they have far, far lower homicide rates than the USA, where all the extra homicide is due to guns.
Germany, Japan, Australia, UK, etc. prove that if you control guns, senseless deaths go down.
It's not controversial, it's not complicated, it's not hard to understand: easy access to guns = more pointless deaths.
But they have far, far lower homicide rates than the USA, where all the extra homicide is due to guns.
Germany, Japan, Australia, UK, etc. prove that if you control guns, senseless deaths go down.
It's not controversial, it's not complicated, it's not hard to understand: easy access to guns = more pointless deaths.
8
Please continue to tiptoe around the elephant in the room.
The assertion that gun safety advocates are trying to "disarm ordinary law abiding citizens" is rank hyperbole.
But beyond the so-called "law-abiding" crowd, how about we start restricting access to and ownership of guns from the non law-abiding, the mentally unstable and the downright criminally insane?
But beyond the so-called "law-abiding" crowd, how about we start restricting access to and ownership of guns from the non law-abiding, the mentally unstable and the downright criminally insane?
4
I think proponents of sensible gun regulations need to reframe this issue to one of equal rights for both pro- and anti-gun people. Citizens who favor tighter gun regulations should be able, within their own states, cities, and towns, to enact such regulations to protect their safety. To quash any attempt at regulation, which is the NRA's stance, is to deny the rights of those who would disarm their communities for safety. Why can't we have communities favorable to each view?
Why does the NRA hide behind their overly expansive view of the 2nd amendment to deny these equal rights? Are they afraid that a balanced public debate would show their views to be in the minority? By squelching the discussion through buying our politicians, they are deny equal rights to those who favor the safety of fewer armed citizens.
Why does the NRA hide behind their overly expansive view of the 2nd amendment to deny these equal rights? Are they afraid that a balanced public debate would show their views to be in the minority? By squelching the discussion through buying our politicians, they are deny equal rights to those who favor the safety of fewer armed citizens.
12
It's sad to realize how many people will fight for their rights to hold on to and/or purchase weapons that KILL ... and get all up in arms (pun intended) when others question that. How is it that someone who bears firearms feels free? If you need to have firearms to feel free, aren't you really feeling threatened and defensive ... where's the freedom in that?
33
The freedom of firearm ownership - besides the freedom to hunt or do target shooting, is in one's right to defend one's self. Have you ever been the victim of violent crime, be it a carjacking, a home invasion, a mugging, a rape? Have you ever been walking somewhere and been attacked by a pack of dogs? It is not paranoia to be aware of the fact that criminals exist and that they victimize people every day. Where is the freedom in being a victim with no means to defend one's physical sovereignty? Having a gun for a possible defensive scenario does not mean one feels constantly threatened and defensive. Do you feel in constant fear of fire because you have a smoke detector and fire extinguisher in your house?
2
Self reliance and personal responsibility are part of being free.... you need not carry a weapon if you choose not to or live in NJ where only criminals and the police have them...
2
Absolutely right on!
1
It is just wrong and un-American to revoke a Constitutional right from someone without due process of law. A restraining order can be issued with no finding of facts. If police arrested domestic abusers and prosecutors charged them with felonious assault then upon conviction the abusers would not have legal access to guns.
8
Some say the constitution does not give people that right it gives the people the right to form militias.
1
The Constitution does not give any rights, it recognizes pre-existing, natural rights. I have the right to defend my life using lethal force if necessary. That is well-established in Common Law.
1
While "some" may share Don's view, "others" whose opinions actually matter - a majority of the SCOTUS - disagree.
1
I am tired of government 'controls' on drugs, booze, guns, whatever.
All we get from such 'control' is more sclerotic bureaucracy, mindless paper-shuffling, militarized and aggressive police, and an underclass of revolving-door feeders for the system. Yet the social problems they are meant to address always still remain.
How 'gun control' would differ in its outcome than, say, 'drug control' has never been explained. Its a weasel phrase that gives something rancid in lieu of what it literally suggests. Maybe that's why they're trying 'gun safety?'
The more descriptive term for what it delivers would be 'DMV for Pistols.' Or 'Form TZ-4329JBN-847.' Nothing else will change.
All we get from such 'control' is more sclerotic bureaucracy, mindless paper-shuffling, militarized and aggressive police, and an underclass of revolving-door feeders for the system. Yet the social problems they are meant to address always still remain.
How 'gun control' would differ in its outcome than, say, 'drug control' has never been explained. Its a weasel phrase that gives something rancid in lieu of what it literally suggests. Maybe that's why they're trying 'gun safety?'
The more descriptive term for what it delivers would be 'DMV for Pistols.' Or 'Form TZ-4329JBN-847.' Nothing else will change.
10
What? And how do you explain other developed countries minuscule numbers for the daily mayhem inflicted on the people in this country? Gun control works. Ask any Brit.
1
And I am just as tired of the steady drumbeat of anti-government sentiment that defines "liberty" simplistically and hollowly as "the right to do what I want without interference." There is a public, and such a thing as the public interest. Genuine liberty is about striking a balance between individual rights and the public welfare. Gun ownership rights have expanded far beyond the degree necessary to secure individual liberty because conservative populist politicians play the issue endlessly for political gain. Some of the very same libertarians, like Rand Paul, then call for the government to step in and close the border to stop the spread of ebola, displaying the inconsistency and vapidness of the extreme libertarian philosophy.
2
"And I am just as tired of the steady drumbeat of anti-government sentiment that defines "liberty" simplistically and hollowly as "the right to do what I want without interference."
This is exactly what I am talking about above. I never talked of individual rights or any such thing in my post. I said 'gun control' is a weasel-phrase because one thing it will not do is 'control' guns. Eric Garner died as a result of NYC trying to 'control' cigarettes. Yet people still smoke, and there's ten more Eric Garners hawking singles on the street. That is a microcosm of 'cigarette control' in action. Gun control will be no different.
And any nation remotely comparable in both size and diversity to the United States is per-capita a much more violent place, no matter their gun controls. Stop with the inane comparisons with European mini-states vis-a-vis a continental superpower like the United States; its like equating John Elway and Ryan Leaf because they were both NFL quarterbacks. Just silly.
This is exactly what I am talking about above. I never talked of individual rights or any such thing in my post. I said 'gun control' is a weasel-phrase because one thing it will not do is 'control' guns. Eric Garner died as a result of NYC trying to 'control' cigarettes. Yet people still smoke, and there's ten more Eric Garners hawking singles on the street. That is a microcosm of 'cigarette control' in action. Gun control will be no different.
And any nation remotely comparable in both size and diversity to the United States is per-capita a much more violent place, no matter their gun controls. Stop with the inane comparisons with European mini-states vis-a-vis a continental superpower like the United States; its like equating John Elway and Ryan Leaf because they were both NFL quarterbacks. Just silly.
2
Yes, same-sex marriage might be a good model to use.
But how about using the NRA model? It is obviously extremely successful, going from 29% to 52% support for gun ownership rights in 13 years.
How did this happen? The NRA? Fox News? The rise of the southern, white Republican party? Video games? Mexican drug wars? Lobbyists?
What?
But how about using the NRA model? It is obviously extremely successful, going from 29% to 52% support for gun ownership rights in 13 years.
How did this happen? The NRA? Fox News? The rise of the southern, white Republican party? Video games? Mexican drug wars? Lobbyists?
What?
2
They wrote a lot of checks to politicians.
2
@Ken, what kind of circular logic is this? The Pew research is a public opinion poll, not a poll of congressmen.
3
You make it sound like support for gun ownership is something that people have been manipulated into. How about other reasons, like the fact that more people are taking greater responsibility for the protection of self and their loved ones? How about an increase in interest in hunting for procuring meat that is healthy and free of hormones and additives?
4
The comparison with gay marriage is bogus. In most states where it has been legalized, gay marriage was imposed by the federal courts and against the will of the majority of voters. To adopt the same strategy with gun laws, you'd have to frame the restrictions as an equal protection issue. Maybe you can find a few unelected liberal judges to circumvent the will of the voters.
4
There is something the gun control crowd is forgetting when they aim for local laws: A municipal or state law cannot abrogate a constitutional right. If a state law is passed that bans or puts undo restrictions on gun owner rights, the law will be overturned by the Supreme Court. Look at Cook County for an example.
11
That is probably why they are not trying to abrogate constitutional rights. If you read the article, you'd see that they are focusing on things like background checks, which have generally found to be constitutional. I didn't read anything in this article about trying to replicate Cook County.
5
The Democrats in Trenton think otherwise. Fortunately, they have not been able to override Christie's vetoes.
4
And which well-regulated militia do you belong to again?
3
I dislike the e comparison with marriage equality...which is extending rights under the equal protection clause while gun control seeks to curtail constitutional rights. That said, the details SHOULD reside with the states, Most of so called gun control is a failure. California, the only 4 star state from the Brady campaign, has a higher gun murder rate than Texas. Now I need to figure out how to get out of here, meanwhile I will keep up my donations to my favorite civil rights group, the National Rifle Association
11
The law already requires gun purchasers to go through a background check. The law already forbids those with domestic violence convictions from owning a firearm. Restraining orders can be had as easily as a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, and do not reflect a conviction, and everyone has some form or level of "mental illness", so those criteria are overly broad, prejudicial and, like most of this article, disingenuous. The reason the gun control "groups" now have the money to fund their special interest is Michael Bloomberg, who heads, funds or pulls the strings on many if not most of them.
This is not to argue against any regulations, most shooters agree with most Americans that certified criminals and mental patients should not have guns. The nuance required to effect reasonable regulations, however, is lost of many of the frequently strident, sometimes rabid anti-gunners. Like it or not, a dispassionate, empirical look at the numbers and statistics show things that they would rather not come to light, like increased ownership correlating with decreased crime. They don't want you to hear authorities in the know saying that so called "assault" rifles are no such thing and play an infinitesimally small and statistically insignificant role in the so called "wave" of gun violence they'd have you believe is occurring.
Most shooters would love to have access to the firearms Mr. Bloomberg's security details carry, but for us, that's illegal. Go figure.
This is not to argue against any regulations, most shooters agree with most Americans that certified criminals and mental patients should not have guns. The nuance required to effect reasonable regulations, however, is lost of many of the frequently strident, sometimes rabid anti-gunners. Like it or not, a dispassionate, empirical look at the numbers and statistics show things that they would rather not come to light, like increased ownership correlating with decreased crime. They don't want you to hear authorities in the know saying that so called "assault" rifles are no such thing and play an infinitesimally small and statistically insignificant role in the so called "wave" of gun violence they'd have you believe is occurring.
Most shooters would love to have access to the firearms Mr. Bloomberg's security details carry, but for us, that's illegal. Go figure.
8
Exactly right!
I refuse to be lectured to regarding the means I use to protect myself and my family.... Especially by people who have a 24/7 detail of armed security.
I refuse to be lectured to regarding the means I use to protect myself and my family.... Especially by people who have a 24/7 detail of armed security.
4
I have a microchip to track ownership, extensive training, and liability insurance...for my dog. Maybe we shouldn't worry about laws, but liability.
3
This is a great idea. You should name your cause "Guns for the wealthy" and see how far you get.
4
I guess I missed the part about Rover in the Bill of Rights.
3
Sure, because crazy people and criminals are surely going to be deterred by the risk of having their victims file suit against them and thereby lose their vacation homes and investment accounts.
4
I think the vast majority of Americans, especially responsible gun owners, would agree training and testing *before* gun ownership is a good idea.
Our laws must reflect that gun ownership be taken at least as seriously as car ownership. No one takes the argument seriously that because some criminals drive cars without a license therefore no one has to get a car license. The same logic applies to guns, even if propaganda levels means some can't agree or understand.
The Second Amendment refers to a *well-regulated* militia. Training. Discipline. It is in the spirit of the founder's intent to make gun ownership rigorously regulated. The founder's never intended that any yahoo can get a gun easy right now. We had a lot of Dirty Harry constitutional activism in the last century that turned an amendment that was about Redcoats and muskets and community service on the frontier, and redefined perception and legal status quo to make it about criminals and handguns and personal liberty in urban environments.
We should, and will, reverse that bad development.
Our social and economic peers have gun death rates far below ours, and they have just as many crazy people, poverty, gangs, etc: all the red herrings gun happy types spout to change the subject. But some of us are paying attention and see the legal landscape surrounding guns is the real problem. And we are sick of the carnage. And if you're not, or you don't see the connection, you're blind, a propagandized fool, or heartless.
Our laws must reflect that gun ownership be taken at least as seriously as car ownership. No one takes the argument seriously that because some criminals drive cars without a license therefore no one has to get a car license. The same logic applies to guns, even if propaganda levels means some can't agree or understand.
The Second Amendment refers to a *well-regulated* militia. Training. Discipline. It is in the spirit of the founder's intent to make gun ownership rigorously regulated. The founder's never intended that any yahoo can get a gun easy right now. We had a lot of Dirty Harry constitutional activism in the last century that turned an amendment that was about Redcoats and muskets and community service on the frontier, and redefined perception and legal status quo to make it about criminals and handguns and personal liberty in urban environments.
We should, and will, reverse that bad development.
Our social and economic peers have gun death rates far below ours, and they have just as many crazy people, poverty, gangs, etc: all the red herrings gun happy types spout to change the subject. But some of us are paying attention and see the legal landscape surrounding guns is the real problem. And we are sick of the carnage. And if you're not, or you don't see the connection, you're blind, a propagandized fool, or heartless.
7
There's a world of difference between "a good idea" and a government mandated limitation on a natural civil right. Many gun owners do seek out extensive (and expensive) training. I certainly do.
2
There's a world of difference between "a good idea" and a government mandated limitation on a natural civil right. Many gun owners do seek out extensive (and expensive) training. I certainly do.
1
Would you really want to live in a country where every "good idea" is mandated by law?
1
I vote in 100% of the elections, and any candidate who opposes gun owner rights will never get my vote. The Second Amendment is just as important as the First Amendment. Fortunately, where I live, any candidate who opposes gun owner rights has as much of a chance of being elected as a three-legged dog.
11
Read the second amendment sometime, or try to. As it stands it means nothing. The simplest alteration that gives it meaning is to move a comma such that it says states may not be prevented from forming militias.
2
Phil, I find your passion for the second amendment very interesting. I myself am a gun owner but an very much fine with placing restrictions on gun ownership. In all sincerity, I would love to hear why, to you, the second amendment is as important as the first. I'm not trying to argue, just simply curious.
4
I can't believe we are still having this conversation after those poor innocent children were murdered by a gunman in Sandyhook. Shame on the gun lobby and their supporters.
80
Now this is disingenuous, and borders on sick ....even though all the gun control passed in NY and CT since the tragedy would not have made a difference in the Sandyhook case. Who should be ashamed?
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Rahm Emanuel
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Rahm Emanuel
3
I despair that this nation will get a grip on gun control or gun safety anytime soon. The reason for all those guns is not for self defense, not for hunting and not for sport. The simple reason is that so many Americans are obsessed with guns and gun ownership. Contrast this ethos with that of other, similar cultures around the world and see what I mean.
So until the gun ownership mania goes away, guns won't go away, and the associated violence and mayhem won't either. What would cause the mania to go away? I haven't a clue.
Of course, gun advocates tell us that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." That's right. People kill people. With guns.
So until the gun ownership mania goes away, guns won't go away, and the associated violence and mayhem won't either. What would cause the mania to go away? I haven't a clue.
Of course, gun advocates tell us that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." That's right. People kill people. With guns.
269
I lived in Bologna Italy for a year and a half. Every male I knew had at least one pistol, usually more than one. There were, however, no homicides (one in a year and a half, love triangle, a knife.)
1
Knives, cars and blunt objects...more than so called "assault rifles"
1
People also kill people with knives, hammers, clubs, and bare hands. Until I am assured that I will never have my life or health threatened by a person using whatever means at their disposal I will oppose any attempts to deprive me of the means of effectively protecting myself. The only thing that all the gun control legislation I've seen proposed accomplishes is to make it more difficult for the law abiding to defend themselves.
As someone who supports guns, the reason the NRA relentlessly crushes all opposition is because, if you give gun control advocates an inch, they will take a mile. I fully support the NRA's tireless suppression of gun control, but they sometimes go too far. Background checks are sensible, neglecting the mentally-ill firearms is a fair. Some people don't need guns. However, for most, it is their given right to own.
The sad fact of the situation is, however, I could get in my car, drive 20 minutes and illegally purchase a firearm. In Ohio, my co-worker from California was surprised he could walk 2 blocks from our office and purchase a shotgun.
I grew up in a rural area, and most urban people I know do not like guns, but have never shot or enjoyed a pastime involving firearms. In their environment, guns help criminals. In mine, I shoot at stationary targets and enjoy clay pigeons.
Conveniently left out is the fact that gun violence is down. A quick search on the Bureau Of Justice's website can confirm (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?iid=4616&ty=pbdetail). NYT, of course, tends to leave such information out, and focus on the grief caused by outlier situations.
The sad fact of the situation is, however, I could get in my car, drive 20 minutes and illegally purchase a firearm. In Ohio, my co-worker from California was surprised he could walk 2 blocks from our office and purchase a shotgun.
I grew up in a rural area, and most urban people I know do not like guns, but have never shot or enjoyed a pastime involving firearms. In their environment, guns help criminals. In mine, I shoot at stationary targets and enjoy clay pigeons.
Conveniently left out is the fact that gun violence is down. A quick search on the Bureau Of Justice's website can confirm (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?iid=4616&ty=pbdetail). NYT, of course, tends to leave such information out, and focus on the grief caused by outlier situations.
10
Clearly an independent non-partisan group should be able sit down and review all of the state and federal data on gun violence, from homicide to suicide, accidents to assaults and weight them against the number of times guns help prevent these incidents and come to a reasonable conclusion on the effectiveness of our gun safety policies. Shouldn't be too hard, right?
81
If guns didn't prevent assaults, the cops wouldn't need them, and we could issue whistles to the Marines.
3
It would be a whole lot easier if Congress in its infinite wisdom had not forbidden the federal government from collecting information on gun violence - back in the 90's. In addition, since information is labeled and defined differently not only state to state but even city to city, the data is much harder to collect and analyze than anyone would guess.
3
I have NEVER heard of an armed citizen saving the day, as you suggest. Give us some noted examples, please. I'm sure it will help us all to see the whole picture.
1
A seriously mentally ill young man guns down several at a Congresswoman's rally and one of the victims can't even keep his job. Dozens of children and teachers at a school are gunned down and people take to the internet to prove it's a government hoax. A two year old shoots his mother (a nuclear researcher) in a Wal-Mart, and there was no irresponsibility, she was just "taken much too soon".
I grew up with guns and probably "loved" them. I was a Marine for many years and knew their value (and lethality) as a tool of my trade. I don't want guns taken from law-abiding Americans but the love affair is long gone and I know more regulation is the absolute minimum. It seems incredibly self-apparent that something has to change and yet it doesn't seem possible.
I have such a hard time teaching my government classes with any real sense of hope so I pray for them when I get home, it seems to work as well as our government.
I grew up with guns and probably "loved" them. I was a Marine for many years and knew their value (and lethality) as a tool of my trade. I don't want guns taken from law-abiding Americans but the love affair is long gone and I know more regulation is the absolute minimum. It seems incredibly self-apparent that something has to change and yet it doesn't seem possible.
I have such a hard time teaching my government classes with any real sense of hope so I pray for them when I get home, it seems to work as well as our government.
412
Accidental gun shootings have gone way down, and not due to any regulations.
1
What would you more regulate.... stupidity? When a woman leaves a loaded pistol in easy reach of a 2 year old, she's being careless, irresponsible, and stupid. Whether she's a nuclear researcher or a rocket scientist.
Yours is a beautiful post. Because if as a gun owner you see important social value in gun control there must be others like you too. Unified, strong action can make a difference. No one wants to take guns away from law abiding citizens the rest of us would like guy owners to take the responsibility as seriously as you and to pass laws stop easy purchase of guns, their resell and their use in public places. Is that a lot to ask? Do non gun owners have any rights?
5
When "gun safety" fails it will be "pro-life", as in, I have the right to be for my life and for yours being over.
Imagine if that poor mother at the Idaho Wal-Mart had a can of pepper spray in her purse instead of a loaded gun.
9
Imagine if that poor mother had gone to Costco instead...just as meaningless a false dichotomy
2
You're right, the child could have easily pulled the gun out of her purse and accidently shot her at any store they went to.
1
“Whether it’s on guns or immigration or tax reform, clearly Washington is broken,” Mr. Feinblatt said. “You have to influence the federal government at the state.”
I would like to remind Mr Feinblatt that Arizona (a well as other states), tried to do exactly that (influence immigration issues which are negatively affecting their state directly) with SB1070, yet the federal government and the courts took a dim view of that, saing that it was an issue better left to the Feds?
Why should gun control be any different?
I would like to remind Mr Feinblatt that Arizona (a well as other states), tried to do exactly that (influence immigration issues which are negatively affecting their state directly) with SB1070, yet the federal government and the courts took a dim view of that, saing that it was an issue better left to the Feds?
Why should gun control be any different?
5
Because SB1070 violated the supremacy clause of the Constitution but mandatory background checks, wait lists, limiting features or types of firearms, removing weapons or banning the sale of firearms to violent offenders, and taking actions to prevent gun trafficking do not violate the Constitution. Pretty simple.
2
I fail to understand. Any gun control bills come with the line, ' state's limit on hand gun sales to one a month'. Does that mean one can buy 12 guns in a year? Would 12 handguns under your pillow at night make you safer? Can one use 12 guns at a time? Or maybe, 24 in 2yrs.,36 in 3 yrs.,48...
Flummoxed!
Flummoxed!
5
The purpose of the measure is not to prevent an individual consumer from amassing multiple guns; it is to prevent traffickers from acquiring lots of guns for illegal sale on the street.
4
I think this is intended to curtail straw-purchases.
4
As a long-time gun owner, I heartily applaud anything that brings some sanity to gun and ammunition sales. There are far too many walking time bombs who have been brain-washed by the NRA into believing that gun ownership will solve all of society's ills.
60
It is patently obvious that there is NO WAY to keep these weapons out of the hands of homicidal maniacs other than to ban them and confiscate them.
I happen to, largely, agree. One of the main problems these 'more gun advocates' don't seem to realize is simply having guns in peoples' hands is an overly simplified approach because no one can know when or where someone is going to appear and start shooting. If you are an armed person who has little training in combat, by the time you figure out what is going on and get to where the guy is to stop him, several people would have already been shot and killed, and shooting a target that has a gun and is shooting back is different from simply shooting paper.
2
This article comes just after a news item about a two year old who got hold of his mother's gun.
2
And the shopped who was confronted by an armed robber and successfully defended himself.
4
This preconceived notion that we as Americans have a Constitutional Right to bear firearms, whenever, whatever, wherever we like needs to be addressed soon by public policy makers to end what has become in effect a war zone out there.
There is no individual right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment period. Instead its a recently "implied" right by SOCUS case law handed down by the legal idiots of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, et al.
This is why 2016 election is so important, get a liberal/progressive President to change the spectrum of SOCUS and get this Country back on the track to firearm sanity and basic common sense.
There is no individual right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment period. Instead its a recently "implied" right by SOCUS case law handed down by the legal idiots of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, et al.
This is why 2016 election is so important, get a liberal/progressive President to change the spectrum of SOCUS and get this Country back on the track to firearm sanity and basic common sense.
17
Our homicide rate is the lowest its been in 50 years and compared to all other nations, the US has a homicide rate that ranks 112.
Enough with the hyperbole. Our Bill of Rights keeps the US a (relatively) free country and without the 2A, the rest wouldn't exist.
Enough with the hyperbole. Our Bill of Rights keeps the US a (relatively) free country and without the 2A, the rest wouldn't exist.
7
The NRA is supported mostly by small donors, really ? I thought it was mostly supported by gun manufacturers. I would like to see this author's documentation.
17
Guess where the gun manufactures get the money from.
2
I guess the membership dues from almost five million members doesn't count?
4
The article is correct. NRA is supported by small donors. In fact I will be sending them another check today just based on this article. All information about financial donations is on the NRA website.
5
Gun safety is only like gay marriage in that they both required popular ballot measures in the beginning. Let's compare gun safety to automobile safety. In order to drive a car, which can be a lethal weapon, you have to be licensed, and for that license you have to take two tests, one to prove that you know the rules and laws of driving, and one to prove that you know how to drive properly and safely. Maybe we could just start there.
9
Driving is all but essential for life in our society. Guns are for killing animals or killing humans--both despicable acts that should be met with zero tolerance.
2
Driving is a privilege not a constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT. Your comparison is somewhat misguided although interesting in that cars still account for many more accidental (including drunk driving) than guns, even with all that "common sense" regulation.
2
It's called a "right" because you don't need anyone's permission to exercise it.
3
This is a great move to begin to stop the insanity we have in this country vis-a-vis guns. The NRA is not only supported by individual donations, but heavily backed by the gun manufacturers and gun sellers. It is long past the time that we take control of the situation from these special interests who bribe politicians virtually every day. The NRA membership is less than 1% of the population. There is no way this group should be dictating gun policy to the rest of us.
8
You mean like every politician who takes campaign funds from special interests?
2
Wouldn't it be a better world if we all stopped trying to tell our neighbors what to do? Let's see more energy spent on expanding rights, instead of reducing them.
6
There is an irony that the state-oriented approach heavily favored by Republicans is now being used to support firearms reform, which is anathema to the GOP.
2
It is appalling how naive the gun control groups are!
It is clear to even the most ardent gun and 2nd amendment enthusiasts that background checks are reasonable and will not threaten our right to own guns. But why is the NRA so successful in raising money?
Because it has long switched its raison d’etre from that of a political advocacy group to that of a corporate entity that MUST grow in order to survive. This is not unlike the pharmaceutical industry which has to keep selling drugs we do not need because we are getting better at preventing diseases: Create the notion of new ills in order to promote sales! Inflate the significance of little sufferings, such as headache, acne, ED! Don’ tell them that these do not threaten our life!
For the same reason, every reasonable minimal restriction is inflated by the NRA as a change that will threatens to take away our arms! The gun right movement has already achieved so much that it the NRA may lose its raison d’etre and donations. Hence the NRA has to create new reasons why we need its “service”. It blows reasonable restrictions out of proportion, using that slippery slope argument. The NRA has become a money making scheme for the sake of its own survival – and this is what the gun control people are actually fighting against. Rationale public safety arguments won’t do it.
It is clear to even the most ardent gun and 2nd amendment enthusiasts that background checks are reasonable and will not threaten our right to own guns. But why is the NRA so successful in raising money?
Because it has long switched its raison d’etre from that of a political advocacy group to that of a corporate entity that MUST grow in order to survive. This is not unlike the pharmaceutical industry which has to keep selling drugs we do not need because we are getting better at preventing diseases: Create the notion of new ills in order to promote sales! Inflate the significance of little sufferings, such as headache, acne, ED! Don’ tell them that these do not threaten our life!
For the same reason, every reasonable minimal restriction is inflated by the NRA as a change that will threatens to take away our arms! The gun right movement has already achieved so much that it the NRA may lose its raison d’etre and donations. Hence the NRA has to create new reasons why we need its “service”. It blows reasonable restrictions out of proportion, using that slippery slope argument. The NRA has become a money making scheme for the sake of its own survival – and this is what the gun control people are actually fighting against. Rationale public safety arguments won’t do it.
18
Why won't the government open up the NICS system so individuals can do background checks?
2
With the prevailing attitudes in South Dakota over gun regulation, if it ever happens here, I will eat my hat.
2
The arguments against reasonable gun control laws became even more irrational after the horrible incident in an Idaho Walmart where a 2-year child accessed his mother's handgun and killed her with it. By all accounts, the victim was a responsible, educated woman with a concealed gun permit, and the shooter was a normal curious child. Perhaps the NRA modify its famous quote to say, "Guns don't kill people, two year old kids kill people."
11
So you would support "reasonable" gun control laws that would have prevented that responsible, educated woman from owning a gun? If not her, who?
4
What is the definition of "responsible" in this case? It seems for gun enthusiasts, "responsibility" only means you haven't shot anyone yet. To me responsibility means understanding the risk associated with what your doing and taking steps to mitigate that risk. Let me know when you come up with a better definition.
1
Harrison - The irony is that no amount of responsibility will protect you (or those around you ) from firearms accidents and that it is irrational to carry a lethal weapon to protect life when the Walmart incident proves just the opposite.
3
The US should look to Australia; they got guns under control very well.
What is vitally needed is to revisit the 2nd amendment, this whole scale ownership of guns is not what the founders intended, nor did they mean the assault weapons we now have.
What is vitally needed is to revisit the 2nd amendment, this whole scale ownership of guns is not what the founders intended, nor did they mean the assault weapons we now have.
21
To pass a constitutional amendment, you need 2/3 of the senate, 2/3 of the house, and 3/4 of the states. You are wasting your time thinking that there will ever be a constitutional amendment that revisits the 2nd amendment.
1
Maybe they should call themselves the National Right to Life Committee.
Oh, wait. That's taken by the Right to Life folks. You know, the nice folks who are all for banning access to abortions but have no problem with unrestricted access to guns of any kind. And they seem to be all gung-ho about wars of choice that kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people too.
Strange. I guess getting shot and killed for no reason is just too American to give up.
Oh, wait. That's taken by the Right to Life folks. You know, the nice folks who are all for banning access to abortions but have no problem with unrestricted access to guns of any kind. And they seem to be all gung-ho about wars of choice that kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people too.
Strange. I guess getting shot and killed for no reason is just too American to give up.
27
The irony continues, if you wish to pursue this stereotype.
Right to Lifers = ban abortion, have unrestricted guns
Pro-Choice = unrestricted abortions, ban guns
So both the right and left want to regulate us and trample on the Constitution. They just differ in what they want to regulate.
Right to Lifers = ban abortion, have unrestricted guns
Pro-Choice = unrestricted abortions, ban guns
So both the right and left want to regulate us and trample on the Constitution. They just differ in what they want to regulate.
1
I love people who screech about their precious Constitution. Without looking it up, please tell us what the Third Amendment covers. Or the Sixth. Or the Seventh.
Other than the grade school interpretation of "Free Speech" which most people believe means the unrestricted right to say anything they like whenever, wherever – or the Second Amendment, which everyone believes is a right to own any gun at all granted by Jesus himself, no one in this country has a clue what the Constitution really is or means. They cherry pick what they think they know, the same way they cherry pick bits of the Bible to back up what they would like to be true.
Other than the grade school interpretation of "Free Speech" which most people believe means the unrestricted right to say anything they like whenever, wherever – or the Second Amendment, which everyone believes is a right to own any gun at all granted by Jesus himself, no one in this country has a clue what the Constitution really is or means. They cherry pick what they think they know, the same way they cherry pick bits of the Bible to back up what they would like to be true.
3
If the anti-gun groups didn't lump all gun owners into mass murderers, they'd get far further. 99% of legal gun owners are law abiding, take every precaution to secure their arms, and feel strongly about the Constitution that gives Americans the right to bear arms.
106
If responsible gun owners acted like responsible gun owners they wouldn't permit the debate over responsible gun ownership to be argued so unreasonably by irresponsible gun owners.
12
I see your point, but in this cohort, the 1% who are not "law abiding, take every precaution" citizens can do an awful lot of damage.
The 99% vs 1% argument works for knife owners, fast drivers, etc., but modern guns have been and will continue to be an enabler of the crazy 1% to exact a devastating, outsize toll on the rest of us.
I know this is not new information, but it requires repeating.
The 99% vs 1% argument works for knife owners, fast drivers, etc., but modern guns have been and will continue to be an enabler of the crazy 1% to exact a devastating, outsize toll on the rest of us.
I know this is not new information, but it requires repeating.
8
If so many gun owners wouldn't classify anyone who supports gun regulations as "anti-gun" we'd be better off. I like guns, and enjoy shooting. I just don't think it's necessary or responsible to walk around armed all the time. I think it creates more problems than it solves.
10
I am a new gun owner and I am amazed at how my purchase has made me think differently about this issue. My primary concern is always the safety and security of my weapon. Is it safely locked up? Is the ammunition safely secured? Am I always handling the gun and transporting it in a safe manner. Anyone who takes the NRA approved gun safety course knows that the majority of the course is spent on gun safety and most of it is common sense. People with guns and bad intentions create havoc in our society. People with bad intentions can also create the same havoc with knives, cars, homemade explosives and many other items that otherwise have innocent uses. I see a need to enforce some responsibility by legal owners of guns to make sure their weapons don't get used by people illegally but it is a dangerous and slippery slope. We also need to pay some heed to the founding fathers addressing the right to bear arms behind only the right to free speech in the Bill of Rights.
95
If you are new to gun ownership I'd sure like to know what it is that makes you feel the need to own a machine that exists only to kill other people. Do you see a threat so great the police are ineffective where you live? Have things so changed where you live that no other means available will deter what has obviously created fear in you enough that you consider using a firearm? There must be instances that led up to your decision and I'd be most curious to hear what those damages are. Or do you simply enjoy the feel and sound of a firearm?
10
If you, and the NRA, are so safety conscious, why not support enforced training and testing *before* you own a gun? Like with cars.
You agree that gun ownership is a serious responsibility. But obviously, many don't take it so seriously and responsibly. So let's make our laws reflect the seriousness of gun ownership/ Go ahead, get a gun. But you are going to approve to society you deserve one first. How could you, or any responsible gun owner, have a problem with that? Because someone owns a car, they think no one should have to get a car license?
The Second Amendment refers to a *well regulated* militia. Training. Discipline. Knowledge. Care. Concern. So it is in the spirit of the founders to regulate guns well.
You agree that gun ownership is a serious responsibility. But obviously, many don't take it so seriously and responsibly. So let's make our laws reflect the seriousness of gun ownership/ Go ahead, get a gun. But you are going to approve to society you deserve one first. How could you, or any responsible gun owner, have a problem with that? Because someone owns a car, they think no one should have to get a car license?
The Second Amendment refers to a *well regulated* militia. Training. Discipline. Knowledge. Care. Concern. So it is in the spirit of the founders to regulate guns well.
11
If you, and the NRA, are so safety conscious, why not support enforced training and testing *before* you own a gun? Like with cars.
You agree that gun ownership is a serious responsibility. But obviously, many don't take it so seriously and responsibly. So let's make our laws reflect the seriousness of gun ownership/ Go ahead, get a gun. But you are going to approve to society you deserve one first. How could you, or any responsible gun owner, have a problem with that? Because someone owns a car, they think no one should have to get a car license?
The Second Amendment refers to a *well regulated* militia. Training. Discipline. Knowledge. Care. Concern. So it is in the spirit of the founders to regulate guns well.
You agree that gun ownership is a serious responsibility. But obviously, many don't take it so seriously and responsibly. So let's make our laws reflect the seriousness of gun ownership/ Go ahead, get a gun. But you are going to approve to society you deserve one first. How could you, or any responsible gun owner, have a problem with that? Because someone owns a car, they think no one should have to get a car license?
The Second Amendment refers to a *well regulated* militia. Training. Discipline. Knowledge. Care. Concern. So it is in the spirit of the founders to regulate guns well.
4
Addressing gun control within the states also has the advantage that local gun tragedies resonate with voters and legislators. For instance, Washington endured killings from school shootings which hit home for residents. What a shame, though, that it takes loss of life for people to understand the importance of these measures.
222
Yet you totally ignore the majority of the murders committed by thugs with illegal firearms. How many have prior arrests that the courts ignore in their revolving door system? But try to tighten it up and you have other "special interest" group claiming it's unfair to incarcerate criminals.
4
Hi rds,
I am cognizant of criminal use of guns, whether or not they were initially purchased legally and then changed hands. But the world of illegalities does not diminish the need to make reforms and look for solutions on the right side of the law. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. Best regards.
I am cognizant of criminal use of guns, whether or not they were initially purchased legally and then changed hands. But the world of illegalities does not diminish the need to make reforms and look for solutions on the right side of the law. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. Best regards.
2
Without "...loss of life"..."what would be the importance of these measures"?
1
It appears we need a lesson in history.
In 1994, Pres. Clinton passed the "1994 Assault Weapons Ban".
In 1996, the Republicans swept the mid-term elections and took control of both houses of Congress.
In the time since his second term, Bill Clinton has stated that he believes passage of this bill was the direct cause of the Republican landslide during the election.
History *DOES* repeat itself, it seems.... Rest assured that any further encroachment upon gun rights by the lunatic Far-Left will result in similar results in State and Federal elections.
Short version: If current liberal politicians are no longer interested in being employed? Then passing more laws like this will ensure their wishes are granted.
In 1994, Pres. Clinton passed the "1994 Assault Weapons Ban".
In 1996, the Republicans swept the mid-term elections and took control of both houses of Congress.
In the time since his second term, Bill Clinton has stated that he believes passage of this bill was the direct cause of the Republican landslide during the election.
History *DOES* repeat itself, it seems.... Rest assured that any further encroachment upon gun rights by the lunatic Far-Left will result in similar results in State and Federal elections.
Short version: If current liberal politicians are no longer interested in being employed? Then passing more laws like this will ensure their wishes are granted.
20
Senseless gun deaths know no political party. The majority of Americans support gun safety legislation, and it will be centrists who will pass reasonable limits with respect to the possession and use of firearms.
10
Lunatic Far-Left? Wow, lovely stereotyping. So any attempt to reduce the endless body count that only the US among the Western nations enjoys is some ultra-liberal attempt to take your guns? I guess just like in any democratic system, you get the government.... or the results we deserve. How soul crushing.
10
What you and the rest of American need to be reminded of is that the last highly publicized murder of two police officers in New York City was done by a crazy person who obtained a firearm that was traced to a pawn shop in Atlanta, Arrowhead Pawn, that has been the source of many other firearms that ended up in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. This is what we will be going after.
Good luck following a losing battle!
Good luck following a losing battle!
5
I am surprised the phoney "gun homicide" figure was not in the article. Over 2/3 of all "gun homicides" are suicides, but gun control folks want you to believe everyone is killing each other with guns.
Wonder why?
Wonder why?
29
The gun homicide figure you cite is actually gun deaths. Yes, suicides matter too.
11
Wonder why?
Because a death by firearm is still a death by a firearm, just ask a 2 year in Idaho who got ahold of his 29 year old Mom's handgun out of her "conceal & carry" purse and shot her dead in Wal-Mart.
Oh I forgot, the two year old can barely speak, of course if the Mom had another concealed firearm on her she could have "defended herself" against the attacker, her two year old son, that's perfect NRA logic.
Why anyone needs to be "strapped" heading into Wal-Mart is a whole different subject unless of course you're a young black male who needs to protect himself from the "Police".
Because a death by firearm is still a death by a firearm, just ask a 2 year in Idaho who got ahold of his 29 year old Mom's handgun out of her "conceal & carry" purse and shot her dead in Wal-Mart.
Oh I forgot, the two year old can barely speak, of course if the Mom had another concealed firearm on her she could have "defended herself" against the attacker, her two year old son, that's perfect NRA logic.
Why anyone needs to be "strapped" heading into Wal-Mart is a whole different subject unless of course you're a young black male who needs to protect himself from the "Police".
20
I could care less if it's a "homicide" or a suicide. Easy access to guns means too many people die. I personally don't value someone's life less because they are suicidal. That fact you are so worried that "they" are coming to get your guns and so tens of thousands more will die than necessary rather than any new regulations can be put in place is tremendously sad.
15
As with all legislation, the devils will be in the details with regards to whether "safety" or "control" is the real focus.
7
Safety through law and regulation, why do go nuts have to be so paranoid?
5
It's a no brainer.....Safety.....specifically gun safety.....Talk about the dumbing down of America!! Who are these gun nuts? I am glad I live in New York State .
75
Anna said: " I am glad I live in New York State"
...So are we.
The same rules that would do well in NYC for gun usage and ownership do not apply in the rural Mid-West, Rocky Mountains, or Alaska.
...So are we.
The same rules that would do well in NYC for gun usage and ownership do not apply in the rural Mid-West, Rocky Mountains, or Alaska.
7
I am sure we are all glad you live in NY as well; a non violent utopia no doubt not like up in Vermont where everyone is packing....LOL
7
Then stay there please. Safety is the number one priority of every responsible gun owner, and the first and foremost thing taught at all introductory firearms courses. This was established by the NRA, whose original and ongoing purpose is to make the military in specific and all hunters and shooters in general more accurate, safer and more responsible. It may surprise you to learn that you live in the bubble, and the mainstream is carrying, shooting, hunting or supporting those who do,all around you.
5
Many Americans who never owned guns have an innate feeling that 'gun control' is a bad idea. Many Americans who own and carry guns have an innate feeling that many gun owners are not as careful or responsible as they should be.
What young mother can read about a two or three year old getting a hold of a gun and shooting a mother or brother will not feel a shudder of fear.
Yes, we need a change in focus from control by government fiat to safety and responsibility. The reason should be obvious. There are almost as many privately owned guns in this country as there are people. Background checks will never have sufficient effect to change the dynamics. Not now nor in a dozen lifetimes.
And we certainly will never have gun confiscation similar to European countries or Australia.
Perhaps Mr. Bloomberg's millions would be better spent on non-governmental approaches to improving actual gun safety and responsible gun ownership. Yes, universal background checks as well as enforcement of current law is a good idea. But that won't improve gun safety. No law that can be passed and survive judicial challenge can do that in America.
So the correct model is not marriage rights, but the anti-smoking campaign. All that can be done by law has already been done. It is time for the public service approach, and the clinical intervention.
What young mother can read about a two or three year old getting a hold of a gun and shooting a mother or brother will not feel a shudder of fear.
Yes, we need a change in focus from control by government fiat to safety and responsibility. The reason should be obvious. There are almost as many privately owned guns in this country as there are people. Background checks will never have sufficient effect to change the dynamics. Not now nor in a dozen lifetimes.
And we certainly will never have gun confiscation similar to European countries or Australia.
Perhaps Mr. Bloomberg's millions would be better spent on non-governmental approaches to improving actual gun safety and responsible gun ownership. Yes, universal background checks as well as enforcement of current law is a good idea. But that won't improve gun safety. No law that can be passed and survive judicial challenge can do that in America.
So the correct model is not marriage rights, but the anti-smoking campaign. All that can be done by law has already been done. It is time for the public service approach, and the clinical intervention.
23
So why not impose training and testing, before gun ownership, like with cars?
6
Who provides the most qualified instructors, the most comprehensive training and the most safety centered curriculum? The NRA.
5
It is appalling that those in Congress are more beholden to lobbies than to their own constituents. If the state by state referendum approach works, then by all means use it.
473
Except not all states allow for ballot initiative by citizens. Pennsylvania doesn't.
3
Congressional districts are smaller (and therefore more responsive to constituents) than state-wide ballots. If you can't get a gun control congressman elected it's probably because the area where you live is not in favor of more gun control. Lobbyists lobby on behalf of individuals who support a cause. This very article admits that, "The National Rifle Association, which raises millions of dollars a year largely from small donors and has one of the most muscular state lobbying apparatuses in the country." I am one of those small donors. The NRA represents me and millions of people like me who believe in responsibility and a natural right to self defense.
4
Voters are putting these people in office. If we want change, we have to have more numbers on our side.
2
Gun ownership should be banned save for bonafide hunters who should then both be licensed and pass background check.
149
Of course WHERE one lives plays a role in this discussion.
Rural areas may not have Police Departments close by.
Then what ? There's no argument against training and licensing............
Rural areas may not have Police Departments close by.
Then what ? There's no argument against training and licensing............
4
The 2nd Amendment was not written to protect us from "out-of-control deer".
It was included as a fail-safe against "out-of-control government".
It was included as a fail-safe against "out-of-control government".
7
The Second Amendment was intended to facilitate the citizen army contemplated by the Framers who would be called into served in the absence of a standing army which was abhorred by the Framers. In the absence of the militia contemplated by the authors of the Constitution -- which has no role in today's world -- the right of a citizen to bear arms to enable to rise against the Government is ahistorical and has no true place in Second Amendment discourse where the conjunction with militia should not be read out of the equation.
10
In the last decade more than 400,000 people, including children, were killed in automobile accidents. In the cases of tens of thousands of auto mobile related deaths there are hundreds of thousands more who are critically injured and permanently maimed, paralyzed or otherwise physically handicapped for life. Nearly 30% of auto accidents are caused by people driving under the influence. Surely the gun control advocates have their priorities in the wrong place. Additionally we lose thousands of more lives to drug abuse. More lives are wrecked by domestic violence though I am not including deaths by stating that.
This slaughter and injury rate by automobiles and trucks dwarfs the homicides and injuriels by gun violence. I do not wish to lessen the tragedies of death by guns nor trivialize the losses that many gun control advocates have suffered.
However, what gun control advocates fail to understand and value are the rights of ordinary citizens. Yes, mentally ill, persons with criminal convictions and persons with protection from abuse orders must never have access to firearms. The rest of American citizens though have the right to own, carry. buy and sell firearms. Criminals always can find a way to obtain firearms. Barring law abiding citizens to their right of self defense and banning firearms is without question a green light for criminals to prey on others. Gun control law that restrict criminals and the mentally ill are fine. Law that restrict others must not pass.
This slaughter and injury rate by automobiles and trucks dwarfs the homicides and injuriels by gun violence. I do not wish to lessen the tragedies of death by guns nor trivialize the losses that many gun control advocates have suffered.
However, what gun control advocates fail to understand and value are the rights of ordinary citizens. Yes, mentally ill, persons with criminal convictions and persons with protection from abuse orders must never have access to firearms. The rest of American citizens though have the right to own, carry. buy and sell firearms. Criminals always can find a way to obtain firearms. Barring law abiding citizens to their right of self defense and banning firearms is without question a green light for criminals to prey on others. Gun control law that restrict criminals and the mentally ill are fine. Law that restrict others must not pass.
22
The simple fact is owning a gun is a serious responsibility. We have a duty to make getting a gun in the USA at least as rigorous as getting a driver's license before being able to drive a car, because plenty of people are not responsible and they are the ones who create tragedy.
Criminals will drive cars without licenses too.
But I don't see anyone using that as a lame excuse to say therefore no one needs to get a driver's license.
Responsibility is responsibility. If you want to own a gun, go ahead. But you are going to prove society you deserve one first. It's not fair to impose laws limiting guns because it's a right? We already impose limitations! The point is to make the current existing limitations more effective and more coherent and more comprehensive.
The second amendment refers to a *well regulated* militia. Disciplined. Well-trained. You must be that, and prove it on a test, before you get a gun. There is nothing in the intent of the founding fathers that means they wanted any yahoo who wants a gun to get one easily without proof they know what they are doing. Are you a capable person? Prove it with training and testing. Then get your gun.
Any responsible gun owner understands what I am writing, they agree with it, and they have no problem getting proper training and licensing. Because they know, better than anyone, that a gun is a serious responsibility.
The only people who lose are irresponsible people and gun manufacturers.
So what.
Criminals will drive cars without licenses too.
But I don't see anyone using that as a lame excuse to say therefore no one needs to get a driver's license.
Responsibility is responsibility. If you want to own a gun, go ahead. But you are going to prove society you deserve one first. It's not fair to impose laws limiting guns because it's a right? We already impose limitations! The point is to make the current existing limitations more effective and more coherent and more comprehensive.
The second amendment refers to a *well regulated* militia. Disciplined. Well-trained. You must be that, and prove it on a test, before you get a gun. There is nothing in the intent of the founding fathers that means they wanted any yahoo who wants a gun to get one easily without proof they know what they are doing. Are you a capable person? Prove it with training and testing. Then get your gun.
Any responsible gun owner understands what I am writing, they agree with it, and they have no problem getting proper training and licensing. Because they know, better than anyone, that a gun is a serious responsibility.
The only people who lose are irresponsible people and gun manufacturers.
So what.
17
There are already strong movements to take on D.U.I.s amd distracted driving. Taking on gun violence seems to be another good place to spend one's energy.
14
Rest assured. Statisticians predict that gun deaths will exceed motor vehicle sometime this year. — a first since those types of records have ben kept. That way the US can maintain its exceptionalism. Whoopee!!!!
Something to bear in mind: Cars, trucks et cetera are used with far more frequency than guns.
Something to bear in mind: Cars, trucks et cetera are used with far more frequency than guns.
11
I would hope that the various groups that are promoting gun safety would join together under one umbrella to better combat the NRA.
And not mentioned in this article is the ease with which terrorists can obtain guns. Shouldn't everyone want to keep guns out of their hands?
And not mentioned in this article is the ease with which terrorists can obtain guns. Shouldn't everyone want to keep guns out of their hands?
19
Actual gun safety is taught not "promoted." Which organization spends the most money on teaching gun safety? Can you guess?
The NRA.
By like a factor of 1000.
The NRA.
By like a factor of 1000.
5
The NRA promotes gun safety as part of it mission. No one wants criminals/terrorist to have guns. Perhaps we could start with investigating the Obama/Holder initiative to get guns to Mexican drug cartels? Disarming curtailing the rights of honest folk will do nothing to stop crime.
8
Well, while it is laudable that the NRA promotes gun safety, it apparently isn't working.
If gun safety were mandatory, it would be a different matter.
Then perhaps the mother in Walmart wouldn't have been shot to death by her 2 year old child.
If gun safety were mandatory, it would be a different matter.
Then perhaps the mother in Walmart wouldn't have been shot to death by her 2 year old child.
7
The fact that we Americans are still debating the need for stricter regulations on background checks and types of weaponry after the frightening carnage of the last few years is almost unbelievable. Pride in my country turns to embarrassment in light of this blindness and ignorance. At some point, those that continue to embrace the incredibly false and misleading NRA line, 'guns don't kill people; people kill people', must take personal responsibility for the continued loss of life in this country-- due largely to this obsession with firearms and the false claim that 'liberals will take away all our guns if we give any ground at all'. Utter nonsense.
186
"due largely to this obsession with firearms and the false claim that 'liberals will take away all our guns if we give any ground at all'."
Well said, your quote about liberals and taking away guns reminds me of my two grandsons fighting over the same toy, with belligerent little faces. The difference being that they are both two year olds. One wonders what the emotional maturity is of many who have this morbid fascination and infatuation with guns.
Well said, your quote about liberals and taking away guns reminds me of my two grandsons fighting over the same toy, with belligerent little faces. The difference being that they are both two year olds. One wonders what the emotional maturity is of many who have this morbid fascination and infatuation with guns.
6
I'm a gun owning Democrat, and I wish the left would just drop this issue so we could start having some strong social and economic liberals elected in this country, especially in rural states.
The one thing these groups can never seem to grasp is what Jeffrey Goldberg (not exactly a conservative) once pointed out: "The NRA is quite obviously a powerful organization, but like many effective pressure groups, it is powerful in good part because so many Americans are predisposed to agree with its basic message." This reality has not changed, and gun control groups will not succeed in putting new restrictions in place.
Americans want to own guns. Time for Democrats to let the issue go and focus on things like gay rights and the minimum wage, where there is broad consensus on what the nation needs.
The one thing these groups can never seem to grasp is what Jeffrey Goldberg (not exactly a conservative) once pointed out: "The NRA is quite obviously a powerful organization, but like many effective pressure groups, it is powerful in good part because so many Americans are predisposed to agree with its basic message." This reality has not changed, and gun control groups will not succeed in putting new restrictions in place.
Americans want to own guns. Time for Democrats to let the issue go and focus on things like gay rights and the minimum wage, where there is broad consensus on what the nation needs.
37
Parents of dead 6 year olds in Newtown (and everyone else who cares about innocent kids) won't let it go, and neither should the Democrats and any right thinking person. It is too easy to get your hands on a killing machine or amass an arsenal of weapons in this country. I retain a tiny shred of hope that, with hard work. sanity will prevail, even if it takes a generation.
22
ridiculous. takes time to climb a mountain.
3
Many Americans do not want to own guns and are afraid of those who do.
7
The NRA cannot get around the fact that every gun used in a crime was made and sold to some middleman legally. Bottom line, restrict which guns can be purchased and those guns will not be used in crimes because they will not be made in the first place.
You want to bear arms, join the militia. We call it the National Guard now and they pay for college.
You want to bear arms, join the militia. We call it the National Guard now and they pay for college.
261
Not true. Back in the day, my music teacher was standing next to a friend who was more involved in the local "youth culture", the fore-runner of today's Bloods. His, mm, associate had his head taken off from 75 feet away by a rival young Democrat using a home-made zip gun. That was the '50s.
-
How are you going to prevent people with $15 from making an untraceable, disposable zip gun? How are you going to prevent any random individual with a spare room from making a hundreds of them, in multiple quality grades and selling them for $20 to $50?
-
If you can make tens of thousands of 13 shot repeating rifles with the technology of 1865, it sure ain't hard to make a hundred today in your basement. If even 5% of the prison population has a workplace and a brain not totally fried from drugs, there's tens of thousands of micro gun factories right there. There's also no laws limiting the power of such thing, so they could be 75 or 100 caliber.
Or to heck with making stuff, and just hide modern guns within truckloads of drugs coming from Afghanistan.
-
How are you going to prevent people with $15 from making an untraceable, disposable zip gun? How are you going to prevent any random individual with a spare room from making a hundreds of them, in multiple quality grades and selling them for $20 to $50?
-
If you can make tens of thousands of 13 shot repeating rifles with the technology of 1865, it sure ain't hard to make a hundred today in your basement. If even 5% of the prison population has a workplace and a brain not totally fried from drugs, there's tens of thousands of micro gun factories right there. There's also no laws limiting the power of such thing, so they could be 75 or 100 caliber.
Or to heck with making stuff, and just hide modern guns within truckloads of drugs coming from Afghanistan.
4
Your claim is patently false. What does it even mean to cite the manufacture? Are you implying intent to abet crime? Many guns used in crimes were sold legally and then stolen. Your premise is beyond weak.
Militias are not the military, just the opposite. When written, the 2A referred to citizens who provided their own weapon, and the meaning of "well regulated" in the day meant they also provided his (or her) own ammo and powder, horse, tent, and the like, and was proficient in the use of them all. Your "facts" are not facts at all, but rather either ignorant, or worse, deliberate misleading emotional appeals based on wishful thinking. You really should know the facts before distorting them. The vast majority of us who own guns take our responsibility very seriously. Your comment is both erroneous and insulting.
Militias are not the military, just the opposite. When written, the 2A referred to citizens who provided their own weapon, and the meaning of "well regulated" in the day meant they also provided his (or her) own ammo and powder, horse, tent, and the like, and was proficient in the use of them all. Your "facts" are not facts at all, but rather either ignorant, or worse, deliberate misleading emotional appeals based on wishful thinking. You really should know the facts before distorting them. The vast majority of us who own guns take our responsibility very seriously. Your comment is both erroneous and insulting.
5
On Memorial Day I wear a black armband in memory of my uncle who was shot dead, and I always feel like I'm alone on caring - until I see the polls that show just how FEW people are AGAINST gun controls. It's a handful. It's a handful with Big Money and even bigger mouths. We out number them 9 to 1 and yet this nation is cowed to their whim.
I haven't a drop of respect for anyone who bellows and whines and plays political games on the safety of the people of this country. In fact, I'm revolted and I refuse to kowtow to the lunatic fringe of any society. Our politicians will - I won't.
I haven't a drop of respect for anyone who bellows and whines and plays political games on the safety of the people of this country. In fact, I'm revolted and I refuse to kowtow to the lunatic fringe of any society. Our politicians will - I won't.
260
Where do you get 9 to 1? Can you cite a source for this claim? Or do you just wish it were so?
6
"A recent Pew survey, for instance, showed that 52 percent of respondents said they believed it was more important to protect gun ownership rights. That figure was up from 29 percent in 2000."
6
Did you read the article? Recent polling shows that 52 percent of Americans believe that it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns
than it is to control gun ownership.
than it is to control gun ownership.
5
Nothing brings out cognitive dissonance like ballot initiatives. Whether its gun control, the minimum wage, legalized pot, the right of women to choose, or any other 'librul' position. Put the issue on the ballot and people will vote with some common sense. But when it comes to electing a person, most just pick the guy with a R next to his name who opposes all of the initiatives.
38
"Gun safety" sounds better than "gun control". "Weapon sanity" is even more accurate.
40
Gun control advocates really need to centralize their resources and efforts so they can come together under one organization that can rival that the NRA.
76
The difference is that the NRA is working to defend a constitutional right. The "Gun Control" crowd is working to take away a constitutional right.
7
No, we're not all looking to it away entirely, just control it better. I recognize the position you have, and would like to ask if you have any room for compromise on gun safety/control/restriction issues, and if so, what aspect of gun ownership do you think might be tightened up?
6
No Phil, what we're looking for is that the 'well-regulated' part of the Second Amendment be enforced much more strongly than it is.
12
Yes, this is probably a wise tactic. Go state by state, call it "gun safety", focus on local support county by county if necessary. Go for it! Put the money into a state by state wave... If same-sex marriage can succeed, so can gun safety!
113
Some time ago, there was the term "pro choice" but somehow unfortunately morphed into "pro abortion". Let's appeal to the masses and make this up hill battle a little more positive.
4
This is exactly the strategy women used to get the vote in the early 1900s. It worked.
7
Whether it is a spineless or congress or weak kneed state legislators just as with gay marriage they cannot be allowed to stand in the way of legislation that protects the constituents they were sworn to protect. A majority of people support better background checks and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill or those with a domestic violence records and one would think that so would the NRA. I am thankful to my fellow voters in Washington State for so strongly supporting our new background check laws that our state legislators failed repeatedly to address.
129
A majority of voters may support those issues in the abstract, but please realize that the new WA law is in reality excessively broad, particularly because it extends the background check requirements to those already licensed by the state of WA to possess firearms. There is no logical reason to make it a crime for a concealed pistol licensee, licensed armed guard, licensed private investigator, or off-duty cop to pick up a firearm that does not belong to her. If she were prohibited from possessing a firearm, she would not have the license in the first place. (This is largely the basis for the current legal challenge.)
Bad laws like this make it very easy for gun rights advocates to argue that universal background check laws are actually the cornerstone of a long-term strategy aimed at making it so difficult to legally obtain a firearm that few people will want to go through with it. Start by making it a crime to get a firearm anywhere but a licensed dealer, and then pass onerous licensing requirements that slowly whittle the pool of licensed dealers down to near-zero. (Doesn't it sound eerily similar to the approach taken by certain Southern states with regards to abortion clinics?)
Bad laws like this make it very easy for gun rights advocates to argue that universal background check laws are actually the cornerstone of a long-term strategy aimed at making it so difficult to legally obtain a firearm that few people will want to go through with it. Start by making it a crime to get a firearm anywhere but a licensed dealer, and then pass onerous licensing requirements that slowly whittle the pool of licensed dealers down to near-zero. (Doesn't it sound eerily similar to the approach taken by certain Southern states with regards to abortion clinics?)
4
The legislation passed in your state is a disaster, that many in law enforcement say is unenforceable or that they refuse to enforce it....and now a guy can't loan his shotgun to a neighbor to go duck hunting.....how is anyone safer?
4
Really, CJL, please enlighten us here in Washington State how it as been a disaster. So far the state has said the the background checks have prevented several people with mental illness from buying guns. Where are the disasters? As to loaning your gun to a neighbor to go hunting with, do you know that he is sane? Do you know if he is prone to violence? Are you sure he won't shoot you with your own gun. The only disaster here is the type of thinking that precludes rational conversation and gun safety.
6
The Marysville, Washington school shootings in late October before the election likely helped passage of Initiative 594 and defeat of 591. Also if you look at the county results, you'll find that the more heavily populated Puget Sound counties soundly overcame the very strong opposition from the rural counties in the eastern and southern parts of the state.
http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/State-Measures-Initiative-Mea...
http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/State-Measures-Initiative-Mea...
http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/State-Measures-Initiative-Mea...
http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/State-Measures-Initiative-Mea...
15
I think it's wise to move away from the term 'gun control' as this was likely a term invented by the NRA or its ilk. We don't speak of automobile 'control' when we register and license our vehicles.
'Control' is exactly the image that gun rights supporters wave like a flag, and brings to mind the idea of government interference. In reading about the early days of the automobile, there were howls of protest at the time from those who did not want driver's licenses or to have their cars registered.
It's important to bear in mind that in Canada, the gun deaths per capita there is 1/5 of what it is in the U.S. In the UK, deaths by firearms are a tiny fraction of what they are here, but then they have sensible gun regulations.
'Control' is exactly the image that gun rights supporters wave like a flag, and brings to mind the idea of government interference. In reading about the early days of the automobile, there were howls of protest at the time from those who did not want driver's licenses or to have their cars registered.
It's important to bear in mind that in Canada, the gun deaths per capita there is 1/5 of what it is in the U.S. In the UK, deaths by firearms are a tiny fraction of what they are here, but then they have sensible gun regulations.
287
so true ... they should also be referred to as firearms. far more accurate.
5
100% on that, Tim B. It's all about the semantics...
When the discussion was about "global warming", it was a tough row to hoe when you were speaking from a sub-freezing winter's perspective. Change that to "climate change", and at least the discussion can be a bit more reasoned when you're looking at 7' of lake-effect snow before winter even got here.
We can hope the same would be true about the "violence with guns" situation. Call it "gun control", and a meeting of the minds just won't happen. Call it "gun registration", and maybe.....just maybe.... common sense might prevail.
When the discussion was about "global warming", it was a tough row to hoe when you were speaking from a sub-freezing winter's perspective. Change that to "climate change", and at least the discussion can be a bit more reasoned when you're looking at 7' of lake-effect snow before winter even got here.
We can hope the same would be true about the "violence with guns" situation. Call it "gun control", and a meeting of the minds just won't happen. Call it "gun registration", and maybe.....just maybe.... common sense might prevail.
4
Excellent point.
The neoconservatives understand the importance of language. It's not "gun control". And it's not "death tax" and it's not "tax burden" and it's not "pro-life" and it's not....
Language really is powerful! The challenge is to come up with catchy language on the other side. Honesty can be an impediment, but we have to try.
Not "control"; but not "regulation" either--unless we're able to rehabilitate that word. Hey, how about "gun law and order"? See, it's not easy. Many wealthy think tanks put work into the neoconservative terminology.
The neoconservatives understand the importance of language. It's not "gun control". And it's not "death tax" and it's not "tax burden" and it's not "pro-life" and it's not....
Language really is powerful! The challenge is to come up with catchy language on the other side. Honesty can be an impediment, but we have to try.
Not "control"; but not "regulation" either--unless we're able to rehabilitate that word. Hey, how about "gun law and order"? See, it's not easy. Many wealthy think tanks put work into the neoconservative terminology.
3
State laws can be overturned in the courts, also.
These people need to start focusing on crazy people, not guns.
These people need to start focusing on crazy people, not guns.
18
What do you propose "crazy people control laws". Why would any reasonable person object to background checks that would keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, those with a history of domestic violence or convicted violent felons.
84
Really? So the mother that was shopping in WalMart was crazy was she? I doubt it, but she was carrying a loaded gun in her purse. When will everyone get it through their thick heads...get rid of the guns!!
111
Well, of course any state law can be overturned in the courts. Does that mean we stop passing necessary laws?
When you say we should "start focusing on crazy people" exactly what do you mean? Expanded mental health services? That would be great. Can you support that?
I think we should focus both on mental health services and making sure crazy people don't get guns.
When you say we should "start focusing on crazy people" exactly what do you mean? Expanded mental health services? That would be great. Can you support that?
I think we should focus both on mental health services and making sure crazy people don't get guns.
24
Washington is not broken... what we are seeing is the voice of conservativism across the nation being heard more clearly after years of liberal groups attempting to pervert the constitution and the wishes of the majority. State and local liberals will try to subvert the 2nd amendment at their peril.
18
No, Washington is not broken, Washington has been bought by gun lobbyists and corporate interests (e.g. gun manufacturers).
19
At their peril? Really? Do you understand how ballot measures work? Against whom and how, exactly, are you going to take revenge when a measure you don't like passes?
18
The threat at the end sure gives me confidence about this commenter's stability.
21
And what about poverty, the War on Drugs, mental illness, and the other societal factors that fuel ALL types of violence?
Address the causes, not the symptoms, of gun violence.
Address the causes, not the symptoms, of gun violence.
9
They are not mutually exclusive. While we address all the pathologies you cited, we can, at the same, take measures to prevent those suffering from them, or dealing in, or using, illicit drugs, from accessing guns. The rest of the civilized world already had shown that difficulty in accessing guns lowers gun violence dramatically. And we can also be more particular about who's allowed to openly carry. By sheer luck, that toddler in Idaho did not kill another child or some innocent customer.
35
Why can and should address all of it.
But if one of your loved ones is holding a gun to his head do you suggest addressing the causes of his distress or do you snatch the gun out of his hand?
It's time to snatch the guns out of America's hands. Then we can talk about the causes of violence.
But if one of your loved ones is holding a gun to his head do you suggest addressing the causes of his distress or do you snatch the gun out of his hand?
It's time to snatch the guns out of America's hands. Then we can talk about the causes of violence.
19
@slartibartfast: You said "It's time to snatch the guns out of America's hands."
You, and any other organization, are welcome to try.... But you'll have to take the bullets first and they travel really fast.
So, unless you can run faster that 1150 feet/second? You'd better be bulletproof.
You, and any other organization, are welcome to try.... But you'll have to take the bullets first and they travel really fast.
So, unless you can run faster that 1150 feet/second? You'd better be bulletproof.
2
Gun safety! Sounds oxymoronic but it is a perfect shift from gun control. Just like the move from gay marriage to same-sex marriage.
122
Actually, the change in terminology to marriage equality has had a bigger effect than even same-sex marriage.
Equality shows that blocking same sex marriage is unfair.
Equality shows that blocking same sex marriage is unfair.
6