Anyone adult who has a license and has taken a course in gun usage and care with a licensed professional should be able to buy a low magazine handgun, rifle or shotgun which takes only low magazines (six or fewer shots). All such guns should be registered, inspected and insured each year, and licenses should be renewed every year, just like the other, non-medical, major killer of Americans - cars.
ALL police should be provided with the best possible weapons - including bullet-proof vests, and any use of the aforementioned legitimate guns to harm or intimidate police should be considered a serious crime. All Americans should be able to buy guns for self-protection, but NO American should be permitted to own the weapons of war which many Americans now have.
Finally all persons who currently own military style weapons must return them to the appropriate government facility and should receive, in return, fair payment.
We must stop making weapons of death and severe injury so accessible. We must make it MUCH MORE DIFFICULT for people to buy weapons which don't belong in the public realm. We owe it to our children and to all those people who have already been killed or maimed by them.
ALL police should be provided with the best possible weapons - including bullet-proof vests, and any use of the aforementioned legitimate guns to harm or intimidate police should be considered a serious crime. All Americans should be able to buy guns for self-protection, but NO American should be permitted to own the weapons of war which many Americans now have.
Finally all persons who currently own military style weapons must return them to the appropriate government facility and should receive, in return, fair payment.
We must stop making weapons of death and severe injury so accessible. We must make it MUCH MORE DIFFICULT for people to buy weapons which don't belong in the public realm. We owe it to our children and to all those people who have already been killed or maimed by them.
98
I am a CT resident, registered Democrat, passionate Bernie Sanders supporter. I voted for CT gov Dan Malloy...twice. I am a union member and I live minutes from Newtown. This is the point where you'd expect me to endorse this editorial opinion but I won't. This is some of the most uninformed and silly writing I've yet read on the subject of gun "control". When will you folks learn to educate yourselves on an issue before drawing a conclusion. You clearly know nothing about the tool which you seek to ban yet you charge forward with feckless glee. The vernacular, misappropism and general naivete of this piece is nothing short of laughable. It is as if you were tasked to write an opinion on driverless vehicles and you are shouting about the dangers of horseless carriages. I beg you to do your jobs and arm yourselves with information because YOU are doing more harm to the advocation for reasonable firearms safety measures than the NRA could ever hope to acheive. Bush league.
40
The 2A people tell us that more guns make us safer.
We now have more guns than ever before in the hands od ordinary Americans.
Do we feel safer? Based on the rush to buy more guns every time there is a mass shooting (as illustrated in a graph in the NYT in the recent past), one has to say "no." Based o the expressed seniments of many, including many Republicans, one has to say "no."
We also are told that "a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun" ONE MILLION times a year (over 2700 times a day). How come we virtually NEVER read such stories in the daily paper? (Law enforcement people do not count, because they are paid to do their jobs, and no one is talking about taking those guns away.)
Time for the 2A people to wake up and smell the coffee. Your principal arguments do not hold any water. Why do you keep making assertions that are so easily refuted?
We now have more guns than ever before in the hands od ordinary Americans.
Do we feel safer? Based on the rush to buy more guns every time there is a mass shooting (as illustrated in a graph in the NYT in the recent past), one has to say "no." Based o the expressed seniments of many, including many Republicans, one has to say "no."
We also are told that "a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun" ONE MILLION times a year (over 2700 times a day). How come we virtually NEVER read such stories in the daily paper? (Law enforcement people do not count, because they are paid to do their jobs, and no one is talking about taking those guns away.)
Time for the 2A people to wake up and smell the coffee. Your principal arguments do not hold any water. Why do you keep making assertions that are so easily refuted?
15
“Why any civilian would need this weapon, designed to pierce concrete bunkers and armored personnel carriers, is a question that should be put to the gun makers who profit from them and the politicians who shamelessly do their bidding.”
Wow ---- such a terrible weapon. I guess you have a list of the many crimes this terrible gun has been used in? Again I wont hold my breath waiting on that list.
Wow ---- such a terrible weapon. I guess you have a list of the many crimes this terrible gun has been used in? Again I wont hold my breath waiting on that list.
33
“While lurid-looking rifles may cause the most shock in the public aftermath, the industry has also been selling pliant statehouse politicians on the legalization of “concealed carry” handgun licenses. These are spreading powerful semiautomatic pistols with the firepower of rifles through the civilian population, from bar rooms to college campuses, even as evidence mounts that they cause more harm to innocent victims than to fantasized malefactors.”
I don’t suppose you have a link to this peer reviewed scientific study that showed “evidence” that these concealed carry laws cause more harm than good. I will wait but wont hold my breath.
I don’t suppose you have a link to this peer reviewed scientific study that showed “evidence” that these concealed carry laws cause more harm than good. I will wait but wont hold my breath.
24
“Assault weapons were banned for 10 years until Congress, in bipartisan obeisance to the gun lobby, let the law lapse in 2004.”
And since then gun crimes have declined exponentially. So if we apply the New York Times biased standard of evidence interpretation it is obvious this wonderful drop in gun violence is because of the millions of “assault rifles” added to the inventory of Americas good law abiding gun owners. Thanks New York Times for pointing this out.
And since then gun crimes have declined exponentially. So if we apply the New York Times biased standard of evidence interpretation it is obvious this wonderful drop in gun violence is because of the millions of “assault rifles” added to the inventory of Americas good law abiding gun owners. Thanks New York Times for pointing this out.
29
“It found “no legitimate place in the civilian population” for such a war rifle and its 30-round magazines.”
The second amendment is dangerous, it’s supposed to be dangerous, and if it wasn’t dangerous it would be worthless.
The firs amendment is dangerous, it’s supposed to be dangerous, and if it wasn’t dangerous it would be worthless.
The first amendment isn’t there to protect “Little Red Riding Hood” and the second amendment isn’t there to protect duck hunting.
The second amendment is dangerous, it’s supposed to be dangerous, and if it wasn’t dangerous it would be worthless.
The firs amendment is dangerous, it’s supposed to be dangerous, and if it wasn’t dangerous it would be worthless.
The first amendment isn’t there to protect “Little Red Riding Hood” and the second amendment isn’t there to protect duck hunting.
39
The number of gun sales were doubled by NRA fueled hysteria that ''guns sales would be frozen'' and ''Obama's coming for our guns'' hysteria in the wake of Sandy Hook. In typical 1984 Ministry of Truth fashion the NRA blamed that on 'the possibility of gun control.' Better to have armed teachers they say.
Lunacy.
Much of the weaponry that reaches surrogate wars does not come to them innocently. The arms industry benefits from US, Russian, and European interests as well as Chinese and corporate players who 'dabble' in mercenary fueled conflicts from which they hope to gain some advantage.
Sporadically, governments have gone after the so called, 'merchants of death.' As for U.S. private gun sales, they remain a big fat gun show loop hole. Ditto with regard to types of ammunition that can penetrate cars, body armor, and more than one person per shot.
As quoted in Jervis Anderson's, ''Guns in American Life'' (1984 Random House), John Hinckley said from his place of confinement, ''If somebody like me can buy six Saturday Night Specials with ease, there is something drastically wrong.''
Age 60, Hinckley is still under confinement for the mentally ill. But, plenty of proponents for much crazier sounding behavior and politics are walking around on behalf the fun and gun advocates.
Who loses from the profligacy of guns? Most everyone. Who profits? Only a relatively few highly cynical and pathologically accomplished professional liars.
Lunacy.
Much of the weaponry that reaches surrogate wars does not come to them innocently. The arms industry benefits from US, Russian, and European interests as well as Chinese and corporate players who 'dabble' in mercenary fueled conflicts from which they hope to gain some advantage.
Sporadically, governments have gone after the so called, 'merchants of death.' As for U.S. private gun sales, they remain a big fat gun show loop hole. Ditto with regard to types of ammunition that can penetrate cars, body armor, and more than one person per shot.
As quoted in Jervis Anderson's, ''Guns in American Life'' (1984 Random House), John Hinckley said from his place of confinement, ''If somebody like me can buy six Saturday Night Specials with ease, there is something drastically wrong.''
Age 60, Hinckley is still under confinement for the mentally ill. But, plenty of proponents for much crazier sounding behavior and politics are walking around on behalf the fun and gun advocates.
Who loses from the profligacy of guns? Most everyone. Who profits? Only a relatively few highly cynical and pathologically accomplished professional liars.
8
If there are no assault rifles and semi-automatics weapons, who needs to defend against whom?
Americans pay a lot of taxes for law enforcement people to protect them, guns to protect themselves from themselves has proven wrong many times over in the wake of mass shootings. Integrated background checks, ban of certain type rapid shooters, mental health services and early diagnosis are a few factors can help to reduce weapons in wrong hands at wrong times.
Americans pay a lot of taxes for law enforcement people to protect them, guns to protect themselves from themselves has proven wrong many times over in the wake of mass shootings. Integrated background checks, ban of certain type rapid shooters, mental health services and early diagnosis are a few factors can help to reduce weapons in wrong hands at wrong times.
18
Interesting but misguided, misleading and gutless editorial. Interesting in that the Times continues its post San Bernadino harangue against guns rather than speaking out against Islamic extremists -- who by the way -- were also trying to blow people up with home made bombs.
Gutless -- because the EB refers to the murders in San Bernadino that were committed by Islamic terrorists as gun carnage and a rampage -- but doesn't mention Islamic terrorism.
Misguided in that the Times offers no plan of how to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys. Restrictive laws may limit legal gun ownership to a minor extent, but a determined terrorist, criminal, gang member, mass shooter will get a gun. If they can't get an AR-15 they'll use shotguns, handguns, hunting rifles, bombs because the key factor in the mass shooting equation is the victims don't have guns.
Misleading because the vast majority of homicides in the US are committed using a handgun (20x as many handguns as rifles for known firearm type).
Again, an amazing act of legerdemain by the EB. Like any good magician, the EB seeks to divert our attention away from what is really going on. Murder in the US is overwhelmingly something that occurs in urban inner city areas. You can ban all the assault rifles you want and rage at the manufacturers of military looking weapons, but the murder epidemic in the inner cities won't be affected.
Gutless -- because the EB refers to the murders in San Bernadino that were committed by Islamic terrorists as gun carnage and a rampage -- but doesn't mention Islamic terrorism.
Misguided in that the Times offers no plan of how to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys. Restrictive laws may limit legal gun ownership to a minor extent, but a determined terrorist, criminal, gang member, mass shooter will get a gun. If they can't get an AR-15 they'll use shotguns, handguns, hunting rifles, bombs because the key factor in the mass shooting equation is the victims don't have guns.
Misleading because the vast majority of homicides in the US are committed using a handgun (20x as many handguns as rifles for known firearm type).
Again, an amazing act of legerdemain by the EB. Like any good magician, the EB seeks to divert our attention away from what is really going on. Murder in the US is overwhelmingly something that occurs in urban inner city areas. You can ban all the assault rifles you want and rage at the manufacturers of military looking weapons, but the murder epidemic in the inner cities won't be affected.
28
Another day, another fabulously ignorant screed by the NYT on the subject of so-called "assault weapons" bombards us with the same fatuous arguments. These guns are not military weapons; they are "military style", which is an aesthetic characteristic, not a functional one. They are not particularly high powered, and the attacks that were just carried out by Muslim terrorists who made it through our administration's fantastically "robust" background check system could have been carried out with just handguns and shotguns with similar or greater effect. And how about just once contemplating the number of defensive uses of guns by civilians when calculating your cost-benefit analysis and worrying about concealed carry licenses before you hyperventilate on the Opinion Pages yet again. An assault weapon ban will have no effect on crime, but will seem like "doing something" to the terminally ignorant. Getting rid of concealed carry permits merely helps criminals, because they don't bother following the gun laws.
27
When Congress allows these weapons in their Chambers and on the House floor, they will still be indefensible schnooks, but at least they will no longer be hypocrites.
8
Exercising the right of free speech, they did so, exercising the right to reject what is said, I do so.
6
Yesterday I recieved an email from "linked in" a business oriented networking site. On the first page of the email was a photo of a friend and the text saying he was recommending an article. Below that was larger, bolder text about a Ruger something something. Finally below the Ruger stuff wa a blue box with the word Post. I thought the clicking the post box would get me to my frieds article but no. Clicking got me to a full page ad for a self loading gun, called a rifle but looking like a military weapon, for sale from the RUGER company. The add also included a link to join the NRA.
I recieve emails from linkedin one or twice a week, using them to keepin touch with volks I worked with before retirment. I have never seen anything like this gun ad link before. I am now trying to resign from linked in. I am also sending emails to all my lionked in friends urging them to resign as well.
I don't care if the site was hacked and not Linkedin's fault. I don't want be shown as I am in favor of killing merchandise aka firearms without my permission.
I recieve emails from linkedin one or twice a week, using them to keepin touch with volks I worked with before retirment. I have never seen anything like this gun ad link before. I am now trying to resign from linked in. I am also sending emails to all my lionked in friends urging them to resign as well.
I don't care if the site was hacked and not Linkedin's fault. I don't want be shown as I am in favor of killing merchandise aka firearms without my permission.
4
It's all true about the gun manufacturer's marketing campaigns - those reasonable gun owners who claim that there is nothing militaristic about the AR-15 and its ilk are either hopelessly naive, or have never looked at the gun magazines on every magazine rack. If there is nothing militaristic about them, then a lot of people are being sold a bill of goods.
That said, this has all been hashed over a million times - it needs to be repeated, but I think there are other points that need to be made.
A lot of gun buyers seriously believe that they are taking steps towards self defense, either in the home, or nowadays, out at the shopping mall. This has to be taken seriously, even though I think they are pragmatically wrong - in reality I don't think guns make you safer, either statistically or in terms of "how things really work". But this needs to be discussed publicly, in detail. The gun promoters have a whole body of lore about people saving lives with their guns, and we can't just ignore that, even if we disagree with their assumptions and conclusions.
And then there is the other category of gun promoters, who see their guns as defense, not against criminals, but against the government. It would be nice to just ignore these people, but I think this also should be discussed in more depth, in public.
So I guess I'm asking the NYT to devote even more resources to all aspects of this public discussion.
That said, this has all been hashed over a million times - it needs to be repeated, but I think there are other points that need to be made.
A lot of gun buyers seriously believe that they are taking steps towards self defense, either in the home, or nowadays, out at the shopping mall. This has to be taken seriously, even though I think they are pragmatically wrong - in reality I don't think guns make you safer, either statistically or in terms of "how things really work". But this needs to be discussed publicly, in detail. The gun promoters have a whole body of lore about people saving lives with their guns, and we can't just ignore that, even if we disagree with their assumptions and conclusions.
And then there is the other category of gun promoters, who see their guns as defense, not against criminals, but against the government. It would be nice to just ignore these people, but I think this also should be discussed in more depth, in public.
So I guess I'm asking the NYT to devote even more resources to all aspects of this public discussion.
36
Let's face it. The NRA is merely a front for the gun manufacturers. And, by supporting (owning?) so many in Congress, they continue to further their only interest, the bottom line. They have become the tail wagging the dog. For every public incident of use of military style weapons, the public rushes out to buy more guns. Is it any wonder that the gun manufacturers don't want any more restrictions and are willing to pay for it? The US already has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and that continues to grow. Hasn't anyone in Congress noticed that the rate of the mass shootings has skyrocketed since the assault weapons ban was eliminated? And those are just a small drop in the bucket of the 33,000 gun deaths in the US every year.
4
Very few murders and gun crimes are committed with conventional long rifles, even those that are semi-automatic. The M1-Garand (internal magazine, clip-loaded, eight rounds) was the standard US military rifle through WW-II and Korea, enormous numbers were made and excessed to the public, and it was the common-person's hunting rifle, to some extent still is.
Why is it that a civilian needs a gun that can kill more people more quickly than a Garand? I do understand that many people don't want a gun as heavy, or with the recoil of a Garand, but lighter fixed-internal-magazine rifles are readily available -- the Ruger RanchRifle immediately comes to mind.
Mass murderers and criminals want light rapid-fire guns with detachable magazines. Part of the problem and schizophrenia over "assault rifles" is that basically every semi-auto handgun is "a pocket assault rifle." Far more murders, and mass murders are done with semi-auto handguns than assault rifles. The worst mass gun murder (Virginia Tech) was done with a pair of handguns.
Trying to regulate or ban "assault rifles" becomes an illogical game of whack-a-mole about "features" which have nothing to do with how multiply-lethal the gun is.
The only way to stop the loopholes is to ban or regulate semi-automatic guns of all types that do not have a fully-enclosed small magazine in the stock, limiting that magazine size to something not attractive to mass murderers (I'd suggest 6, the standard revolver number).
Why is it that a civilian needs a gun that can kill more people more quickly than a Garand? I do understand that many people don't want a gun as heavy, or with the recoil of a Garand, but lighter fixed-internal-magazine rifles are readily available -- the Ruger RanchRifle immediately comes to mind.
Mass murderers and criminals want light rapid-fire guns with detachable magazines. Part of the problem and schizophrenia over "assault rifles" is that basically every semi-auto handgun is "a pocket assault rifle." Far more murders, and mass murders are done with semi-auto handguns than assault rifles. The worst mass gun murder (Virginia Tech) was done with a pair of handguns.
Trying to regulate or ban "assault rifles" becomes an illogical game of whack-a-mole about "features" which have nothing to do with how multiply-lethal the gun is.
The only way to stop the loopholes is to ban or regulate semi-automatic guns of all types that do not have a fully-enclosed small magazine in the stock, limiting that magazine size to something not attractive to mass murderers (I'd suggest 6, the standard revolver number).
8
Why not make it a harder, more painful process to obtain massive amounts of ammo?
It's a harder process for me to buy Pseudoephedrine at the pharmacy than it would to buy the same amount of bullets that the Farooks' possessed in San Bernardino... I've even been turned down Sudafed once when I was battling a head cold. Evidently I had tried purchasing more than the "recommended" dose in too short of a time.
It seems like the US has made it a harder process to open a meth lab than it is to obtain massive amounts of ammunition.
Maybe that should change?
It's a harder process for me to buy Pseudoephedrine at the pharmacy than it would to buy the same amount of bullets that the Farooks' possessed in San Bernardino... I've even been turned down Sudafed once when I was battling a head cold. Evidently I had tried purchasing more than the "recommended" dose in too short of a time.
It seems like the US has made it a harder process to open a meth lab than it is to obtain massive amounts of ammunition.
Maybe that should change?
5
We should ban the manufacture, import, sale and possession of guns, with a few exceptions for hunting or home protection.
The drop in gun violence would be incredible.
Of course, the gun nuts would object, violently. Because their paranoid anti-government gun fetish takes precedence over a peaceful society.
Beware the terrorists within. They're white, angry, and dangerous.
The drop in gun violence would be incredible.
Of course, the gun nuts would object, violently. Because their paranoid anti-government gun fetish takes precedence over a peaceful society.
Beware the terrorists within. They're white, angry, and dangerous.
8
While this article effectively explains the illogical connection between military-like weapons and defending against "fantasized malefactors", its persuasiveness is limited because it is ill-informed. A "super destructive .50-caliber sniper rifle" in the hands of a radical extremest Muslim or a crazy mountain man in Colorado is more dangerous as a club than a gun. A .50 cal sniper takes extreme skill to shoot accurately, and is useless in the face to face situations common in mass shootings. If practical real-world examples were used in this article, I could somewhat buy into the argument.
Secondly, a ban on assault weapons is currently unrealistic due to the immense power the NRA and republican lawmakers hold. According to this article, the secondary solution is the demilitarization of guns, such as smaller mags and less tactical features, a reasonable and likely effective idea that should be the primary argument of this article. While hunting rifles and "civilian" pistols are rightfully embedded in US culture, I do agree that semi-automatic and automatic military-style rifles have no place in the hands of civilians.
Secondly, a ban on assault weapons is currently unrealistic due to the immense power the NRA and republican lawmakers hold. According to this article, the secondary solution is the demilitarization of guns, such as smaller mags and less tactical features, a reasonable and likely effective idea that should be the primary argument of this article. While hunting rifles and "civilian" pistols are rightfully embedded in US culture, I do agree that semi-automatic and automatic military-style rifles have no place in the hands of civilians.
5
The founding fathers could never imagine the technology of today's low cost, store bought weapons. Would they really think it wise to allow an individual citizen to hold so much power over an entire town square, school or police station? For the price of a nice dining room set, anyone can now acquire the technology to destabilize an entire city. A shoulder fired canon that looks like a big rifle, firing five inch long projectiles from over a mile away. There's also now a rapid fire rifle that is based on the styling of the infamous Thompson machine gun. It even comes complete with a stylish drum shaped clip that holds fifty rounds at a time. All the better to bring out your inner Al Capone. The body count alone clearly demonstrates how the gun industry is the marketing success of our time. A closed loop of carnage and sales records, fed by an infinite supply of paranoia.
5
Harry S Truman, a democrat who a lot of republicans would like to pretend was a republican, went after war profiteering in a big way. He led a Senate committee which held hundreds of meetings. War profiteering was not only illegal, it was considered un-American.
Now it seems to be our #1 industry. And since it is so profitable war has become constant. At home, as well as abroad.
The nra is probably the best financed terrorist organization in the world. It gets it financing, not from the dues of hunters and sport shooters, but from the monsters who aren't satisfied with honest profits, but need more and more and more.
We have presidential candidates willing to shred the Constitution because some zealots and cultists have killed a few dozen Americans, yet they offer only platitudes to the carnage We the People inflict on each other due to the zealots and cultists of the nra.
This terrorist organization represents about 4 million of US. That is approx. 1-1/2% of our total population. There are supposedly 300 million guns in the Country owned by aprox. 40 million of US. That represents about 12% of US. Where does their power come from? It certainly doesn't come from the vast majority of Americans who wish to see some sensible steps to stop this carnage.
Now it seems to be our #1 industry. And since it is so profitable war has become constant. At home, as well as abroad.
The nra is probably the best financed terrorist organization in the world. It gets it financing, not from the dues of hunters and sport shooters, but from the monsters who aren't satisfied with honest profits, but need more and more and more.
We have presidential candidates willing to shred the Constitution because some zealots and cultists have killed a few dozen Americans, yet they offer only platitudes to the carnage We the People inflict on each other due to the zealots and cultists of the nra.
This terrorist organization represents about 4 million of US. That is approx. 1-1/2% of our total population. There are supposedly 300 million guns in the Country owned by aprox. 40 million of US. That represents about 12% of US. Where does their power come from? It certainly doesn't come from the vast majority of Americans who wish to see some sensible steps to stop this carnage.
4
I'd really like to know how many mass shootings have been stopped by somebody else with a gun? A "good guy", if you will. I sure haven't heard of any, but maybe someone else has.
3
Saw a bit on the daily show last night. 3%. Compared with a much larger number by unharmed people.
1
Americans use guns in self-defense much more often than they used guns to murder someone or to kill themselves. Table 14 (Justifiable Homicides) of the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that in 442 American civilians used firearms in self-defense to kill their assailants in 2014. This number includes only cases in which the assailants died; it does not include the far more numerous incidents in which assailants were wounded or frightened away. A recent study based on FBI and National Crime Victimization Survey Data showed that 235,700 Americans used guns in self-defense between 2007 and 2011, a total that works out to 47,140 incidents a year, more than five times the number of Americans murdered by firearms in 2014 and more than three times the number—about 11,000 each year—of suicides by gun. It’s true that more than 60 percent of gun deaths are suicides, but studies suggests that about 60 percent of those who use a gun to end their lives would sooner or later resort to other methods if a gun were not available. The factoid indicates the futility of most gun control legislations. A person can kill themselves much more easily with a small .22-caliber pistol than with an assault rifle.
19
I am certainly more afraid of those that are easily getting guns with no background checks at all. Too many of them are violent, or about to be violent.
5
perhaps families should buy their kids a computer rather than squander so much on a firearm. the computer won't kill anyone.
3
Notwithstanding the moral bankruptcy of individuals who work or invest in gun or arms manufacturers, all of which actively endeavor to create a need for their weapons of war, the hazard seems more about the virtually unfettered access to cheap live ammo.
"a state commission focused on the Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle the shooter used to slay 20 children and six workers in barely five minutes with 154 rounds".
That's 1 gun, but 154 rounds. Without those rounds, that Bushmaster might as well have been a Powersoaker.
Why is the focus on the gun and not on the 154 rounds??
The constitution specifically mentions 'arms', but where does it allow the right to buy live ammo?
"a state commission focused on the Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle the shooter used to slay 20 children and six workers in barely five minutes with 154 rounds".
That's 1 gun, but 154 rounds. Without those rounds, that Bushmaster might as well have been a Powersoaker.
Why is the focus on the gun and not on the 154 rounds??
The constitution specifically mentions 'arms', but where does it allow the right to buy live ammo?
6
You know you have arrived in gun cult country when the road sign are full of bullet holes.
8
As several other commenters have already said, Congress and the Supreme Court should allow guns in their facilities if they allow guns among the general population. Visitors could be issued concealable handguns and given a five minute video gun safety course before being admitted. The same should apply to the NRA facilities.
To see other great ideas go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie Sanders and invite me to speak to your group. Order your free copy of the Platform at alibris.com. Thank you.
To see other great ideas go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie Sanders and invite me to speak to your group. Order your free copy of the Platform at alibris.com. Thank you.
5
I'd be happy to come to New York and give the Editorial Board a class on firearms - because it's abundantly clear that The Board has no clue about the subject they so often pontificate about. This article is so full of distortions, misconceptions, and outright lies, one hardly knows where to begin. Really guys, you need to talk to an expert - because even a person with a passing knowledge of firearms laughs at your ridiculous assertions like "spray-shooting".
13
The gun manufacturers are similar to the tobacco manufactures of not so long ago - insane profits, ZERO responsibility for flooding the nation with an inherently dangerous product that, when used for its intended purpose, causes harm or death. The big difference ? Congress passed a law that bars any product liability suit against any gun makers. Wow! Why such special treatment just for gun makers ? Shouldn't the market decide ? Shouldn't government get out of the business of dictating how business should be run? I am very confused ! Repeal that law . Create jobs for the consumer protection and class action lawyers. Let 'em loose. There are PLENTY of harmed (or dead) plaintiffs.
5
Another day, another full Opinion page of Republican bashing from The Times. The paper of record should be renamed "The paper of the Democrat party".
7
How about another editorial decrying the "militarization" of police forces. It's been little noted that the police in San Bernardino called for a "Bearcat" armored vehicle during their firefight with the terrorists. I guess as long as there is a risk of Islamic terrorism in this country there will be a need for police to have military level equipment.
2
San Bernadino regularly deals with gangs so that it would always have been more appropriate for it to have that. Most of the municipalities that have these items clearly do not need them, and more importantly, misuse them on a civilian population. Swat teams for ordinary arrests etc.
3
I would suggest that the process of getting rid of assault rifles should include a ban on more sales with an effective starting date, say March 31, 2016. All assault rifles owned at that date have to be registered and the current owner is the last owner. You cannot sell it or give it away or pass it on to a family member. When you want to be rid of it you turn it in and are compensated for it's value.
Secondly, starting immediately all high capacity magazines are banned and have to be turned in for destruction. The allowable magazines would be based on the principal of what is allowed for hunting. Perhaps just five or six bullets.
The guiding principal of the legislation would again by what is reasonable for the hunter. Any gun that can bring down an elk or moose ought to be enough to protect your home.
Secondly, starting immediately all high capacity magazines are banned and have to be turned in for destruction. The allowable magazines would be based on the principal of what is allowed for hunting. Perhaps just five or six bullets.
The guiding principal of the legislation would again by what is reasonable for the hunter. Any gun that can bring down an elk or moose ought to be enough to protect your home.
3
The gun industry and their demagogue allies are doing as much to spread fear as the terrorists. If left wing Americans were doing this, they would be called traitors and un-American, but because they are right wing, they claim to be patriots. They are not patriots, they are opposed to the values our nation strives for.
6
These figures courtesy the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (and make sure you're sitting down.)
Every day, 48 children and teens are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, unintentional shootings, and police intervention.
Every day, 7 children and teens die from gun violence:
5 are murdered
2 kill themselves
Every day, 41 children and teens are shot and survive:
31 shot in an assault
1 survives a suicide attempt
8 are shot unintentionally
Every day, 297 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, unintentional shootings, and police intervention.
Every day, 89 people die from gun violence:
31 are murdered
55 kill themselves
2 are killed unintentionally
1 is killed by police intervention
1 intent unknown.
Every day, 208 people are shot and survive:
151 shot in an assault
10 survive a suicide attempt
45 are shot unintentionally
2 are shot in a police intervention
In One Year on Average (all ages)
Over 108,000 (108,476) people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, unintentional shootings, or by police intervention.
32,514 people die from gun violence
11,294 people are murdered
19,992 people kill themselves
561 people are killed unintentionally
414 are killed by police intervention
254 die but intent is not known
Every day, 48 children and teens are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, unintentional shootings, and police intervention.
Every day, 7 children and teens die from gun violence:
5 are murdered
2 kill themselves
Every day, 41 children and teens are shot and survive:
31 shot in an assault
1 survives a suicide attempt
8 are shot unintentionally
Every day, 297 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, unintentional shootings, and police intervention.
Every day, 89 people die from gun violence:
31 are murdered
55 kill themselves
2 are killed unintentionally
1 is killed by police intervention
1 intent unknown.
Every day, 208 people are shot and survive:
151 shot in an assault
10 survive a suicide attempt
45 are shot unintentionally
2 are shot in a police intervention
In One Year on Average (all ages)
Over 108,000 (108,476) people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, unintentional shootings, or by police intervention.
32,514 people die from gun violence
11,294 people are murdered
19,992 people kill themselves
561 people are killed unintentionally
414 are killed by police intervention
254 die but intent is not known
6
Google how to bump fire an AR-15. Watch a few videos. Just one way around fully auto restrictions.
The broadcast and cable news media profit more in a day from covering mass shootings than the gun manufacturers make in a year. They shamelessly sensationalize mass shootings to keep people riveted to their television and computer screens in a trance-like state of fear and fascination, breaking only momentarily from the steady stream of commentators to bring you . . . a few highly-priced commercial messages.
Recently, for example, there might actually have been other more newsworthy events somewhere else in the world, but instead of reporting those events, ABCNews broadcast a report on how to act to increase your chances of surviving a mass shooting. That wasn't a public service announcement, that was crass exploitation of a tragedy.
Accompanying this New York Times article are advertisements for BP, Oppenheimer Funds, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, NetJets, Amazon, and for a movie called 'He Named Me Malala'. I am guessing that the paper did not insert those ads gratuitously.
I do not support the firearms industry, but the news media certainly does.
Recently, for example, there might actually have been other more newsworthy events somewhere else in the world, but instead of reporting those events, ABCNews broadcast a report on how to act to increase your chances of surviving a mass shooting. That wasn't a public service announcement, that was crass exploitation of a tragedy.
Accompanying this New York Times article are advertisements for BP, Oppenheimer Funds, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, NetJets, Amazon, and for a movie called 'He Named Me Malala'. I am guessing that the paper did not insert those ads gratuitously.
I do not support the firearms industry, but the news media certainly does.
3
To the Editorial Board:
There are legitimate arguments to be made on this topic but if you want to start this conversation, you need to speak the language. When you make claims that .50 caliber rifles are "designed to pierce concrete bunkers," that semiautomatic pistols have the firepower of rifles and that semiautomatic rifles are designed for "rapid spray-shooting of multiple enemy soldiers," you com across as tone-deaf and utterly ignorant to anyone with even a basic working knowledge of these weapons and their application. Until you learn your material, your arguments will speak to your choir only and there will be no hope for constructive dialogue.
There are legitimate arguments to be made on this topic but if you want to start this conversation, you need to speak the language. When you make claims that .50 caliber rifles are "designed to pierce concrete bunkers," that semiautomatic pistols have the firepower of rifles and that semiautomatic rifles are designed for "rapid spray-shooting of multiple enemy soldiers," you com across as tone-deaf and utterly ignorant to anyone with even a basic working knowledge of these weapons and their application. Until you learn your material, your arguments will speak to your choir only and there will be no hope for constructive dialogue.
16
Even as a member of that choir, I have to agree. Even though I've never fired a weapon, I recognized the hyperbole in those words. Many readers would not.
The Times editorial page routinely (and rightly) calls out those on the Right who distort or invent facts, supported by inflammatory language. It is incumbent on the Editorial board to consistently get their facts right, and avoid inflammatory language.
I hope that the Public Editor will weigh in.
The Times editorial page routinely (and rightly) calls out those on the Right who distort or invent facts, supported by inflammatory language. It is incumbent on the Editorial board to consistently get their facts right, and avoid inflammatory language.
I hope that the Public Editor will weigh in.
1
Nit picking about terms is not going to save any lives.
And yes, a .50 caliber bullet can pierce armor and that is probably what it was designed for. My .357 magnum pistol is certainly more of a threat than my .30.30 rifle.
And yes, a .50 caliber bullet can pierce armor and that is probably what it was designed for. My .357 magnum pistol is certainly more of a threat than my .30.30 rifle.
1
This is just more twaddle from the anti-gun left. The author shows his ignorance and bigotry in almost every paragraph. AR-15s are nowhere close to being, "military weapons tailored for the civilian homefront." Outside of cosmetic features, the AR-15 doesn't work like the military's M-16/M-4. And to suggest, as the author appears to do, that the AR can be easily modified is pure bunk born of ignorance or dishonesty. Besides having to mill certain areas of the AR, it also requires special parts before the rifle would be capable of firing full auto.
"These are weapons designed for the rapid spray-shooting of multiple enemy soldiers in wartime"
Seriously? Does the author take a moment to read what he's written before posting it? Not even the military does this silly "spray-shooting" silliness, nor is the AR capable of it. This is simply another example of the blatant dishonesty of the New York Times editorial staff.
The author again lies when telling us that the firearms industry is responsible for, "selling pliant statehouse politicians on the legalization of “concealed carry” handgun licenses." The concealed carry phenomenon that has swept the nation was a true grass roots effort started by average citizens in their states. And the firearms carried are not, "powerful semiautomatic pistols with the firepower of rifles" nor can they be carried concealed. Is the author ignorant or dishonest? I vote that he's both.
"These are weapons designed for the rapid spray-shooting of multiple enemy soldiers in wartime"
Seriously? Does the author take a moment to read what he's written before posting it? Not even the military does this silly "spray-shooting" silliness, nor is the AR capable of it. This is simply another example of the blatant dishonesty of the New York Times editorial staff.
The author again lies when telling us that the firearms industry is responsible for, "selling pliant statehouse politicians on the legalization of “concealed carry” handgun licenses." The concealed carry phenomenon that has swept the nation was a true grass roots effort started by average citizens in their states. And the firearms carried are not, "powerful semiautomatic pistols with the firepower of rifles" nor can they be carried concealed. Is the author ignorant or dishonest? I vote that he's both.
9
The AR-15 is the "civilian," i.e. semi-automatic version of the M-16. You can look it up.
5
As far as I'm concerned, Isis, the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers are all on the same page for different reasons. Isis wants easy access so it can kill infidels. The NRA wants easy access so they can overthrow the Government. The Gun Manufacturers want easy access so they can make money off of the other 2 groups. None of these "reasons" is reasonable at all.
4
Excuse me, but we ARE a battlefield.
Congress and the President renamed our country The Homeland and designated it as a battlefield in Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA of 2012, also known as the 'HOMELAND BATTLEFIELD ACT', that sealed the deal.
Like it or not, when Presidents can secretly order the assassination of American citizens; when American citizens (including animal rights activists) are secretly put on terrorist watch lists; when American citizens are secretly prohibited from flying and denied the opportunity to challenge; when American citizens can be indefinitely detained without charges or trial; and when the U.S. Military can be order to control our streets contrary to long-standing Posse Comitatus Act, it's clear that we are indeed at war.
Like it or not, you don't take a handgun to a war. By passing the NDAA of 2012, the Govt made the case for assault on civil liberties on behalf of fighting the enemy, but also unwittingly justified assault rifles for defense of the Homeland by citizens because Americans take a terrorist attack to be a call to arms. The biggest problem and danger is that it's not clear to some who the real enemy is.
The ACLU has been deeply involved in this Battlefield issue, as has former NYT war correspondent Chris Hedges. If the national corporate media missed that late New Years Eve signing and the legal battle that ensued, not to mention the serious implications of the Homeland Battlefield Act, it was by design.
Congress and the President renamed our country The Homeland and designated it as a battlefield in Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA of 2012, also known as the 'HOMELAND BATTLEFIELD ACT', that sealed the deal.
Like it or not, when Presidents can secretly order the assassination of American citizens; when American citizens (including animal rights activists) are secretly put on terrorist watch lists; when American citizens are secretly prohibited from flying and denied the opportunity to challenge; when American citizens can be indefinitely detained without charges or trial; and when the U.S. Military can be order to control our streets contrary to long-standing Posse Comitatus Act, it's clear that we are indeed at war.
Like it or not, you don't take a handgun to a war. By passing the NDAA of 2012, the Govt made the case for assault on civil liberties on behalf of fighting the enemy, but also unwittingly justified assault rifles for defense of the Homeland by citizens because Americans take a terrorist attack to be a call to arms. The biggest problem and danger is that it's not clear to some who the real enemy is.
The ACLU has been deeply involved in this Battlefield issue, as has former NYT war correspondent Chris Hedges. If the national corporate media missed that late New Years Eve signing and the legal battle that ensued, not to mention the serious implications of the Homeland Battlefield Act, it was by design.
3
This editorial is so full of errors and half-truths it really makes me wonder about the integrity of your research and writing process. We may not agree on policies, but I do expect the NYT to field editorials that are credible.
This one is not.
This one is not.
11
If the killing of 20 1st graders didnt bring these politicians to a sensible solution, nothing will. The gun laws will only get weaker, that is what the gun manufacturers pay politicians for. The NRA is a big part of the push for more guns, but even many members want to have the sales a little more controlled. Wont happen.
3
Like many I support full registration plus an insurance requirement under strict-liability, for gun ownership.
If you look actuarially at what this would cost -- the typical hunter with a long rifle or shotgun would pay very low rates -- on the order of $30/year.
And you might be surprised how low the rates would be for most assault rifle owners presuming the insurance companies could use other indicators (Age, Do you hold a job? Any history of arrests, etc.) of stability.
But handguns would cost a lot to insure, no way around it. That's reality. The average handgun costs US society about $1000/year -- this includes all the illegally owned ones ... which wouldn't be insured of course. But realistic liability costs of legally-owned handguns are $300 - $400 /yr.
How many people would choose to own one if they had to pay what they cost society?
If you look actuarially at what this would cost -- the typical hunter with a long rifle or shotgun would pay very low rates -- on the order of $30/year.
And you might be surprised how low the rates would be for most assault rifle owners presuming the insurance companies could use other indicators (Age, Do you hold a job? Any history of arrests, etc.) of stability.
But handguns would cost a lot to insure, no way around it. That's reality. The average handgun costs US society about $1000/year -- this includes all the illegally owned ones ... which wouldn't be insured of course. But realistic liability costs of legally-owned handguns are $300 - $400 /yr.
How many people would choose to own one if they had to pay what they cost society?
7
What is important to remember is that the NRA does not speak for gun owners, it's sole mission is to maximize the profits of the gun industry, its real financial backers. Look at every position it takes, every comment its officials make -- their intent is clearly to sell more guns and make sure the manufacturers are in no way burdened with regulations that might lower their money-making potential. These people are certainly among Bob Dylan's Masters of War...
3
The automatic rifle and high-capacity, rapid-fire pistol manufacturers, spurred-on by distorted views of the Second Amendment, seem to be having a feast at our expense. What could their lobbying "pitch" to Congressmen and Senators be? There is no credible constitutional or practical argument to be made. The Framers of our Constitution never envisioned a right to bear arms that can, in short order, savagely inflict multiple deaths and maim large numbers of our citizens in one episode. We need to get the gun manufacturers out of the political process and to elect representatives who know how and when just to say, "no."
3
As a follow-up to the 'front page' editorial last weekend this piece reaches new levels of yellow journalism. Semi-auto rifles such as the AR-15 have been sold for decades and decades; the AR was first sold on the civilian market over fifty years ago. It is a supremely adaptable rifle for hunting, sport shooting and self-defense. It is in fact the rifle of choice for military match rifle competition and preferred by many (if not most) varmint hunters. It is the most popular centerfire rifle in a country in which the second amendment protects arms in common use. Beyond its sheer popularity the AR-15 and similar semi-autos now enjoy a level of constitutional protection not decided in 1994 when the AWB was passed; the SCOTUS has decided that an individual right to arms is legal fact. The NY Times may chafe at this right and decry it, but it's not going away any time soon. Dovetailing with the right to bear arms being decided law is the fact that all fifty states now have civilian concealed carry. People are exercising their rights and they won't cease doing so because some find the right offensive. Apart from the ignorance of the constitution apparent in this editorial I find the logic the next most troubling thing. If harm reduction was the goal, why not propose banning or further restricting handguns? Long guns of ALL types including semi-autos are used in only 3% of all gun-related deaths. And the .50 BMG has NEVER been used to commit a murder in the U.S.
8
The editorial is spot on. The gun industry has been aggressively pushing these weapons as human killers. The amount of varmint shooting that these expensive weapons, accessories and thousands of rounds of ammunition are used for is negligible. To everyone involved in selling the reality as well as the myth, it's time to say "Consider your man card revoked."
1
What the nation desperately needs is another Edward Snowden in the gun industry.
We need someone who will emerge from the heart of the NRA and lay out for all to see the weapons lobby's cynical manipulation of public opinion.
It's imperative to follow the money that feeds the killing machine from its dark sources to its beneficiaries.
Let's see the chain of think tanks, lawyers and public relations operatives who are leaving us defenseless against weapons that have turned the Second Amendment against the citizenry of this country.
We need someone who will emerge from the heart of the NRA and lay out for all to see the weapons lobby's cynical manipulation of public opinion.
It's imperative to follow the money that feeds the killing machine from its dark sources to its beneficiaries.
Let's see the chain of think tanks, lawyers and public relations operatives who are leaving us defenseless against weapons that have turned the Second Amendment against the citizenry of this country.
3
Once again, the NYT hangs out its neon sign, blazing "We have no clue what we're talking about!"
War profiteering? Get serious. Show me one military police or combat unit, in any US armed services force (pick your branch of service), equipped with AR-15's instead of M-16's. I'm waiting. (Cue Final Jeopardy music here.)
Of course, there are none. When will you acknowledge that semi-automatic rifles are not fully-automatic firearms? And as such are not issued to military forces, because they are not in fact designed to do what modern military forces require? Apparently never.
Here's my favorite big lie: "Across recent decades, gun manufacturers, facing a decline in general gun ownership as demographics shifted and sports hunting faded, have cynically created a domestic market for barely altered rifles and pistols developed for the military." Um, no. Not recent, not cynical, not barely altered, not due to declining hunting. Semi-auto pistols have been sold in this country since their invention in 1896. By the 1920's, John Browning's semi-automatic shotgun and rifle designs were also coming into the market.
So it's been 100 years since semi-autos have been lawful for Americans to own. This includes the M-1 rifle, carried by millions of GIs in WW2 and Korea. You can still buy one direct from the US government, as well as in private sales.
So much for your made-up history lesson. Never let facts get in the way of good fiction.
War profiteering? Get serious. Show me one military police or combat unit, in any US armed services force (pick your branch of service), equipped with AR-15's instead of M-16's. I'm waiting. (Cue Final Jeopardy music here.)
Of course, there are none. When will you acknowledge that semi-automatic rifles are not fully-automatic firearms? And as such are not issued to military forces, because they are not in fact designed to do what modern military forces require? Apparently never.
Here's my favorite big lie: "Across recent decades, gun manufacturers, facing a decline in general gun ownership as demographics shifted and sports hunting faded, have cynically created a domestic market for barely altered rifles and pistols developed for the military." Um, no. Not recent, not cynical, not barely altered, not due to declining hunting. Semi-auto pistols have been sold in this country since their invention in 1896. By the 1920's, John Browning's semi-automatic shotgun and rifle designs were also coming into the market.
So it's been 100 years since semi-autos have been lawful for Americans to own. This includes the M-1 rifle, carried by millions of GIs in WW2 and Korea. You can still buy one direct from the US government, as well as in private sales.
So much for your made-up history lesson. Never let facts get in the way of good fiction.
14
The assault weapons ban is one of the silliest ideas out their. Its the Dems chance to look good but really have no actual effect on gun violence in America. In America almost all gun violence is done with handguns. That is the real problem. If 99% of gun murders take place using hand guns why is the government so keen on stopping the 1% of gun murders. It seems very misguided. If people are killed 1 at a time in Chicago or Baltimore no one seems care or to have an actual plan that has any chance of working. The Dems idea is to blame the police for criminals conduct.
This is such a waste of time. All politicians need to stand up and figure out how to actually stop the hand gun violence that makes up the vast majority of gun violence. Hand guns used in crimes in the streets of Americas cities. Also get hand guns out of the people trying to commit suicide would help too.
This is such a waste of time. All politicians need to stand up and figure out how to actually stop the hand gun violence that makes up the vast majority of gun violence. Hand guns used in crimes in the streets of Americas cities. Also get hand guns out of the people trying to commit suicide would help too.
5
Perhaps the NYT should "follow the money" and remind us over and over again the degree to which the pervasiveness of weapons in our society hits our pocketbooks in terms of costs of police responsiveness, public/private insurance costs; disability; incarceration, etc. For instance, we should know not just the background of mass shooters, but also, what such tragedies literally cost.
Here in South Florida where shootings are a daily occurrence, those opposed to weapons control may be able to ignore the human suffering associated with unfettered access to weapons, but some may find it harder to dismiss what they actually are paying for to sustain their Second Amendment "right."
Here in South Florida where shootings are a daily occurrence, those opposed to weapons control may be able to ignore the human suffering associated with unfettered access to weapons, but some may find it harder to dismiss what they actually are paying for to sustain their Second Amendment "right."
4
With each new massacre the "merchants of death" have been increasingly successful in both selling guns to a fearful public enabled by mostly Republican obstruction of any semblance of gun regulation. It's a national tragedy and a preventable disgrace. I would hope The Times would start putting a box with black borders on their front page everyday noting the number of gun deaths, especially those by assault weapons as well as noting Congressional votes by party on proposed gun regulation legislation. The public needs to be constantly reminded that those we've elected have our blood on their hands.
4
Yet, despite the reality that rolls out its gruesome blood-red carpet on a basis that now seems daily, we re-elect our shameless representatives to both houses of Congress every two years.
Our domestic carnage apologists are fond of pointing out that the pre-2004 assault rifle ban failed to work. Of course it failed because it was designed to fail, with super-sized loopholes that extracted its teeth before it ever became law.
The grim fact remains in our land of politically-enabled mayhem. Anybody can buy high-powered weapons designed for battlefield use with the click of a mouse or a jaunt to a gun show. Some states make such acquisition less convenient, but the iron pipeline takes care of that.
This is why, absent strong federal initiative, we Americans will keep living the way we do on our own self-enabled civilian battlefields.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Our domestic carnage apologists are fond of pointing out that the pre-2004 assault rifle ban failed to work. Of course it failed because it was designed to fail, with super-sized loopholes that extracted its teeth before it ever became law.
The grim fact remains in our land of politically-enabled mayhem. Anybody can buy high-powered weapons designed for battlefield use with the click of a mouse or a jaunt to a gun show. Some states make such acquisition less convenient, but the iron pipeline takes care of that.
This is why, absent strong federal initiative, we Americans will keep living the way we do on our own self-enabled civilian battlefields.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
3
Let's broaden the conversation for a moment. How many Americans believe that everyone should be able to purchase surface-to-air missiles, anti-tank weapons, Predator drones, and chemical and biological agents? (Hold up your hands please.) If any of these are off the table, then clearly there are limits, and all we are talking about is where to draw the line. Are hand grenades ok? At what calibre does a projectile lose the protection of the 2nd amendment? Surely, in the face of so much death and destruction, we can stop pretending that this is an argument between absolute extremes, accept that there must be limits on weaponry, drop the ban on social research, and have an informed discussion of how to balance individual rights and public safety.
6
It is clear to me there are valid points to be made for both sides of this coin. I have exercised my 2A right. I do not plan to be a defenseless victim. Those who choose not to arm themselves, fine by me. Fear mongering or outright opposition to "citizen militia" gets us nowhere. No one can tell me when and where to be fearful of an outside threat, perceived or otherwise. Therefore, within reason, no one should be able to tell me how I choose to address that fear.
To the extent possible by law, I choose not to be a defenseless victim.
To the extent possible by law, I choose not to be a defenseless victim.
5
Choosing to live within a bullet's reach of other people should restrict your choice to "arm yourself". Your qualifications to use the arsenal you choose to have should be a concern to the community in which you live and work. While you may not choose to be a defenseless victim, neither do those who walk within reach of your gun choose to be victims of your so-called defense. How can your judgment, physical reflexes, safety training be known by the potential victims when those fail?
3
Gun manufacturers, the NRA and their politicians have the power they do because of a very large and organized group who believe "the government" is on the verge (since the 2009 election of President Obama) of taking away their "constitutional freedoms." As a classic example of myth making, this narrative serves the function of solidifying a group of people who feel besieged culturally through the creation of an imaginary foe (the government personified in the presidency of Barack Obama) against which they must do battle if they are to survive as a people.
The prepper movement is perhaps the best example of this mythical ethos in which weapons and imminent apocalyptic destruction play a central role. Myths, however, require something that extends beyond the group but also inherent of the group in desperate need of defending. The Constitution à la the 2nd Amendment is their sacred document. It provides an objective point of departure for representing the group's original cultural beginnings and present devotion. It's their Bible, which is immutable in its content and demands reverence as a result.
Whether for the sake of profit, power or salvation, the gun has become both the means and the ends through which the symbiotic relationship of these various actors plays itself out in America today. It's a functional symbol that provides meaning for a fearful people.
The prepper movement is perhaps the best example of this mythical ethos in which weapons and imminent apocalyptic destruction play a central role. Myths, however, require something that extends beyond the group but also inherent of the group in desperate need of defending. The Constitution à la the 2nd Amendment is their sacred document. It provides an objective point of departure for representing the group's original cultural beginnings and present devotion. It's their Bible, which is immutable in its content and demands reverence as a result.
Whether for the sake of profit, power or salvation, the gun has become both the means and the ends through which the symbiotic relationship of these various actors plays itself out in America today. It's a functional symbol that provides meaning for a fearful people.
5
As he left the White House Dwight Eisenhower gave a speech in which he warned about the looming powerful influential danger of the military-industrial complex. Military style weapons including assault rifles in the hands of individual civilians in America under the cover of the 2nd Amendment was certainly not on his mind.
Of the 33,000 Americans who die from gunshots every year about 2/3rds are suicides and the remainder primarily involve family, friends and thugs. Assault weapons and mass shootings are only very rarely involved in these shootings.
In the current politically partisan debate regarding any limitation on an individual's right to bear any kind of arms along with the hostile judicial legal environment this focus on assault weapons is doomed. Shifting the focus to profits away from the dangers of such weapons in a few wrong hands will not work. Those are the lessons of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Newtown and the San Bernardino California terrorist attack.
Of the 33,000 Americans who die from gunshots every year about 2/3rds are suicides and the remainder primarily involve family, friends and thugs. Assault weapons and mass shootings are only very rarely involved in these shootings.
In the current politically partisan debate regarding any limitation on an individual's right to bear any kind of arms along with the hostile judicial legal environment this focus on assault weapons is doomed. Shifting the focus to profits away from the dangers of such weapons in a few wrong hands will not work. Those are the lessons of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Newtown and the San Bernardino California terrorist attack.
2
The NYT editorial board should get out and try some of these guns to understand how they work.
"Rapid spray-shooting" is simply false. That's what you can do with a fully automatic weapon (aka machine gun), and they're illegal and have been for many years. The "assault rifles" the editors demonize require a trigger pull for each shot, no different from a garden variety handgun. They don't create more danger.
And Richard Luettgen's comment below is spot-on: if you are self-defense oriented, you arm yourself (as closely as you can) with what you expect to face. Looking at the probabilities, many reasonable people see a not insignificant chance of mass-scale civil disorder as a result of widespread disruption from, say, a terrorist attack on (or hack of) the grid. Self-defense in these conditions requires a good deal of firepower.
"Rapid spray-shooting" is simply false. That's what you can do with a fully automatic weapon (aka machine gun), and they're illegal and have been for many years. The "assault rifles" the editors demonize require a trigger pull for each shot, no different from a garden variety handgun. They don't create more danger.
And Richard Luettgen's comment below is spot-on: if you are self-defense oriented, you arm yourself (as closely as you can) with what you expect to face. Looking at the probabilities, many reasonable people see a not insignificant chance of mass-scale civil disorder as a result of widespread disruption from, say, a terrorist attack on (or hack of) the grid. Self-defense in these conditions requires a good deal of firepower.
6
War profiteering and oil are the foundation of why we are engaged in the endless "war on terror". The blather about insuring "our" freedom and bringing democracy to those bereft of it is mainly just that - blather. Assault weapons are for killing mass numbers of human beings. If the weapons industry were held legally culpable for every massacre that used their weapons at least to the tune of how much they spend on lobbying support to be able to profit on arming the populace, then perhaps change would start to occur.
4
Excellent editorial however not discussed here is the Highland Park assault weapon case rejected for review last week by SCOTUS, Although no printed decision was published, this anti-gun rights and anti-NRA decision is a clear indication that the majority of the Justices want to see limits on the second amendment rights created by the Court in Heller v. DC. Only Clarence Thomas was incensed by this failure to expand Heller beyond possession of conventional guns for defense of the home His dissent to the denial of review shows how the gun huggers truly believe assault weapons owned by over five million people are conventional weapons necessary for self defense. It was highly unusual to see such a strident dissent to the Court's denial of review.
Highland Park not only denied licenses for assault weapons but banned them outright with possible fines. Unfortunately state laws enacted by the gun lobby and NRA now preclude similar local laws. That should be of concern to all citizens of major cities in the US and should have been further detailed in the editorial. Down here in Georgia the gun folks have total control over the state legislature.
Highland Park not only denied licenses for assault weapons but banned them outright with possible fines. Unfortunately state laws enacted by the gun lobby and NRA now preclude similar local laws. That should be of concern to all citizens of major cities in the US and should have been further detailed in the editorial. Down here in Georgia the gun folks have total control over the state legislature.
2
To get any type of gun regulation there is only one way....put money in the pockets of members of Congress. Either a billionaire or donations from many people must come up with enough money to exceed financial support from the NRA to Congress. They need annual financial support for each year they support and do not block gun regulation....and post congress financial support to keep them from becoming gun lobbyist when they leave congress.
How about? .... $250,000 annual support. And after they leave congress $100,000 annual support for each year they were in congress.
I think many Americans now realize that money determines how members of congress vote. We must give up the illusion that members of congress are willing to give up the corruption that is leading so many facets of law making.
How about? .... $250,000 annual support. And after they leave congress $100,000 annual support for each year they were in congress.
I think many Americans now realize that money determines how members of congress vote. We must give up the illusion that members of congress are willing to give up the corruption that is leading so many facets of law making.
5
Our approach to gun violence in America is doomed to failure, as we've seen over and over again. The approach is reactive, "after the fact." A proactive approach is the best hope we have for reducing these tragedies. Reduce or rid this nation of over-the-counter sales of "assault weapons" and enact tougher restrictions on qualifications for gun-ownership . . .
Instead, the gun lobby and its disciples support the proliferation of military-style weapons and gear for the masses. Their mantra is arm most everybody; disarm nearly nobody. By analogy we should support arming all nations with nuclear weapons to prevent nuclear war . . .
Instead, the gun lobby and its disciples support the proliferation of military-style weapons and gear for the masses. Their mantra is arm most everybody; disarm nearly nobody. By analogy we should support arming all nations with nuclear weapons to prevent nuclear war . . .
2
The governors of both Connecticut and New York are accomplices in these crimes. After Newtown, they could have taken action to ban the manufacture of such items in their respective states (except for direct sale to military or law enforcement agencies). Instead, they simply took the stance "You can make them here, just don't sell them here". I guess I can open up a meth lab here, provided I promise to sell the product in Rhode Island. As a take-away, remember that the Bushmaster that was used in the Newtown killing was made in upstate New York.
2
All the gun manufacturers in the Northeast, Colt, Springfield, Smith and Wesson and others are in the process of moving to other states, primarily in the South. Baretta has already left Maryland and S&W is manufacturing in Texas.
Pressure from their customers is part of the impetus as well as the hostile environment.
Thanks for the thousands of jobs.
Pressure from their customers is part of the impetus as well as the hostile environment.
Thanks for the thousands of jobs.
5
No more gun control
4
"The love of money is the root of all evil." (1Timothy 6:10)
Truer words were never spoken.
Most of the evil in this world can be traced to an insatiable greed for wealth and the power that comes with it.
Now the love of money is threatening to destroy civilization as we know it.
Truer words were never spoken.
Most of the evil in this world can be traced to an insatiable greed for wealth and the power that comes with it.
Now the love of money is threatening to destroy civilization as we know it.
3
Thank you for an excellent editorial. Keep them coming. We need to change the discourse in this country. It's the only way things are going to change.
3
In the recent NYT/CBS poll, question #65 asked "Do you favor or oppose a national ban on assault weapons?" About five years ago those responding favored a ban almost 2 to 1.
The results of this recent poll show now only 44% favor a ban; 50% oppose a ban (6% don't know).
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/10/us/politics/times-cbs-news...
The results of this recent poll show now only 44% favor a ban; 50% oppose a ban (6% don't know).
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/10/us/politics/times-cbs-news...
2
The NRA should make sure Obama, Clinton and the Times get holiday presents. The push for gun control is blowing up in their faces.
2
"Assault weapons were banned for 10 years until Congress, in bipartisan obeisance to the gun lobby, let the law lapse in 2004. As a result, gun manufacturers have been allowed to sell all manner of war weaponry to civilians, including the super destructive .50-caliber sniper rifle, which an 18-year-old can easily buy in many places even where he or she must be 21 to buy a simpler handgun. Why any civilian would need this weapon, designed to pierce concrete bunkers and armored personnel carriers, is a question that should be put to the gun makers who profit from them and the politicians who shamelessly do their bidding."
The above excerpt says it all.
Congress, and in fact the rest of the American government are wholly owned subsidiaries of the corporate / military / industrial alliance.
The entire population is used in an economic calculation, one that considers each and every individual to be a kind of commodity, a renewable resource that duplicates itself, and best of all, this resource uses up, at an ever increasing rate, all other commodities produced by this nefarious alliance.
And this business plan has been exported, with tremendous success, to the rest of the planet.
Think on that for a bit, and realize why a truly united people, fully awake, are this alliances' worst nightmare.
The above excerpt says it all.
Congress, and in fact the rest of the American government are wholly owned subsidiaries of the corporate / military / industrial alliance.
The entire population is used in an economic calculation, one that considers each and every individual to be a kind of commodity, a renewable resource that duplicates itself, and best of all, this resource uses up, at an ever increasing rate, all other commodities produced by this nefarious alliance.
And this business plan has been exported, with tremendous success, to the rest of the planet.
Think on that for a bit, and realize why a truly united people, fully awake, are this alliances' worst nightmare.
6
Very shortly the comments will be taken over by the NRA trolls, spoiling the pleasure of reading thoughtful remarks pro and con. So it was with yesterday's article on what drives the gun sales: everything from snark to uninformed bluster to ad hominem attacks, along with semi-literate back-and-forth between commenters of the same ilk. That was a good article, but the comments! If I wanted to read that dreck, I'd be over at the WaPo.
3
The only thing wrong with the NRA is the annoying phone calls selling insurance.
2
Around 1000 C.E. the Irish were a civil peaceful nation. They were Christian and the religious leaders in addition to caring for the people transcribed their inherited scriptures. About that time Vikings literally invaded and pillaged Ireland and stifled the transcriptions with the sword of intolerance and ignorance. Violence has a way of silencing progress. Historians say Irish Christianity saved Christianity for the world. Gunmakers, are you with the Irish or the Vikings?
3
A NYT editorial a few weeks ago had a great idea that I'd really like to see seriously explored further. It was that socially conscious billionaires who are looking to spend their money to benefit society and improve our future buy the gun industry, change what is made and marketed, and research nonlethal (and effective) means of self-defense. Smart guns need to me made more fool proof and reliable. The Second Amendment would remain intact, people would have means of self defense, have guns for hunting and target shooting, but the killing machines that now exist would no longer me made. I know that this does not eliminate the number of mass killing machines currently in circulation, but it's a start.
2
Another anti gun NYT editorial that will accomplish nothing except possibly increasing sales of semi-automatic rifles. For the record the vast majority of gun deaths and gun crimes involve pistols. The part about .50 caliber rifles fails to mention that there is no record of one ever being used in a crime or killing anyone. Gov Christie mentioned that when he vetoed a ban last year. There are an estimated 6-10 million so-called assault weapons in public hands. When you make 6 million new criminals by banning them are you planning to build thousands of new prisons? It seems like the paper is regularly pushing to lower prison populations. Or are you planning to let all the real criminals out and replace them with formerly law abiding gun owners?
8
What do you call dragging old appliances out into the woods to blast them to smithereens? A sport?
2
While weapons of war might be in the hands of civilians in my city, Nashville, citizens can rest a little easier at night knowing that bottle rockets and firecrackers remain illegal within city limits. And parents can take comfort in the fact that it's against the law to have a water gun within 15 feet or 20 feet of a school, so the chances of their kids getting soaked at school are pretty minimal.
While we don't have much control over firearms, we have mustered the political courage to outlaw fireworks and toys.
And don't think this isn't challenging the 2nd Amendment. My grandmother seemed to believe that bottle rockets had a honing device that steered them straight for the eyes, so any well regulated militia wouldn't definitely want some in their arsenal.
While we don't have much control over firearms, we have mustered the political courage to outlaw fireworks and toys.
And don't think this isn't challenging the 2nd Amendment. My grandmother seemed to believe that bottle rockets had a honing device that steered them straight for the eyes, so any well regulated militia wouldn't definitely want some in their arsenal.
1
So-called assault rifles are the least used murder weapons in America. Banning them to mitigate gun violence is like banning vodka to mitigate alcoholism. Handguns are major problem which is overwhelmingly concentrated in inner cities. Enforcement actions focusing on the most violent offenders will reduce gun violence long before bans on AR-15 pattern rifles. Stop & frisk may be a lot more effective response combined with robust minimum mandatory sentencing for gun violators.
4
One possibility may be to tax guns so that we can cover the infrastructure cost which is funded by all today. People who want guns should fund the law enforcement personnel and infrastructure, weapons scanner at public buildings, etc.
2
VIOLENCE It's as American as apple pie. I read an article years ago by a psychiatrist who put forth that idea. At the time, I didn't take sufficient notice of the violence. That was before the NRA shifted from its original role of training citizens in the safe use of firearms; before it was radicalized and bought elected officials lock stock and barrel. We have, as Greg Palast writes, The Democracy Money Can Buy. We are being held hostage by 1.25 million or 25% of about 5 million NRA members who represent one quarter of one percent of the nation who oppose gun safety. It is time for the chokehold they have on national security, and their driving a public health epidemic of gun deaths and injuries by increasing gun safety radically.
TOY GUNS that are accurate replicas of actual weapons are a deadly threat. In two widely publicized cases, as 12 year old child and a young adult were holding toy guns and were shot to death by police. We must forbid any toys that closely resemble actual weapons. Children's toys are NOT covered by the Second Amendment. A child carrying a toy gun is not an adult bearing arms (in an organized militia). We can also classify adults who give toy guns to children as perpetrating child neglect, as they are placing the children holding the toy guns at risk for being shot to death.
LETS START WITH TOY GUNS! I want to see the NRA try to win this fight. Refusing to keep children safe is NOT lawful. It violates their rights
TOY GUNS that are accurate replicas of actual weapons are a deadly threat. In two widely publicized cases, as 12 year old child and a young adult were holding toy guns and were shot to death by police. We must forbid any toys that closely resemble actual weapons. Children's toys are NOT covered by the Second Amendment. A child carrying a toy gun is not an adult bearing arms (in an organized militia). We can also classify adults who give toy guns to children as perpetrating child neglect, as they are placing the children holding the toy guns at risk for being shot to death.
LETS START WITH TOY GUNS! I want to see the NRA try to win this fight. Refusing to keep children safe is NOT lawful. It violates their rights
2
Gun deaths are at the lowest levels since the 1950's. This despite the fact that there are more guns than ever. 'Assault weapons' represent less than 2% of guns used in homicides. Mass-shootings make for sensational headlines, but we have done a spectacular job of reducing gun deaths. This is a solution in search of a problem and will have little to no impact.
8
There is no sane argument against a few simple things that will correct this: Product liability, licensure and insurance.
Voting is a right too, but there seems to be constant roadblocks proposed to keep the non threat of fraud. So why is there an issue regarding the same restrictions on the very real threat of an assault rifle.
Voting is a right too, but there seems to be constant roadblocks proposed to keep the non threat of fraud. So why is there an issue regarding the same restrictions on the very real threat of an assault rifle.
3
Product liability? If you intentional run over and kill some one with a Buick Regal should GM be liable? I say no and feel the same about gun manufacturers. It is nothing more this a back door attempt to get rid of guns by putting companies out of business.
4
Barely altered? Obviously the author knows a lot about guns. Of all the millions of such how many are actually used in bad ways. How about focusing on criminals and their guns, or better yet keeping them in jail. Chicago is a great example, folks get shot and killed all the time with basically nothing done. Gangs run wild with nothing done. Focus guys gangs and criminals are the real problem, not semi auto guns.
9
This editorial has so many factual errors it could only have been written by people who know nothing about guns.
5
A recent YouGov poll (December 4-7, 2015) shows that 83% of Democratic voters favor more gun control, 49% for Independents and 26% for Republicans. Overall, a simple majority of Americans (55%) now favor more gun control. The troubling statistic that emerged from the poll is that 28% of Americans now view mass shootings "as just a fact of life".
The prevalence of guns in our society is not surprising when considering that while Republicans have been and continue to support gun ownership and to tearing down existing gun laws -- our Democratic leaders have largely been silent on this issue. With sentiment rising in the US for more gun control laws, President Obama along with Democratic leaders in Washington and in state and local governments need to provide some leadership on this issue and become publicly vocal about resolving it . We are all witnessing now that remaining silent on this issue has not worked and has brought us to a place where mass shootings (1 a day on average in the US) has become the new normal. I, for one, refuse to accept that mass shootings "are just a fact of life".
The prevalence of guns in our society is not surprising when considering that while Republicans have been and continue to support gun ownership and to tearing down existing gun laws -- our Democratic leaders have largely been silent on this issue. With sentiment rising in the US for more gun control laws, President Obama along with Democratic leaders in Washington and in state and local governments need to provide some leadership on this issue and become publicly vocal about resolving it . We are all witnessing now that remaining silent on this issue has not worked and has brought us to a place where mass shootings (1 a day on average in the US) has become the new normal. I, for one, refuse to accept that mass shootings "are just a fact of life".
1
Thank you for continuous attention to this.
In normal human life, when a product, an instrument or an event killed humans at this scale, everyone including the manufacturer works to change the product or eliminate the product and is liable for the damages.
Somehow, this industry, whole sole purpose is to take a life grows in the event of a carnage. Something has gone wrong with us and I can’t even imagine, how incorrectly hardwired the war industry leaders are.
Darwin (unknown to the same set of people) rule has made us immune to the pain we cause to others species including ours. We better change the direction towards being kind to others. Just doing few good deeds to other, even saying thank you or giving a smile where we haven’t done before will make us trust each other.
In normal human life, when a product, an instrument or an event killed humans at this scale, everyone including the manufacturer works to change the product or eliminate the product and is liable for the damages.
Somehow, this industry, whole sole purpose is to take a life grows in the event of a carnage. Something has gone wrong with us and I can’t even imagine, how incorrectly hardwired the war industry leaders are.
Darwin (unknown to the same set of people) rule has made us immune to the pain we cause to others species including ours. We better change the direction towards being kind to others. Just doing few good deeds to other, even saying thank you or giving a smile where we haven’t done before will make us trust each other.
Private ownership of advanced weaponry is the equivalent of adding lead to paint and gasoline for performance enhancement, or a cigarette after every meal to sooth digestion. Both were seemingly innocent practices until the larger picture came into focus.
1
The latest series of editorial articles in NYT against firearms ownership and sales misses the root of evil that firearms in then hands of some can cause to the society.
Firearms are precision instruments. Respect to them and their correct use should be instilled in people from the kindergarten through the college. Their handling with care is more important than the usual care that is exercised in the handling of a wrist watch, a portable phone or computer, and of other electronic gadgets.
The issue whether the privately owned firearms are single-shot 19th century revolvers, rapidly firing automatic weapons, or even canons is secondary.
Firearms are precision instruments. Respect to them and their correct use should be instilled in people from the kindergarten through the college. Their handling with care is more important than the usual care that is exercised in the handling of a wrist watch, a portable phone or computer, and of other electronic gadgets.
The issue whether the privately owned firearms are single-shot 19th century revolvers, rapidly firing automatic weapons, or even canons is secondary.
I'm afraid there are millions of people who would start a civil war because of abortion, illegal immigration, race hatred, gun bans and other political conflicts. I get bad feelings from many angry working class whites I know, who might love to see a totalitarian leader take control and "fix" our problems once and for all. Try taking their guns and see what happens. In light of their positions on gun control, media outlets like the LA Times and NY Times should get more armed security guards. I hope I'm wrong.
2
An excellent editorial. Shame nothing will change under current conditions.
As I've written before, for the gun people massacres are good for business. They increase fear, which gun companies capitalize on to sell more guns that make the next massacre more likely. After that massacre, gun sales increase that make the next massacre more likely, and so on.
More needs to be done to throw light on the heinous and immoral way these people are making their millions. The Times quoted one executive a few days ago, addressing colleagues at a conference, who openly marveled at how Sandy Hook increased sales tremendously. You could almost smell his greed and hear his excitement.
Why not start a tally every day on the front page of this paper, rather like what Joe Nocera used to do, highlighting the previous day's gun deaths, what brand of gun(s) was used to take those lives, and where the legally-acquired gun(s) used in those deaths had been purchased? A runnning tally of the dead and injured would help, perhaps with a parallel column headed "Number killed by Islamic terrorists."
A constant tally like this might have some effect and give people some perspective.
But until someone takes on the gun industry's revolting and immoral business head-on and calls them out for the evil ooze they are, little will change.
As I've written before, for the gun people massacres are good for business. They increase fear, which gun companies capitalize on to sell more guns that make the next massacre more likely. After that massacre, gun sales increase that make the next massacre more likely, and so on.
More needs to be done to throw light on the heinous and immoral way these people are making their millions. The Times quoted one executive a few days ago, addressing colleagues at a conference, who openly marveled at how Sandy Hook increased sales tremendously. You could almost smell his greed and hear his excitement.
Why not start a tally every day on the front page of this paper, rather like what Joe Nocera used to do, highlighting the previous day's gun deaths, what brand of gun(s) was used to take those lives, and where the legally-acquired gun(s) used in those deaths had been purchased? A runnning tally of the dead and injured would help, perhaps with a parallel column headed "Number killed by Islamic terrorists."
A constant tally like this might have some effect and give people some perspective.
But until someone takes on the gun industry's revolting and immoral business head-on and calls them out for the evil ooze they are, little will change.
2
Shooting ranges where future killers practice using weapons are likewise not motivated to restrict and question customers on their intentions. The San Bernadino couple practiced in plain sight and paid for the privilege.
2
How does one tell the "future killers" from the people who just like to target shoot? Are you expecting them to profile their customers?
4
Gunmakers will make guns. And to make more, which is the whole idea, they have to sell them. This is their whole business, their sole business.
To do that they need wars and a domestic market. And that requires corrupted officials. As elections cost a lot of money, candidates are easy to buy off. And the gunmakers have a lot of money, so much so that not only did they buy Congress, but they also bought the NRA.
Now, that's real power.
To do that they need wars and a domestic market. And that requires corrupted officials. As elections cost a lot of money, candidates are easy to buy off. And the gunmakers have a lot of money, so much so that not only did they buy Congress, but they also bought the NRA.
Now, that's real power.
2
The AWB expired because data showed that these types of weapons have little to no impact on crime. Also, the AR style rifle is the most popular rifle sold in the country. Now many on the left are calling for an all out ban and confiscation of ALL guns.
What I find most disturbing, is during the San Bernardo terrorist attack Democrats rushed to demand gun control before all the facts were known. It looked like shameless and insensitive political grandstanding.
Demonizing the NRA and the GOP and blaming them for the actions of criminals and terrorists to promote a radical gun ban/confiscation scheme is asinine.
What I find most disturbing, is during the San Bernardo terrorist attack Democrats rushed to demand gun control before all the facts were known. It looked like shameless and insensitive political grandstanding.
Demonizing the NRA and the GOP and blaming them for the actions of criminals and terrorists to promote a radical gun ban/confiscation scheme is asinine.
4
" Now many on the left are calling for an all out ban and confiscation of ALL guns."
I haven't heard anyone calling for a ban and confiscation, on the 'left' or anywhere else. Could you provide your sources for this claim?
I haven't heard anyone calling for a ban and confiscation, on the 'left' or anywhere else. Could you provide your sources for this claim?
All of us know that the NRA would not exist were it not for the largess of the firearms and ammunition industries. All of us know that military style armaments in the hands of civilians is a bad idea and only getting worse. All of us know about the cowardice of elected officials to stand up to this. What most of us don't know are the names of the people who run these industries. How about profiling them? Who are these "profiteers" and where do the live? It is high time the press brought them out of the shadows. They have chosen to enable the gun hysteria that plagues our nation. They should no longer be safe in their anonymity. Only when they feel the heat will they begin to wonder about the wisdom or the folly of their own greed.
1
And yet your own front page poll today says on 44 percent support a ban on assault weapons.
I'm a liberal. But liberals forget that terrorist attacks and mass murders often have the opposite affect of people wanting restrictions. Instead they feel less secure and believe the state can't protect them and so they will protect themselves. They also believe that these efforts only punish the law abiding gun owners. I don't believe this but see NO rhetoric that effectively engages this that isn't weak tea.
I'm a liberal. But liberals forget that terrorist attacks and mass murders often have the opposite affect of people wanting restrictions. Instead they feel less secure and believe the state can't protect them and so they will protect themselves. They also believe that these efforts only punish the law abiding gun owners. I don't believe this but see NO rhetoric that effectively engages this that isn't weak tea.
3
We heard about police shootings of black males for years and nothing happened until pictures and videos of the shootings started to appear. The reality of the videos overcame the abstract and people finally started to react. Sadly, I think gun violence in America will remain an abstraction to most people until we start seeing the true devastation of our unfettered access to guns. Had pictures of the poor massacred children at Sandy Hook been splashed over the front pages of every newspaper and television set I think the citizens would have come out of their torpor and forced our politicians to act.
During WW II our politicians understood the emotive effects seeing pictures of victims of gun violence. They outlawed showing pictures of dead GI's for fear of weakening our resolve . Unless the general populace is forced to visually confront the devastation produced by our gun culture nothing will change.
During WW II our politicians understood the emotive effects seeing pictures of victims of gun violence. They outlawed showing pictures of dead GI's for fear of weakening our resolve . Unless the general populace is forced to visually confront the devastation produced by our gun culture nothing will change.
4
Whatever your position on the gun debate, we can at least agree that there is money to be made from American paranoia. The gun lobby owns this country.
4
Based on your comment, so does the anti-gun lobby.
2
The call to ban "assault" weapons is akin to banning sports cars because they look cool. The left's obsession with not wanting to blame people for their actions is consistent as well as misguided. Mass murderers are by definition evil or psychotic. They are also unstoppable in a free society as long as they are willing to risk their own lives in the process. One can commit mass murder with a bomb or a car as quickly and easily as a gun. The fact is the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of every American to own weapons to defend their person, loved ones, home and property and is a codified way of preventing government tyranny. Every article in the Bill of Rights is there to protect individuals from an over reaching government. Do you think it is a coincidence that the right to bear arms is 2nd on that list?
7
Denial of power to Congress to enact faith based legislation is the very first item in the Bill of Rights.
Guns are a cult in the US.
Guns are a cult in the US.
1
So please enlighten me as to what purpose a military style assault weapon is good for except to ripe off a round of bullets on a rifle range or to kill someone? How effective is it for protection when most violent attacks have been in highly public places? Are you going to walk around all the time with an AR-15 slung over your back?
1
You insist the second amendment "guarantees the right of every American to own weapons"...such a vast and self serving interpretation, presumably to assist alleviate your paranoia regarding the "they" and "them" you fear so much, or the impending "government tyranny". So you feel the rest of "us" should be fine with the likes of "you" having a tank in your driveway, or bazookas pointed out the bedroom windows - for the protection of your family. Our families be damned...
Frankly, I'm feeling hopeless about the gun violence and proliferation of guns in our society. It seems to be getting worse. More guns begets more violence begets more fear begets more guns, and so it goes, like a runaway train. If the slaughter of small children wasn't enough to convince people, what will? And now we have a situation where home grown self radicalized terrorists have the ability to easily access military style weapons, amass them, and use them on innocent civilians. How do we even stop this when we allow these guns on our streets? And as usual, the pro gun's solution to every act of violence is more guns. Where does it end? I guess when we're all barricading ourselves in our homes, too fearful to go out.
Where and when will the next mass shooting event occur in our country? The NRA and gun lobby and dealers and sellers and buyers of firearms have made the "when and where" of mass slaughter a certainty. Deadly weapons in every home, concealed carry, woman's purse, man's briefcase, kid's arsenal, is the aim of the malignant war-profiteering NRA. The Second Amendment to our Constitution needs repealing as in 1789 there were no arms-dealers who dealt in assault-weapons, just muzzle-flared blunderbusses that took one muzzle-loaded man-made bullet from gunpowder horn and bag of balls.
In a local Nashville paper, they had posted a picture of recent NRA meeting. Above the group of folks on the ground was a banner which read: "if they take one gun, they will take all of them". We can no longer allow groups using this sort of dangerous fallacy to preempt public discourse. One person's second amendment right does not trump another's first amendment to have a life, to go to a movie, or to attend a work holiday party. These mass killings are not simply unfortunate, they cut to the core of what the bill of rights in design intends to guarantee for all of us. Finally, we need somebody to actually stand for election in the south. In this area, it is choice between the Republican One who loves guns and assault rifles, and Republican Two who also loves guns and assault rifles.
2
" Spreading powerful semiautomatic pistols with the firepower of rifles ". Obviously the writer knows nothing about firearms. Most pistols have less than 1/3 the power of a rifle. Energy equals one-half the mass (weight of the bullet) times the velocity squared. Most pistols shoot around 1,300 ft/second compared to rifles shooting at 3,000 ft/sec (do the math). I would expect better of the NY Times.
6
Rate of fire of these handguns is the same as that of assault rifles, and the bullets are just as deadly at short range.
2
Oh please -- the usual refuge of crazy gun arguments, descending into the arcana of "clip" vs "magazine" and FPS and so on. "Power" was used broadly, not as physics, and in fact you are literally wrong in your claim -- you are describing kinetic energy, not power.
What was meant was "the power to kill many very quickly." And clearly semi-auto pistols with detachable magazines have done that. The worst mass murder in the US was done with a pair of semi-auto handguns.
And if you are a pedant about guns, you probably know that "sub-machinegun" meant any fully-auto-capable weapon shooting a pistol round, the old Thompson being the prototype ... the UZI is the most common of these today.
Stop playing the fool and engage the problem.
What was meant was "the power to kill many very quickly." And clearly semi-auto pistols with detachable magazines have done that. The worst mass murder in the US was done with a pair of semi-auto handguns.
And if you are a pedant about guns, you probably know that "sub-machinegun" meant any fully-auto-capable weapon shooting a pistol round, the old Thompson being the prototype ... the UZI is the most common of these today.
Stop playing the fool and engage the problem.
1
These numbers are of little interest to the person on the receiving end of the bullet. Modern handguns fire a dozen or more rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger. At the short ranges involved in most mass murders, this makes handguns equivalent to rifles in terms of mayhem created.
1
The gun lobby will do everything in its power to take the focus away from the fact that assault weapons are the primary reason for the multiple casualties in San Bernardino, Oregon and on and on.
After each of the massacres that you describe, the gun lobby usually trots out the argument that "good guys with guns" would have stopped the carnage or reduced the casualties. The purpose of that is, of course, to sell more guns.
Last night, The Daily Show destroyed that myth. Story and video here: http://tinyurl.com/nkhy7cl
The NRA probably doesn't want anyone to see it, for it demonstrates that the NRA safety course and training is useless when dealing with real life shootings.
After each of the massacres that you describe, the gun lobby usually trots out the argument that "good guys with guns" would have stopped the carnage or reduced the casualties. The purpose of that is, of course, to sell more guns.
Last night, The Daily Show destroyed that myth. Story and video here: http://tinyurl.com/nkhy7cl
The NRA probably doesn't want anyone to see it, for it demonstrates that the NRA safety course and training is useless when dealing with real life shootings.
1
Assault, semiautomatic and automatic weapons must only be in the hands of background checked and trained police and military. All those in the hands of civilian criminals, psychotics and others with serious mental illness should not only be not allowed to ever be sold to them, the ones that are in the hands of such people should be confiscated immediately by the police. This should be a federal law. It should also be a felony to give or sell such weapons to perps or psychotics or other severely mentally ill people, such as the mother of the Sandy Hook perp did, or to leave such guns unlocked and loaded in the presence of people under age 18, as some parents of child shooters and murderers have done.
The lack of common sense in those who advocate greater gun rights in the face of the Sandy Hook and other shootings including the ISIS ones is awful. Metal detectors in all elementary and high schools, and all mass public venues such as sports events and concerts would also help to stop the mass murder trend in this country. College with its more dispersed buildings is a problematic issue.....may be too expensive to install metal detectors on all buildings. I believe no guns should be allowed to be owned by people under 25, since their brains regarding judgment and impulsive behavior are not fully developed, and such a federal law would also help to cut down on the murder and suicide rate in the U.S. Alice Neumann MD
The lack of common sense in those who advocate greater gun rights in the face of the Sandy Hook and other shootings including the ISIS ones is awful. Metal detectors in all elementary and high schools, and all mass public venues such as sports events and concerts would also help to stop the mass murder trend in this country. College with its more dispersed buildings is a problematic issue.....may be too expensive to install metal detectors on all buildings. I believe no guns should be allowed to be owned by people under 25, since their brains regarding judgment and impulsive behavior are not fully developed, and such a federal law would also help to cut down on the murder and suicide rate in the U.S. Alice Neumann MD
1
Let us say what needs to be said. The Second Amendment is an abomination. It must be repealed.
1
Be very careful about demanding an amendment of the Constitution to fit your agenda. Pretty soon you will have a police state that Democrats are always complaining about.
4
Publish every vote that each Representative makes on guns. Publish how much campaign money they received from the NRA as well. See you puts gun profits over the lives of the American people. Educate people that states with lax gun laws show more gun deaths. More guns mean more deaths- it is that simple.
1
Come on, Times. You can do better than this. Do you want to know what makes certain firearms particularly deadly in a mass shooting? They are semi-automatic (fires with every pull of the trigger) and use a detachable magazine. That's it.
An assault weapon is just a legislatively defined term. They are semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines, plus some other feature. Those features, however, do not make the rifle any more deadly. Rather, they are overwhelmingly related to the ergonomics of a rifle. For example, an adjustable length stock allows shooters of different heights to comfortably shoot the same gun. A pistol grip just rotates the angle of the wrist. But none of these features make the bullets come out any faster or make them hit any harder.
Arguing for an "assault weapons" ban enrages gun owners because all it does is pointlessly ban modern ergonomic design (like everything else, guns have become more ergonomic in recent decades). Want proof? Google a picture of an Ares SCR, an AR-15 decedent designed to comply with the NY Safe Act.
If you want to advocate for something that is more than empty symbolism, you'd argue for a ban on all semi-automatic, magazine fed firearms. That, however, is a political non-starter.
An assault weapon is just a legislatively defined term. They are semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines, plus some other feature. Those features, however, do not make the rifle any more deadly. Rather, they are overwhelmingly related to the ergonomics of a rifle. For example, an adjustable length stock allows shooters of different heights to comfortably shoot the same gun. A pistol grip just rotates the angle of the wrist. But none of these features make the bullets come out any faster or make them hit any harder.
Arguing for an "assault weapons" ban enrages gun owners because all it does is pointlessly ban modern ergonomic design (like everything else, guns have become more ergonomic in recent decades). Want proof? Google a picture of an Ares SCR, an AR-15 decedent designed to comply with the NY Safe Act.
If you want to advocate for something that is more than empty symbolism, you'd argue for a ban on all semi-automatic, magazine fed firearms. That, however, is a political non-starter.
2
Someone untutored in firearms would come away with the belief that the weapons at issue are actually military-grade weapons--those weapons that can fire continuously, or, in three-shot bursts by simply keeping the trigger depressed. Such military-grade weapons are not the subject of the current debate. Outside of the prohibition era, I am aware of one case where anything close to a military-grade rifle was used criminally, and that was in a CA bank robbery in 1997. The robbers had illegally converted an AK-47 rifle to fire as a fully automatic weapon. While civilians can buy and possess military-grade weapons, the process is cumbersome, and the weapons expensive. When I went through the process of procuring one of those weapons a few years ago, it took six months, from the time of submission of paper work, photographs, fingerprints and $200 for a transfer tax. But the confusion over "assault weapons" and military-grade weapon grew out of shrewdness. Here is Josh Sugarmann, gun control advocate, on the confusion: "Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."
4
Our Continental Army demonstrated that any firearm is "military grade."
1
"...barely altered rifles and pistols developed for the military. These are weapons designed for the rapid spray-shooting of multiple enemy soldiers in wartime."
"Barely altered" - like the barely altered NASCAR race cars that drive our city streets? They have the paint job, racing stripes, faux spoilers just like the real race cars, but the engines of the family van. "Barely altered" military weapons are not fully automatic (one trigger pull = 30+ rounds).
"Rapid, spray shooting" evokes a vision of a fire hose, with a continuous steam of water swept back and forth. But semi-automatic weapons are more like fire buckets dipped in a trough of water and flung one-by-one at the fire. One trigger-pull = one shot.
One of the weapons used by the San Bernardino killers was a faux military weapon, further de-militarized by having a "California Magazine" that required using a tool to remove and replace magazine.
If the truth is unconvincing, what to do? The only way NYT can try to garner support for their gun control efforts is to mislead and confuse the public in hopes that they will be fooled. Oh yes, the weasel-words are not direct lies - they only make every effort to lead the reader into picturing Rambo-style weapons.
Journalism become partisan political advocacy when Editorial Boards, Editors and Journalists decide that THEIR ends justifies ANY means.
"Barely altered" - like the barely altered NASCAR race cars that drive our city streets? They have the paint job, racing stripes, faux spoilers just like the real race cars, but the engines of the family van. "Barely altered" military weapons are not fully automatic (one trigger pull = 30+ rounds).
"Rapid, spray shooting" evokes a vision of a fire hose, with a continuous steam of water swept back and forth. But semi-automatic weapons are more like fire buckets dipped in a trough of water and flung one-by-one at the fire. One trigger-pull = one shot.
One of the weapons used by the San Bernardino killers was a faux military weapon, further de-militarized by having a "California Magazine" that required using a tool to remove and replace magazine.
If the truth is unconvincing, what to do? The only way NYT can try to garner support for their gun control efforts is to mislead and confuse the public in hopes that they will be fooled. Oh yes, the weasel-words are not direct lies - they only make every effort to lead the reader into picturing Rambo-style weapons.
Journalism become partisan political advocacy when Editorial Boards, Editors and Journalists decide that THEIR ends justifies ANY means.
5
The gun industry is very fortunate that consideration for surviving family members precludes publication of photographs of victims of these assaults.
2
I don't own a gun, and I disagree with this editorial. Banning so-called Assault Rifles makes about as much sense as banning fast sports cars. One could easily argue that fast cars belong on the race track. Fast sports cars, after all, can be extremely dangerous. Just last night, in Houston, a man was killed when he crashed his Corvette.
.
This is not to say that I am for the status quo. I'd just like gun control to focus more on training. Every single time the "good guy with a gun" has saved lives, that "good guy with a gun" has been an extensively trained soldier, or law enforcement officer. We could drastically increase the size of the National Guard, and make service in it a prerequisite to legal gun ownership. Annual National Guard training could include lot of gun and public defense training. National Guard participants could be watched, and members who appear radical, or violent, or suicidal, could be diverted to counseling or, in extreme cases, jail. The "good guys with guns," will then have the advantage over the bad guys with guns.
.
It sounds nuts, but it's not really. They do it this way in Switzerland, and they never have mass shootings. It would make a lot more sense than banning certain guns just because they look scary, and it would bring gun laws more in line with our Second Amendment than ever before.
.
This is not to say that I am for the status quo. I'd just like gun control to focus more on training. Every single time the "good guy with a gun" has saved lives, that "good guy with a gun" has been an extensively trained soldier, or law enforcement officer. We could drastically increase the size of the National Guard, and make service in it a prerequisite to legal gun ownership. Annual National Guard training could include lot of gun and public defense training. National Guard participants could be watched, and members who appear radical, or violent, or suicidal, could be diverted to counseling or, in extreme cases, jail. The "good guys with guns," will then have the advantage over the bad guys with guns.
.
It sounds nuts, but it's not really. They do it this way in Switzerland, and they never have mass shootings. It would make a lot more sense than banning certain guns just because they look scary, and it would bring gun laws more in line with our Second Amendment than ever before.
5
This morning in a convenience store in Cornelius North Carolina a man pulled a gun on the store clerk and punched him in the face and stomach. A customer in the store pulled out his gun and shot at the thief who ran off. Police do not know if the robber was shot.
2
Again, NYT, you're missing something here, and it's important.
Editorials focus on the powerful social influence that the industry wields, and on the ownership of Congress by the NRA, but neither of those would have any weight at all but for one factor: people in this country want guns.
The public's desire to own firearms - of all kinds - makes the NRA possible, is indeed the reason that the firearms industry has a social place in which to exercise marketing influence. The market is already there to be exploited, and that is what is unaddressed.
This is one of the knottier problems of democracy: how a public can ever be converted away from something that is bad for it. The railing of NYT and other media, the pronouncements of certain public officials are often perceived as an elitist ploy: "We know better than you", and as such, is resented and sneered at.
Until and unless Americans lose their emotional attachment to guns, the problem will remain.
Editorials focus on the powerful social influence that the industry wields, and on the ownership of Congress by the NRA, but neither of those would have any weight at all but for one factor: people in this country want guns.
The public's desire to own firearms - of all kinds - makes the NRA possible, is indeed the reason that the firearms industry has a social place in which to exercise marketing influence. The market is already there to be exploited, and that is what is unaddressed.
This is one of the knottier problems of democracy: how a public can ever be converted away from something that is bad for it. The railing of NYT and other media, the pronouncements of certain public officials are often perceived as an elitist ploy: "We know better than you", and as such, is resented and sneered at.
Until and unless Americans lose their emotional attachment to guns, the problem will remain.
1
The Editorial Board should start reading it's own paper. "The Assault Weapon Myth" published on Sept 12, 2014 states only 2% of gun murders are caused by assault weapons.
Here is another statistic that will never see the light of day in the Times is that African American, making up ~13% of the population, commit 49% of the murders and 55% of the robberies?
Could it be that people kill people?
Here is another statistic that will never see the light of day in the Times is that African American, making up ~13% of the population, commit 49% of the murders and 55% of the robberies?
Could it be that people kill people?
5
I suspect that many gun and/or anti-gun restriction advocates are correct on one thing - any prohibition of guns or a type of gun will be effective only against those who would likely use those guns for legitimate purposes. People intent or likely to misuse them will still seek them out and obtain them.
But the vast majority of gun deaths, if not also gun injuries, are caused not by unknown criminals who'd still have the guns - they are caused by the gunowner themselves or a family member or friend. Eliminating suicide and domestic violence gun deaths would make this epidemic ALMOST a non-issue.
While what is proposed here would have minimal effect on that greater issue, the "only criminals will have guns" crowd's lack of any reasonable compromise is also unhelpful. And given that we are still low on the psychology learning curve for identifying those with the highest likelihood of using a gun to intentionally harm someone else, we can't yet rely on the mental health industry.
Government-imposed elimination of easy access to handguns (the type of guns most used to kill) has been severely limited by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2d Amendment. So we need a system of self-imposed elimination, both of the tools and the thought that intentional use of the tools against humans is acceptable in but a VERY few instances. That's a tall order, but one we can start immediately in our own family and friends, and even community, circles.
But the vast majority of gun deaths, if not also gun injuries, are caused not by unknown criminals who'd still have the guns - they are caused by the gunowner themselves or a family member or friend. Eliminating suicide and domestic violence gun deaths would make this epidemic ALMOST a non-issue.
While what is proposed here would have minimal effect on that greater issue, the "only criminals will have guns" crowd's lack of any reasonable compromise is also unhelpful. And given that we are still low on the psychology learning curve for identifying those with the highest likelihood of using a gun to intentionally harm someone else, we can't yet rely on the mental health industry.
Government-imposed elimination of easy access to handguns (the type of guns most used to kill) has been severely limited by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2d Amendment. So we need a system of self-imposed elimination, both of the tools and the thought that intentional use of the tools against humans is acceptable in but a VERY few instances. That's a tall order, but one we can start immediately in our own family and friends, and even community, circles.
The NYT editorial board is not a credible source of information about guns. I don't know if it is ill-informed or is deliberately misleading, but I will cite one example. Spray shooting refers to fully automatic weapons, which are not available to civilians without a very restrictive permit. They are just not in circulation. So, while some weapons were originally designed to fulfill a military function, i.e., to spray shoot, the civilian counterpart has been modified Into semi-automatic-only mode. (Could a real expert convert it back? Perhaps.) This may seem a small distinction to some, but it is, at best, ignorant not to recognize it.
For the record, I do support some gun control measures, but the NYT editors will persuade no one but the already persuaded.
For the record, I do support some gun control measures, but the NYT editors will persuade no one but the already persuaded.
3
I read that paragraph differently. The military weapons were developed to spray and kill as many enemies as possible. The barely modified civilian models shouldn't be so similar. Look up how to bump fire an AR-15 - not much difference than fully auto.
You bring up a good point on the restrictions on fully automatic weapons. You don't really see them around anymore do you. That restriction seems to have worked.
You bring up a good point on the restrictions on fully automatic weapons. You don't really see them around anymore do you. That restriction seems to have worked.
Actually, the semi-automatic AR15 preceded the automatic M16. Armorlite Rifle (AR) was selling them until Colt bought the patent and modified it for a bid the military had put out.
3
The the best movie quote ever was in Highlander. The gun nut bemoaned, " I've got all these guns and I still don't feel safe" . Fear is a powerful thing.
6
Hold on. According to your article Dec 10, "What Drives Gun Sales", "Gun sales have more than doubled in a decade, to about 15 million in 2013 from about seven million in 2002." Yet in an editorial on Nov 27, you wrote, "False Alarms About a National Crime Wave", saying, "The rate of violent crime, including murder, has been going down for a quarter-century, and is at its lowest in decades. " The FBI crime data supports this, with PEW reporting, Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware". How hypocritical of you N.Y. Times to say we have a "gun" problem and yet yours and the FBI data don’t support this. In fact, according to your data, gun sales have doubled yet gun crime is drastically down. I would say that correlation makes your editorial here mute, blatantly dishonest and not supported by the facts.
7
Military style weapons are not needed by any civilian. No hunter needs an assault weapon to kill a deer; home owners don't need to fight off armies (Jade Helm for example). Law enforcement and average people are more likely to be the targets. Building up these private arsenals must fulfill some atavistic need in some people but it seems like the sickest form of hoarding.
I live in a "guns everywhere" state thanks to ALEC. Places with the strongest gun control laws have seen a decline in gun deaths: D.C.; California; Maryland; and Illinois. In Georgia, gun deaths rose by 8% between 2003 and 2013, even before some of the new relaxed gun laws took effect. (Figures from the AJC, http://investigations.blog.ajc.com/2015/05/11/gun-deaths-up-in-georgia-4... New York with the second highest population in the US only ranked 15th in gun deaths.
With all the people rushing to buy guns now, the number of gun deaths is bound to increase as these households experience the usual suicides, accidents, and homicides when people get angry, drunk or demented. There's nothing like bringing toxic poison into your home and thinking it will never be used or abused.
But 90% of Americans want Congress to pass universal background checks and close loopholes. And Congress instead just went on an irrational NRA-funded spree to support the gun rights of terrorists. I donate to the Brady Center in honor of gun violence victims whenever these too common tragic events occur.
I live in a "guns everywhere" state thanks to ALEC. Places with the strongest gun control laws have seen a decline in gun deaths: D.C.; California; Maryland; and Illinois. In Georgia, gun deaths rose by 8% between 2003 and 2013, even before some of the new relaxed gun laws took effect. (Figures from the AJC, http://investigations.blog.ajc.com/2015/05/11/gun-deaths-up-in-georgia-4... New York with the second highest population in the US only ranked 15th in gun deaths.
With all the people rushing to buy guns now, the number of gun deaths is bound to increase as these households experience the usual suicides, accidents, and homicides when people get angry, drunk or demented. There's nothing like bringing toxic poison into your home and thinking it will never be used or abused.
But 90% of Americans want Congress to pass universal background checks and close loopholes. And Congress instead just went on an irrational NRA-funded spree to support the gun rights of terrorists. I donate to the Brady Center in honor of gun violence victims whenever these too common tragic events occur.
5
First, they aren't military weapons. It's simply cosmetics. It might surprise you to know that the AR, the best selling rifle in America, is being snapped up in droves by hunters who love it for it's versatility, light weight, ease of maintenance, and variety of available calibers.
Please, stop parroting leftist twaddle. The left loves to throw around the state gun laws comparison. But look a bit closer and one finds that cities that have ben run by Democrats for decades, and have some of the strictest laws, are among the top violent cities in America. Baltimore and Chicago are just two examples.
Please stop the "blood running in the streets" and "Dodge City shootouts" silliness. Those canards have been proven wrong every time they've been used. More people are buying guns and more people are seeking training on how to use and store their guns safely. As for your "toxic poison," I've owned and used firearms for forty years and not once have any of them been used for criminal purposes or been involved in an accident. The same goes for my friends.
90% of Americans may want universal background checks, to include the majority of gun owners. The problem is the left wants to pile on more and more restrictive anti-gun garbage to the legislation. That's exactly what happened after Sandy Hook. No-fly lists? Ted Kennedy was it wrongly and he was firmly against them. But the Fascist left loves stripping citizens rights without due process
Please, stop parroting leftist twaddle. The left loves to throw around the state gun laws comparison. But look a bit closer and one finds that cities that have ben run by Democrats for decades, and have some of the strictest laws, are among the top violent cities in America. Baltimore and Chicago are just two examples.
Please stop the "blood running in the streets" and "Dodge City shootouts" silliness. Those canards have been proven wrong every time they've been used. More people are buying guns and more people are seeking training on how to use and store their guns safely. As for your "toxic poison," I've owned and used firearms for forty years and not once have any of them been used for criminal purposes or been involved in an accident. The same goes for my friends.
90% of Americans may want universal background checks, to include the majority of gun owners. The problem is the left wants to pile on more and more restrictive anti-gun garbage to the legislation. That's exactly what happened after Sandy Hook. No-fly lists? Ted Kennedy was it wrongly and he was firmly against them. But the Fascist left loves stripping citizens rights without due process
3
Why does the questionable interpretation of the Second Amendment trump my right to live?
7
You right to life isn't being trumped nor is there a questionable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Not unless it's the left doing the interpreting.
1
At last, signs of intelligent life in the anti-gun "community".
"....powerful semiautomatic pistols with the firepower of rifles...."
Yes, Virginia, a Glock 9, one of whom resides in my nightstand, is just as deadly as, and far more facile than, an AK 47 look-alike in close quarters.
A pistol in a classroom is far more useful than an assault style weapon.
Most of the hysteria associated with this subject is predicated on the confusion between fully automatic, true assault rifles and their weak sister, semi-automatic assault STYLE weapons.
The latter are the crack cocaine of gun nuts and the former are true military weapons currently banned in all states.
All the other tears and flapdoodle associated with the gun "debate", which consists, principally, of disparate groups of individuals demonizing each other, is a result of the fact that gun violence is a sociological, not a manufacturing problem.
I got my first rifle, a Daisy, Red Rider BB rifle, for my fifth birthday. In the ensuing seven decades, in spite of often, almost intolerable provocation, the number of people I have shot is approximate zero.
Moreover, my daddy used to carry a gun to grade school, as did many of his classmates.
When he arrived at his school near Baudette, MN, he, and some of his fellow scholars, stood their rifles in the corner of the coat room until going home, possibly carrying a bunny or pheasant harvested on the way and without a single human fatality or the benign intervention of the NRA.
Learn.
"....powerful semiautomatic pistols with the firepower of rifles...."
Yes, Virginia, a Glock 9, one of whom resides in my nightstand, is just as deadly as, and far more facile than, an AK 47 look-alike in close quarters.
A pistol in a classroom is far more useful than an assault style weapon.
Most of the hysteria associated with this subject is predicated on the confusion between fully automatic, true assault rifles and their weak sister, semi-automatic assault STYLE weapons.
The latter are the crack cocaine of gun nuts and the former are true military weapons currently banned in all states.
All the other tears and flapdoodle associated with the gun "debate", which consists, principally, of disparate groups of individuals demonizing each other, is a result of the fact that gun violence is a sociological, not a manufacturing problem.
I got my first rifle, a Daisy, Red Rider BB rifle, for my fifth birthday. In the ensuing seven decades, in spite of often, almost intolerable provocation, the number of people I have shot is approximate zero.
Moreover, my daddy used to carry a gun to grade school, as did many of his classmates.
When he arrived at his school near Baudette, MN, he, and some of his fellow scholars, stood their rifles in the corner of the coat room until going home, possibly carrying a bunny or pheasant harvested on the way and without a single human fatality or the benign intervention of the NRA.
Learn.
8
There is one, fundamental reason that Americans will not accept gun control. It is a reason at odds with everything liberals stand for and therefore never confront and only acknowledge derisively. The American people do not trust or respect our political and media establishment and view our government, at every level, as corrupt, incompetent and dishonest. It is a simple matter of trust. American's views are well founded and based on reality, the historical record and a daily dose of lies, scandal, waste and abusive nonsense. The same reasons account for the rise of Trump and the declining clout of the media.
The establishment, Democrat and Republican, mostly liberal in world view, has turned in on itself and no longer represents the nation or anything bigger then it's own self-interest. The mess the country is in was not made by Trump or Cruz. It was made by our establushment doing the same crazy, dishonest stuff over and over again. Who spent that $19 trillion dollars? Hillary or Jeb will save us? They are the best the establishment can do? The establishment is suffering from inbred insanity and the people see it. Trust them? Turn over our guns and protection to them? I don't think so and no sane, honest person thinks so.
The establishment, Democrat and Republican, mostly liberal in world view, has turned in on itself and no longer represents the nation or anything bigger then it's own self-interest. The mess the country is in was not made by Trump or Cruz. It was made by our establushment doing the same crazy, dishonest stuff over and over again. Who spent that $19 trillion dollars? Hillary or Jeb will save us? They are the best the establishment can do? The establishment is suffering from inbred insanity and the people see it. Trust them? Turn over our guns and protection to them? I don't think so and no sane, honest person thinks so.
9
So you think you need a semi automatic assault weapon to protect you?
Does the New York Times do any research? Violent crime is down in America. This editorial stands in stark contrast to an article in the Washington Post published on December 5, 2015 with the headline -- "We've Had a Massive Decline in Gun Violence in the United States. Here's Why." The difference between the two articles? The Washington Post did some research and quotes other research in its article. According to the Washington Post: "This decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime. According to the FBI's data, the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place." The New York Times is engaging in un-supported sensationalism. Research and facts are what I expect, not inaccurate and uneducated opinions. Just as the editors of the NYT ignore crime statistics, the editors also have not conducted any research into the weapons that they write about and the article is full of inaccuracies. All this article is doing is super-charging tens of millions of gun owners to vote based on a single issue. Why do we do we feel the need to sensationalize and mis-state single issues so that a huge portion of the electorate votes based on single issues? Shouldn't we be focused on health care, jobs, and the environment instead of being distracted by a "problem" that statistics show is actually in decline?
2
John in Jersey is right. You guys are wasting space with this one. This is just one of many controversial issues in our country that require legal reform, but by whom? Our legislative process has been gutted by the Roberts court and we can never really make progress in this country until we reform our voting system- of candidate selection and election financing. They are stricken with THE FEAR of the simple expression of true majority interest. This is what has been brutally murdered by all these desperate, cynical political manipulations. It is in fact far more bloody, and gives us a higher body count than whatever shooting spree or the style of a firearm and the number of rounds in a clip.
2
The Times editorial board has been influenced for decades by liberal over the top pro- gun controllers living in a city that not only dislikes guns, but would like to disarm the entire country. First of all, learn how they work. They do not "SPRAY" their bullets - That would be an automatic rifle (AKA - machine gun), and they are illegal unless you have a special permit, and even then, try getting one. And to describe them as lurid looking rifles is a laugh. ANY firearm pointed in one's direction in order to inflict harm would be frightening, and perhaps lurid. I don't care if it's black/white/or red. or has a wooden or black stock. How ridiculous that an editorial board running a newspaper in a city that has at least one murder a day, proposes do-nothing, increased gun legislation to keep a certain type of firearm out of the hands of the public, then has the audacity to blame the marketing of guns with the mass shootings that occur in this country. Really? Are you serious? Hey guess what? Terrorists and nut balls are doing the shootings. Law abiding gun owners, people who respect and are safe with use and storage of firearms shouldn't ever be your target. Sorry, but your board and the rest of the liberal anti-gun lefties don't know better than the rest of the country. Do me a favor, and take a good hard look at the death rate for auto accidents in this country. 19,000 killed in the first half of 2015 alone! Want to honestly do some good. Start with that statistic,
3
Unfortunately editorials like this only preach to the choir.
There is no political will in Washington to anything whatsoever about the proliferation of assault weapons. Why? Follow the money. Congress and the Senate are quite simply on the N.R.A. payroll. As Upton Sinclair once famously wrote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
The 2nd Amendment nuts and gun fetishists will not be persuaded by arguments like this and will not give up their assault weapons without a fight. After all there is a vast liberal conspiracy to take away their guns so they can be easily subjugated by our Muslim President and forced live under Sharia law. They will listen to no narrative that doesn't fit their paranoid conspiracy theories. Despite the sickening almost daily mass shootings in America they have focused exclusively on San Bernardino and have elected to make "sand glow in the dark" and deny entry of Muslims into the United States rather than question the wisdom of pumping a never ending supply of military weapons into our society and making them freely available to terrorists. Apparently mass killings are only important if the killers are Muslim. If it's not about Jihad it isn't important and isn't worth discussing. Baby warriors don't count.
Sigh.
There is no political will in Washington to anything whatsoever about the proliferation of assault weapons. Why? Follow the money. Congress and the Senate are quite simply on the N.R.A. payroll. As Upton Sinclair once famously wrote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
The 2nd Amendment nuts and gun fetishists will not be persuaded by arguments like this and will not give up their assault weapons without a fight. After all there is a vast liberal conspiracy to take away their guns so they can be easily subjugated by our Muslim President and forced live under Sharia law. They will listen to no narrative that doesn't fit their paranoid conspiracy theories. Despite the sickening almost daily mass shootings in America they have focused exclusively on San Bernardino and have elected to make "sand glow in the dark" and deny entry of Muslims into the United States rather than question the wisdom of pumping a never ending supply of military weapons into our society and making them freely available to terrorists. Apparently mass killings are only important if the killers are Muslim. If it's not about Jihad it isn't important and isn't worth discussing. Baby warriors don't count.
Sigh.
1
We agree to be governed for self defense. This rotten to the core industry undermines government itself for its parasitic existence.
4
This editorial must be aimed at ignorant people as it is rife with so many factual errors. There may be value in a broader discussion on the topic, but the pro-gun segment of America isn't going to listen to people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.
A few examples:
Concealed carry guns which are "powerful semiautomatic pistols with the firepower of rifles." Rifle-caliber pistols do exist, they are extremely large and not concealable. Pistol-caliber pistols are definitively less powerful than rifles. The extra barrel length is needed to get the pressures necessary to propel a rifle bullet to its optimal velocity, you cannot do this in a 3-5 inch pistol barrel.
The "rapid spray-shooting" comment would lead an uninformed reader to believe that civilian military-looking semi-automatic rifles are fully-automatic weapons, they are not.
The ".50-caliber sniper rifle" (.number-hyphen-caliber already being incorrect) was legal during the beloved Assault Weapons Ban. This editorial seems to link the two.
There is no such thing as an "armor-piercing handgun." A round of ammunition is what can be armor piercing, not the platform firing it. Armor piercing handgun ammunition is already illegal under Federal law.
So we are left with an emotional appeal which plays loosely with the facts. The section on how weapons are advertised could have contributed to a larger debate, but knowledgeable people will probably stop reading before they get to that tidbit.
A few examples:
Concealed carry guns which are "powerful semiautomatic pistols with the firepower of rifles." Rifle-caliber pistols do exist, they are extremely large and not concealable. Pistol-caliber pistols are definitively less powerful than rifles. The extra barrel length is needed to get the pressures necessary to propel a rifle bullet to its optimal velocity, you cannot do this in a 3-5 inch pistol barrel.
The "rapid spray-shooting" comment would lead an uninformed reader to believe that civilian military-looking semi-automatic rifles are fully-automatic weapons, they are not.
The ".50-caliber sniper rifle" (.number-hyphen-caliber already being incorrect) was legal during the beloved Assault Weapons Ban. This editorial seems to link the two.
There is no such thing as an "armor-piercing handgun." A round of ammunition is what can be armor piercing, not the platform firing it. Armor piercing handgun ammunition is already illegal under Federal law.
So we are left with an emotional appeal which plays loosely with the facts. The section on how weapons are advertised could have contributed to a larger debate, but knowledgeable people will probably stop reading before they get to that tidbit.
10
Airplanes, pressure cookers, bombs, and now a failed vetting process. The vast majority of Americans understand the means of terrorism. The President and his minions such as the NYT believe more government will make it stop, and all gun violence as well. Under GW the industry averaged 9 million units a year, many of those companies were tethering on the edge. in and out of bankruptcy. under this President sales have doubled to 18 million guns per year. This year is projected at 21 million, an all time high. It appears Obama, and his rhetoric is the best gun salesman we have seen in U.S. History. The NYT is not far behind.
5
It's not the assault weapons - it's the gun culture. There are millions of handguns out in this nation. They are used to commit thousands of murders each year. Murder is the problem. A handgun is even more "efficient" because it is easily concealed. Assault weapons are only a tiny slice of the murder pie. So why focus on just that? Not all mass shootings are with them either.
2
A "well regulated militia" comprised of all the assault weapon owners should be called up and sent to the Middle East conflicts to defend their dream of a gun infested, second amendment loving USA.
3
"These are weapons designed for the rapid spray-shooting of multiple enemy soldiers in wartime, not homeland civilians living in peace."
Secretary of Defense McNamara stopped production of the M14 because not enough could be made for the Vietnam War. The M14 was pretty much uncontrollable in full automatic fire and the M16 enabled soldiers to carry more ammunition. The Marines thought so highly of full automatic fire that it was replaced with a 3 round burst in the M16A2
The last mass shooting in England was committed using a double barrel shotgun and a .22LR bolt action rifle, in which 12 people were killed. England did not pursue any additional gun control legislation after the incident as about the only things left would have been a total ban of all firearms.
The repetitive call for banning 'assault weapons' is bizarre considering how little they contribute to the overall firearm homicide rate in the US, where handguns are used for in the majority of deaths, even in mass shootings. The deadliest shooting in the US and even one of the deadliest worldwide committed by a single gunman was at Virginia Tech, where handguns were used. Expending what little political capital gun control advocates have on what will be an ineffective measure amounts to reinforcing structural racism, considering the primary contributors to the firearm homicide rate in the country.
Secretary of Defense McNamara stopped production of the M14 because not enough could be made for the Vietnam War. The M14 was pretty much uncontrollable in full automatic fire and the M16 enabled soldiers to carry more ammunition. The Marines thought so highly of full automatic fire that it was replaced with a 3 round burst in the M16A2
The last mass shooting in England was committed using a double barrel shotgun and a .22LR bolt action rifle, in which 12 people were killed. England did not pursue any additional gun control legislation after the incident as about the only things left would have been a total ban of all firearms.
The repetitive call for banning 'assault weapons' is bizarre considering how little they contribute to the overall firearm homicide rate in the US, where handguns are used for in the majority of deaths, even in mass shootings. The deadliest shooting in the US and even one of the deadliest worldwide committed by a single gunman was at Virginia Tech, where handguns were used. Expending what little political capital gun control advocates have on what will be an ineffective measure amounts to reinforcing structural racism, considering the primary contributors to the firearm homicide rate in the country.
2
It’s difficult to imagine a gun control measure that would have less impact on homicides than banning rifles that aren’t really assault rifles but merely look like assault rifles. According to the 2014 FBI Uniform Crime Report, firearms were used in 8,124, or 67.9 percent, of the nation’s 11,961 murders during 2014. However, rifles, including the military-style rifles used at San Bernardino, were used in only 248, or two percent, of the 11,961 murders, and only a fraction of these rifles used military-style rifles. It would be better to ban combat-style knives which are sold without background checks at gun stores. Knives were used to murder 1,561 Americans in 2014, six times the number killed by rifles. Besides, mass shooters denied military-style rifles would simply switch to rifles that look less menacing than the AR-15 or AK-47 but are just as lethal, or to handguns that at close range or just as lethal. Armed with rifles that looked like assault rifles but weren’t assault rifles, the two San Bernardino shooters killed 14 people and wounded 21. The casualties were high not because they used rifles that looked like assault rifles but because there were two shooters instead of one, as is usually the case. At Virginia Tech, a single shooter armed with handguns killed 32 and wounded 16.
1
It all comes down to selling fear. The NYT editorial board, for whatever reason, has decided to beat the anti-gun-rights drum this month, and has assigned their writers to the job and has been publishing editorial after editorial that, at the base level, are designed to instill fear in people who know little about guns (and many of the writers clearly fall into this category based on the lack of factual information on guns in these editorials). On the other side, the gun lobby is always fire-hosing its own fear-inducing propaganda to its constituents, telling them to get a gun while America is still free so they can protect themselves and their families from home invaders and gun-grabbers. Yet crime and murders (yes, even gun-related murders) have been declining substantially for more than a decade. I am just sick of the fear-enhancement propaganda from both sides. We have too many paranoid, immature, ignorant, and just the simply "please tell me what to do" helpless people in our society already, without trying to deliberately increase their numbers. Please, people, try to remember that we are the home of the brave. The urban vs. rural culture wars will continue for at least another century until we either destroy the world or virtually all of us become "city-folk". Let's try rationality to get us through it.
3
Living in a rural area almost my entire life, and having military experience, I'm amazed that this country seems to think that having a gun in heavily populated areas is a right, no mater the type of weapon.
3
Dear Editors: what is needed to inform the public is this:
A fact checked LIST of all those in the US Congress and those running for
POTUS...Those who are subsidized and financed by the US gun lobby for the
gun and ammunition manufacturers ...
because:
it is the US Gun Manufacturers GREED that is aiding and abetting ISIS..
Please a list of the cowards and those complicit in allowing guns to be easily
obtained by agents of ISIS..
It is due time to "out" those who don't give a hot damn about those murdered
by ISIS with US Guns and Ammunition...please call out those in our country
and our government who are indeed cowardly and TREASONOUS..ASAP
A fact checked LIST of all those in the US Congress and those running for
POTUS...Those who are subsidized and financed by the US gun lobby for the
gun and ammunition manufacturers ...
because:
it is the US Gun Manufacturers GREED that is aiding and abetting ISIS..
Please a list of the cowards and those complicit in allowing guns to be easily
obtained by agents of ISIS..
It is due time to "out" those who don't give a hot damn about those murdered
by ISIS with US Guns and Ammunition...please call out those in our country
and our government who are indeed cowardly and TREASONOUS..ASAP
12
The NRA publishes a report card on every member of the legislature every year.
That report card is the reason why so many of our lawmakers vote consistently to protect our cherished Second Amendment rights - if they receive a low grade, their constituents will vote them out.
Those who are treasonous and cowardly are those who seek to undermine the rights guaranteed by our nation's Founders. Fortunately, most Americans see through such people.
That report card is the reason why so many of our lawmakers vote consistently to protect our cherished Second Amendment rights - if they receive a low grade, their constituents will vote them out.
Those who are treasonous and cowardly are those who seek to undermine the rights guaranteed by our nation's Founders. Fortunately, most Americans see through such people.
2
“Masters of War,” penned by Bob Dylan in the 1960’s has, unfortunately, a timeless ring, all the more telling in today’s profit-driven culture where everyone of us are gun manufacturers' potential collateral damage:
You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people’s blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud
Read more: http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/masters-war#ixzz3u10SqISR
You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people’s blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud
Read more: http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/masters-war#ixzz3u10SqISR
61
Many thanks for your post Gluscabi! Excellent use of some brilliant lyrics penned by Bob Dylan, the greatest American song writer of all time! Kudos!
What's next? "Imagine"?
Wow...an "armor piercing handgun". That is a new one. How is it possible that you can write about a topic and not even know what you are talking about?
13
I get around a lot and have yet to see a handgun capable of firing armor piercing ammunition.
1
Question:
Do you only have a 'concrete-piercing' instead of an 'armor-piercing' one? And how many?
Do you only have a 'concrete-piercing' instead of an 'armor-piercing' one? And how many?
1
How is it possible that you're a self-identified gun expert and have never heard of "big boomers"? They've been around a few years...the Fort Hood shooter used one.
1
Do any of the assault weapons advocates here remember why the BATF raided the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas?
Koresh was selling kits to convert semiautomatics to full automatics by mail order.
Koresh was selling kits to convert semiautomatics to full automatics by mail order.
6
And how many children did they murder to prevent this one man from violating laws on mail-order sales?
This event, and other less spectacular events like it, is why so many Americans believe they may one day need to resist their own government.
This event, and other less spectacular events like it, is why so many Americans believe they may one day need to resist their own government.
2
Nothing will change until the American people, in a collective, organized mass, stand up to the NRA.
And that's unlikely. The American people haven't really stood up to anything in the last 40-years. And when they have, like in the run up to Bush and Cheney's war in Iraq, or Occupy Wall Street, the efforts have been systematically undermined and under reported. Where is the investigative reporting on the NRA? On gun sellers? Or the military industrial complex? It's stomach-turning to watch Wolf Blitzer on CNN blare "Breaking News" about Donald Trump every 90-seconds, when there's absolutely nothing new. Let's face it, there are no more Edward R. Murrows.
It's ultimately kind of breathtaking to realize just how screwed we really are.
And that's unlikely. The American people haven't really stood up to anything in the last 40-years. And when they have, like in the run up to Bush and Cheney's war in Iraq, or Occupy Wall Street, the efforts have been systematically undermined and under reported. Where is the investigative reporting on the NRA? On gun sellers? Or the military industrial complex? It's stomach-turning to watch Wolf Blitzer on CNN blare "Breaking News" about Donald Trump every 90-seconds, when there's absolutely nothing new. Let's face it, there are no more Edward R. Murrows.
It's ultimately kind of breathtaking to realize just how screwed we really are.
15
"Nothing will change until the American people, in a collective, organized mass, stand up to the NRA."
It hasn't occurred to you yet that the American people, in a collective, organized mass, mostly agree with the NRA, eh?
It hasn't occurred to you yet that the American people, in a collective, organized mass, mostly agree with the NRA, eh?
3
"The American people haven't really stood up to anything in the last 40-years."
And that's a big part of the problem; nearly all are watching the latest reality show, and wasting precious time on Facebook, or other useless activity.
I'm convinced this is by design; a populace fully engaged in this modern-day version of the Roman "Bread and Circuses", is as dumb as a brick, and no threat to the establishment.
Donald Trump is also entertainment, his antics are part of a plan to ensure the transfer of power to Hillary; there is one party in these "United States", the party of the rich, and they are laughing themselves silly as they watch how the people perform in their own very special reality show, which they likely call " The People Game", or "Perception Management Techniques".
And that's a big part of the problem; nearly all are watching the latest reality show, and wasting precious time on Facebook, or other useless activity.
I'm convinced this is by design; a populace fully engaged in this modern-day version of the Roman "Bread and Circuses", is as dumb as a brick, and no threat to the establishment.
Donald Trump is also entertainment, his antics are part of a plan to ensure the transfer of power to Hillary; there is one party in these "United States", the party of the rich, and they are laughing themselves silly as they watch how the people perform in their own very special reality show, which they likely call " The People Game", or "Perception Management Techniques".
1
As my Statehouse is being overtaken by "Freestaters", the local news is filled with feel-good stories about lost puppies, Tom Brady and children with cancer. No reporting on the shenanigans at the Statehouse. Keeping the masses uninformed and ignorant....that's the American way!
You refuse to indict all Muslims for the acts of their extremists, but you blame all guns and their owners for the acts of a tiny minority, many of which in fact were terrorists, as admitted by Obama (San Bernardino, Ft. Hood, etc.). The hypocrisy is astounding, and noted.
16
Nothing in the Editorial blamed all guns and gun owners for the acts of others. It condemned the sham of marketing weapons specifically made for the military market as "Modern Sporting Arms". No one who actually hunts needs 30 rounds of high powered tumbling rounds designed to create maximum physical damage and extreme difficulty to medically treat (in order to specifically stress the enemy infrastructure) to bring down a White-tail deer. This is a farce created by the Gun Manufacturers and the NRA. And if you are interested in home defense, my 12 gauge will stop you at the door better than your AR-15.
The Editorial supports getting rid of military hardware being sold to civilians. Most of you don't have the training and discipline to handle them and they get used primarily to just spray rounds wildly at family, employers and occasionally political/terrorist targets. "Modern Sporting Arms" are designed to shoot humans and when you mention only Muslims as terrorists and ignore the Anti-Abortion Christian Terrorist who attacked the same week in Colorado, then I don't think you have shown the maturity and discipline to be handed military-designed weapons.
The Editorial supports getting rid of military hardware being sold to civilians. Most of you don't have the training and discipline to handle them and they get used primarily to just spray rounds wildly at family, employers and occasionally political/terrorist targets. "Modern Sporting Arms" are designed to shoot humans and when you mention only Muslims as terrorists and ignore the Anti-Abortion Christian Terrorist who attacked the same week in Colorado, then I don't think you have shown the maturity and discipline to be handed military-designed weapons.
1
No, you jump to the extreme so you can play the martyr. The issue is assault weapons, not all guns. The terrorists pretty uniformly used assault weapons, which they had no trouble acquiring. No hypocrisy, just common sense. We restrict other kinds of firearms and have restricted assault weapons before as well. Did you suffer because you couldn't have an AK-47 for 10 years...although, actually, you could have one - you just couldn't buy one. I bet that was hard on you, eh?
1
Should we indict all Christians because some of them bomb PP clinics, commit arson against those clinics, murder doctors, after one of them held a whole clinic hostage of hours with an assault weapon after mowing several inside down?
1
I had an email exchange with my town council representative in which I cited this and other recent NYT editorials about local action against guns, facts about our gun violence, and details about Highland Park's ban on assault rifles.
Our town's demographic profile mirrors Newton and Highland Park.
He wrote back that there's was little he could do about it, ending his reply with this: "Let’s hope that if a bad guy does what you portend … that there is a good guy there that day. Make sense?"
For me, it is anecdotal evidence of how the NRA's slick marketing has succeeded in permeating the simplistic minds of so many Americans with a very specious and dangerous line of thinking.
Our town's demographic profile mirrors Newton and Highland Park.
He wrote back that there's was little he could do about it, ending his reply with this: "Let’s hope that if a bad guy does what you portend … that there is a good guy there that day. Make sense?"
For me, it is anecdotal evidence of how the NRA's slick marketing has succeeded in permeating the simplistic minds of so many Americans with a very specious and dangerous line of thinking.
100
Follow up with your council rep and ask him to provide you with details for when a good guy with a gun saved, or ended an incident, for each mass shooting that has occurred this year. I doubt that he can come up with a handful of such incidents. The NRA has perpetrated the myth of weapons for defense of self, and others, but the reality stands - the gun owner is more likely to be a victim than a hero!
1
During a recent phone interview, my congressman here in Boston, Mike Capuano, said pretty much the same thing — he can't do anything about gun control because the Republicans own Congress. So we're supposed to sit back and just do nothing? I will do nothing when it comes time to vote for him.
2
There is a joke going around that after Wayne LaPierre complained about getting caught in a traffic jam, he said, 'What we need are more cars.'
5
I agree with every word you write. But please know that this article is being reprinted by gun dealers in my state to prove that those liberal gun grabbers really are coming to kick down their doors. The Islamic State does sell weapons but the New York Times sells more. Alas.
8
"In The Islamic State does sell weapons but the New York Times sells more." In almost any gun store you will find a poster of Barack Obama lauding him as gun salesman of the year. His every pronouncement is a sales pitch.
3
Nearly every gun store in America has a poster of Barack Obama proclaiming him the "Gun Salesman Of The Year". His every pronouncement spurs additional sales.
"Iraq, Afghanistan, your living room"? When I read this comment out loud to my work colleagues in Switzerland they all burst out laughing. They thought it was a joke.
The fact that it is not a joke, that someone actually believes that it would be a good thing to have "Iraq and Afghanistan" in your own living room, shows how sick American society has become.
I propose a law mandating that ownership of an assault rifle can only be granted after a compulsory 6-months peacekeeping tour in Afghanistan and Syria. I bet assault rifle sales will drop about 99%.
The fact that it is not a joke, that someone actually believes that it would be a good thing to have "Iraq and Afghanistan" in your own living room, shows how sick American society has become.
I propose a law mandating that ownership of an assault rifle can only be granted after a compulsory 6-months peacekeeping tour in Afghanistan and Syria. I bet assault rifle sales will drop about 99%.
10
This talks about profits and it is easy to assume the arms industry is making big profits. But where are the numbers? I'd like to see some actual data put together for them, whether they are American owned or privately held. What about Glock, Smith&Wesson, Sig Sauer, Remington, Ruger, Beretta, and on and on.
6
The second amendment was NOT written to protect hunters. It WAS written to prevent the Federal government from EVER out gunning we, the PEOPLE.
That's the true meaning of Christmas, Charlie Brown.
That's the true meaning of Christmas, Charlie Brown.
11
So how's your personal nuke stock doing? How many Apache attack helicopters do you own? Drones? Tanks? Aircraft carriers?
The federal government has long outgunned we, the PEOPLE.
Back to sleep for you now.
The federal government has long outgunned we, the PEOPLE.
Back to sleep for you now.
1
And you and Charlie Brown are a "...well regulated militia?"
Actually, it was written to assist the government in raising 'well-regulated militias'.
Guns have always been about money. The arms industry has taken a cue from the fashion industry. The big money is in accessories!
All of these mass killer weapons are modularized. All of their major parts can be swapped out to customize the weapon just as an outfit can be customized with a jacket or shoes. Sell them the base weapon and then sell them 10 aftermarket accessories. This way the gun manufacturers can keep extracting money from their customers.
These companies are very smart marketers. Unlike most items, guns never wear out. It would take thousands of rounds of ammunition to wear out a gun. So in order to keep the gravy train going, they came up with this hyper macho modular platform that keeps on selling accessories. Add in a little paranoia and these same customers will invest tens of thousands of dollars in their gun collection. There is no end to the sales so long as there is no end to the fear and paranoia, real or imagined. They make millions selling a product no one needs which places all of us in danger. Then wrap the flag around the boxes.
All of these mass killer weapons are modularized. All of their major parts can be swapped out to customize the weapon just as an outfit can be customized with a jacket or shoes. Sell them the base weapon and then sell them 10 aftermarket accessories. This way the gun manufacturers can keep extracting money from their customers.
These companies are very smart marketers. Unlike most items, guns never wear out. It would take thousands of rounds of ammunition to wear out a gun. So in order to keep the gravy train going, they came up with this hyper macho modular platform that keeps on selling accessories. Add in a little paranoia and these same customers will invest tens of thousands of dollars in their gun collection. There is no end to the sales so long as there is no end to the fear and paranoia, real or imagined. They make millions selling a product no one needs which places all of us in danger. Then wrap the flag around the boxes.
15
Increasingly, those who arm themselves as protection against criminal predation feel a need to come as close to the types of arms criminals increasingly use – and those often aren’t SEMI-automatic weapons but FULLY-automatic versions, either stolen as such from military armories, gun manufacturers or altered from civilian versions. Ask police around the country how badly normal street cops are outgunned by the bad guys, and they’ll fill your ear. Toting lawful semi-automatic weapons is to many merely seeking as even a playing field as they can get.
So, gunmakers are responding to legitimate demand at least as much as they’re pushing the market to accept products nobody wanted before the pushes.
Of course, if you believe that the benefits of less likelihood of gunfire accidents happening are greater in societal value than accepting the ability of those who choose to EFFECTIVELY defend themselves against predators – and many Americans do believe this – then it’s understandable why you’d demonize gunmakers for making and selling these weapons.
But 80-100 MILLION Americans own guns and millions and millions own semi-automatic weapons these days. And most of them disagree that their right to effective self-protection must be sacrificed to assuage the fears of others.
So, gunmakers are responding to legitimate demand at least as much as they’re pushing the market to accept products nobody wanted before the pushes.
Of course, if you believe that the benefits of less likelihood of gunfire accidents happening are greater in societal value than accepting the ability of those who choose to EFFECTIVELY defend themselves against predators – and many Americans do believe this – then it’s understandable why you’d demonize gunmakers for making and selling these weapons.
But 80-100 MILLION Americans own guns and millions and millions own semi-automatic weapons these days. And most of them disagree that their right to effective self-protection must be sacrificed to assuage the fears of others.
11
The bottom line is this: In addition to the 90 or so million gun owners, the vast majority of the population supports our rights to own them. That's the voice and the will of the people. It's not what coastal enclaves want it to be, regardless of their population concentrations.
3
What dreck.
The stats are clear that "self-defense" cases of gun use constitute a miniscule fraction of the annual carnage inflicted by these weapons. But facts rarely impinge on the rightist ideological bubble, do they?
Since you're asking law enforcement officers about guns, why not listen to them when they say repeatedly that they'd like to see semi-automatic military-grade weapons and armor-piercing ammo banned? Or do you just listen to the bits you want to hear?
Finally, what sort of heinous vision of society do you cling to, in which millions need military-grade weapons to feel safe? What century is this, the 8th?
The stats are clear that "self-defense" cases of gun use constitute a miniscule fraction of the annual carnage inflicted by these weapons. But facts rarely impinge on the rightist ideological bubble, do they?
Since you're asking law enforcement officers about guns, why not listen to them when they say repeatedly that they'd like to see semi-automatic military-grade weapons and armor-piercing ammo banned? Or do you just listen to the bits you want to hear?
Finally, what sort of heinous vision of society do you cling to, in which millions need military-grade weapons to feel safe? What century is this, the 8th?
2
200 million do not own guns and do not want their grandchildren children family or friends shot with one. Now either gun nuts such as you restore the gun sensibilities of the past or at some point the 2nd amendment joins prohibition.
1
Bullet-Riddled Bodies Do Not Lie. GUNS KILL. Get Them Off the Streets of America. WE must DEMAND that Every Gun in America be Registered on a National Database, Licensed and fully insured for Liability. NOW!
9
Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky have written that there are always many more options available in achieving some goal that are not put on the table. The news media and political figures thus create limits on the range of options to consider. That becomes accepted by most citizens and anyone that suggest goals and means that fall outside these created limits become labeled as extremists. And since all politics involves compromise, the potential fix becomes a compromise on a compromise that falls far short of the true goal.
This piece has set the upper limit on reducing gun violence by banning assault rifles but what is truly needed and should be the goal is the banning of all guns from American citizens and repealing the 2nd amendment.
This piece has set the upper limit on reducing gun violence by banning assault rifles but what is truly needed and should be the goal is the banning of all guns from American citizens and repealing the 2nd amendment.
6
Why stop at the 2A? Let's just do everything your way and everything will be just fine.
So Paul exactly how are you going to achieve to total ban? There are 40 million plus gun owners in US. Let's say 90% give up their guns voluntarily. Another 5% have to have their homes raided but do not put up a fight. That still leaves 2 million gun owners in shootouts with whoever you send. What number of US citizens/police killed in this enforcement process are you comfortable with?
1
... But we law abiding gun owners are "over reacting" or "hysterical" when we refuse to accept "sensible" regulations, because we see the thin edge of the wedge in an effort to completely repeal our Constitutionally protected civil rights.
Readers, please accept Mr. Cohen's comment as Exhibit A in our explanation of why we won't "be reasonable" and "compromise" on our nation's freedoms.
Readers, please accept Mr. Cohen's comment as Exhibit A in our explanation of why we won't "be reasonable" and "compromise" on our nation's freedoms.
3
I am glad to see the New York Times highlighting the war profiteers whose lack of care for the carnage their products is reflected in their lobbying against the most simple common sense protections.
War profiteering has been ignored far too long. In fact, as recently as Pope Francis's visit, in spite of the wall- to- wall media coverage, their was no m enticing that I saw of his clear statement in one of his talks that something must be done to address the horrific widespread availability of deadly weapons and ammunition. Surely there should have been more attention to this action- oriented plea for peace.
( In contrast, the press seemed obsessed with anything related to sex and marriage.)
War profiteering has been ignored far too long. In fact, as recently as Pope Francis's visit, in spite of the wall- to- wall media coverage, their was no m enticing that I saw of his clear statement in one of his talks that something must be done to address the horrific widespread availability of deadly weapons and ammunition. Surely there should have been more attention to this action- oriented plea for peace.
( In contrast, the press seemed obsessed with anything related to sex and marriage.)
15
"Congress has shamelessly become the last to admit what the public senses with each new shooting spree: The nation needs restoration of a federal assault weapons ban — this time minus the loopholes the gun industry exploited to boost sales."
The public may sense it, and indeed may even answer pollster questions about how they feel on numerous issues related to guns. But apparently "sensing" isn't the same as "doing" because voters keep electing pro-gun candidates.
I've read numerous calls here for the NYT to perform a public service by listing those who go against NRA when important gun legislation comes up for vote whether in committee, or final vote. I would add to their voices mine: if you really want to do something about how any neighborhood in the United States can be turned into an instantaneous battlefield--if you really are sick and tired of prayers for the growing pile of dead at the hand of assault weapons in schools, in public agencies, or on the streets--then put your votes where your heart is.
The public may sense it, and indeed may even answer pollster questions about how they feel on numerous issues related to guns. But apparently "sensing" isn't the same as "doing" because voters keep electing pro-gun candidates.
I've read numerous calls here for the NYT to perform a public service by listing those who go against NRA when important gun legislation comes up for vote whether in committee, or final vote. I would add to their voices mine: if you really want to do something about how any neighborhood in the United States can be turned into an instantaneous battlefield--if you really are sick and tired of prayers for the growing pile of dead at the hand of assault weapons in schools, in public agencies, or on the streets--then put your votes where your heart is.
55
Go to your local library and watch what newspapers are being read. The NYT copies don't have the wear and tear use marks on them. But if you look at the newspapers that have the large print headlines on the front page, usually highlighting a single event or just one quote, some one liner quip from the likes of Trump or another gasbag, those newspapers are dog eared and wrinkled.
2
And perhaps as another public service the NYT could research and list all the stock funds that include arms manufacturers.
I wonder how much is invested in the arms industry by unaware ordinary people saving for retirement, their children's college, long-term care, etc.
I would add to Christine's call to put your vote where your heart is; put your money where your heart is as well.
I wonder how much is invested in the arms industry by unaware ordinary people saving for retirement, their children's college, long-term care, etc.
I would add to Christine's call to put your vote where your heart is; put your money where your heart is as well.
No, what we need is the restoration of the gun rights as provided by amendment 2 and do away with all these gun free zones that were dreamed up by someone that doesn't like guns and has no idea how to protect anyone.
1
First, All one needs to do some severe damage is some defenseless people who cannot escape. Any weapon will do, including a bolt action rifle or pump action shotgun. Pay attention to the videos from France, the killers were slow and deliberate.
Second, Trump has me thinking tyranny can come to America.
Second, Trump has me thinking tyranny can come to America.
27
You mean any gun will do. It's much harder with other types of hand held weapons.
A fine piece, but let's go a little bit deeper and cite previous NYTimes pieces showing who ' the gun lobby ' in D.C. is, the role of ' private equity ' in the personage of Cerberus (reported by the NYTimes to have more revenue in 2010 than Amazon and Coca-Cola combined) and the illustrious VIP cast of former U.S. Veeps, etc., etc. who benefited when the weapons ban expired in 2004:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/business/how-freedom-group-became-the-...
and what happens when the glare of the press gets too hot:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/cerberus-gun-makers-owner-to-offe...
To be continued-
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/business/how-freedom-group-became-the-...
and what happens when the glare of the press gets too hot:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/cerberus-gun-makers-owner-to-offe...
To be continued-
36
Continuing on, more good reporting that shouldn't go to waste:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/feinberg-of-cerberus-considers-bi...
or this:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/cerberus-may-offer-divestment-in-...
nor this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/business/dealbook/cerberus-unable-to-s...
to more fully illustrate whose interests are hurt by re-instituting weapons bans whose expiration made purchases of gun manufacturers attractive in the first place.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/feinberg-of-cerberus-considers-bi...
or this:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/cerberus-may-offer-divestment-in-...
nor this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/business/dealbook/cerberus-unable-to-s...
to more fully illustrate whose interests are hurt by re-instituting weapons bans whose expiration made purchases of gun manufacturers attractive in the first place.
24
Gun manufacturers & gun stores are making a killing lately (morbid pun intended) - every new massacre increases sales & profits.
News media are making a killing too - every new massacre pulls more people into witnessing the horrors: TV, Internet, print, etc. - sales & profits increase.
Meanwhile, the public has a lot to argue about in person and in social media.
So it looks like overall, it's a win-win-win situation, especially for the economy.
Well, except for all those people dying from bullet wounds, and the grieving family & friends left behind, and the increasing fear & mistrust, etc.
But hey - every silver lining has it's cloud.
News media are making a killing too - every new massacre pulls more people into witnessing the horrors: TV, Internet, print, etc. - sales & profits increase.
Meanwhile, the public has a lot to argue about in person and in social media.
So it looks like overall, it's a win-win-win situation, especially for the economy.
Well, except for all those people dying from bullet wounds, and the grieving family & friends left behind, and the increasing fear & mistrust, etc.
But hey - every silver lining has it's cloud.
30
Maybe if people could respect and trust the establishment and our government guns would not be so popular.
1
This gun owner agrees. This category of weapon belongs on a battlefield. So how do we manage a ban with this House, gerrymandered into long- term residency? I also fear an actual open rebellion in my state's rural areas. The NYT staff need to get out more. The Tea Party runs the Sticks.
119
Yes, the threats of insurrection from people who can't even abide neighbors do seem to have the Congress completely petrified.
1
This type of gun also belongs in every law abiding citizens hands that wants one.
2
The rifles the editorial wants banned are not military assault rifles; they merely look like military assault rifles. The AR-15 is a knock-off of the M-16 used by U.S. soldiers. The major difference is that the M-16 can be fired fully automatic while the AR-15 while the AR-15 is semiautomatic, like virtually all rifles sold on the civilian market. Neither the M-16 or AR-15 are more powerful than ordinary hunting rifles. The U.S. military selected the M-16 because it can be cheaply mass-produced; it is light and has a handle that makes it easy to carry; it is easy to maintain, and it has virtually no recoil. It doesn't kick like a high-powered hunting rifle. Firing one is like firing a kid's .22-caliber rifle.
2
Is a class action lawsuit possible - not only against the manufacturers and the promoters/NRA, but against the legislators and lobbyists who are responsible for deaths by automatic and semi-automatic weapons? I would think this could be an opportunity for a group of underemployed law school grads.
60
Unfortunately the NRA got ( mostly Republicans) in Congress to vote to absolve gun sellers from product liability.
One organization that is doing good legal work to fight back against bad apple gun dealers and others to the extent the law allows is here:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legal-action-project
One organization that is doing good legal work to fight back against bad apple gun dealers and others to the extent the law allows is here:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legal-action-project
13
We need to take bigger steps and have smaller goals. Our Constitution has been amended more than 20 times....why can't we be sensible and try for a GIANT step and go for the BIG ONE - amend our dear old forbears and their ideas. It CAN be done, Folks. We must stop throwing our hands in the air and saying it cannot be done. A positive attitude would be a great approach to start. Let us get on with it !!!!
3
For what, exercising a constitutional right? It's not the NRA's fault that there are totally crazy people out there that are willing to kill someone for the thrill of doing it.
If you want to blame someone, blame the people that want gun free zones. Blame the politicians who's only answer to gun violence, is more gun laws that the criminals will totally ignore. Yea that'll work huh?
If you want to blame someone, blame the people that want gun free zones. Blame the politicians who's only answer to gun violence, is more gun laws that the criminals will totally ignore. Yea that'll work huh?
1
The merchants of death who profit from these killings have names and faces-- which should be in the newspapers along with their loyal customers (the shooters). Shot with a Glock-- publish the article with a photo of Gaston Glock. Killed with a Smith&Wesson-- show the smiling face of James Dubney, CEO. Mass killing with assault rifles from the Freedom Group- let us see the CEO George Kolidites. These are the people who benefit from gun violence, so lets recognize them personally.
202
Merchants of death? How droll. 19,000 people killed in auto accidents in this country in the first half of this year alone. Maybe the auto manufacturers and drunk drivers should rightly be named the merchants of death.
1
It is totally absurd to post the maker of a gun along with the news release of a killer taking the lives of innocent people. The maker is not responsible for some crazed lunatic going and killing a bunch of people to further his or her social standing in whatever group they belong to, jsut like it's not your fathers fault that you get a speeding ticket, or your neighbors fault that you didn't mow the grass in 6 months. No one profits from gun violence.
1
Republicans will never own up to the fact that they're mainly responsible for the mass shootings in America including the one in San Bernardino in California last week.
They'll not explain to anyone, how much money the Gun lobby is paying them, in the form of contributions to the party.
Actually it is a no-brainer to think that no civilians need a Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle, the shooter used to slay 20 children and six workers in barely five minutes with hundreds of rounds ' like you said in this article.
But as we can see again and again in this country that or the modified version of that rifle is the mode of choice for all the mass shooters.
Now it is really a matter of shame that we've become a laughing stock for the rest of the world where thousands of Americans are dying every year, not by the terrorists but by our citizens.
Second Amendment gives the' right to bear arms' but not to bear Bushmaster rifles.
So why we're flouting the Constitution by creating a loophole and handing over these lethal weapons to our Citizens including the one in California who happened to be also a Muslim .
Actually this whole process of watching the mass casualties that we watch on the t.v. on a daily basis, has made us totally immune to the fact that every victim of these mass shootings are also Americans . Not a foreign soldier in a foreign land but a person who was born in America to the mostly American parents who had no clue that they'll have to bury them one day...tkb
They'll not explain to anyone, how much money the Gun lobby is paying them, in the form of contributions to the party.
Actually it is a no-brainer to think that no civilians need a Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle, the shooter used to slay 20 children and six workers in barely five minutes with hundreds of rounds ' like you said in this article.
But as we can see again and again in this country that or the modified version of that rifle is the mode of choice for all the mass shooters.
Now it is really a matter of shame that we've become a laughing stock for the rest of the world where thousands of Americans are dying every year, not by the terrorists but by our citizens.
Second Amendment gives the' right to bear arms' but not to bear Bushmaster rifles.
So why we're flouting the Constitution by creating a loophole and handing over these lethal weapons to our Citizens including the one in California who happened to be also a Muslim .
Actually this whole process of watching the mass casualties that we watch on the t.v. on a daily basis, has made us totally immune to the fact that every victim of these mass shootings are also Americans . Not a foreign soldier in a foreign land but a person who was born in America to the mostly American parents who had no clue that they'll have to bury them one day...tkb
30
People who respond to substantive criticism with personal attacks on the critics should rather than responsive replies should probably be considered too mentally ill to be trusted with guns.
1
The anti-gun liberal democrats bear some responsibility for any death that occurs in a gun free zone. BECAUSE of their ill-conceived insistence that an unarmed populace in certain places is the way to go. FYI: You don't need a semi automatic rifle, or handgun to do great harm - stop fooling yourself, and open your eyes! In case you haven't noticed, these crimes have been committed in places where guns are not allowed, and by highly disturbed people. Not ordinary. law abiding gun owners. They are the ones I am speaking for. They do not deserve to be targeted and lumped in with with radical Islamic terrorists or mentally disturbed people. They are neither. But then by your own admission, you wouldn't know that, would you?
2
Exactly how do Republicans get profit from gun deaths? I am not seeing it.
You want the gun deaths to stop? Good luck with that. A good start though would be for all politicians to enforce the laws already on the books.
Get rid of gun free zones, that make nothing but target rich killing fields for these lunatics.
Allow people to arm themselves, yes even in California where they have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Look at Detroit and Chicago.
See, it's time for people to understand that making new gun laws in the hopes of somehow twisting the wording just right to catch all criminals, is nothing more than a pipe dream. Criminals are not going to follow the laws that they don't want to follow, and since we have that weird thing called a brain, we have choices. We can follow the law, in which case no one gets killed needlessly, or we can choose NOT to follow the law and kill as many people as we feel like killing as long as we are not killed ourselves. It's very sad that we have people in the world that do things like that, but making the world even less safe by dreaming up gun free zones, that no criminal pays attention to other than to target, is not the way to go. It's time to ARM the public, not disarm them.
You want the gun deaths to stop? Good luck with that. A good start though would be for all politicians to enforce the laws already on the books.
Get rid of gun free zones, that make nothing but target rich killing fields for these lunatics.
Allow people to arm themselves, yes even in California where they have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Look at Detroit and Chicago.
See, it's time for people to understand that making new gun laws in the hopes of somehow twisting the wording just right to catch all criminals, is nothing more than a pipe dream. Criminals are not going to follow the laws that they don't want to follow, and since we have that weird thing called a brain, we have choices. We can follow the law, in which case no one gets killed needlessly, or we can choose NOT to follow the law and kill as many people as we feel like killing as long as we are not killed ourselves. It's very sad that we have people in the world that do things like that, but making the world even less safe by dreaming up gun free zones, that no criminal pays attention to other than to target, is not the way to go. It's time to ARM the public, not disarm them.
1
As someone who lives in gun country, I am much more afraid of my neighbors who are stockpiling assault weapons and concealing guns in their backpacks and purses when they shop in places such as Walmart than I am of terrorists.
No one wants to take away anyone's hunting rifle, but outlawing weapons of war and the ammunition that goes with them would be a good first step in making this country a safer, saner place to live.
No one wants to take away anyone's hunting rifle, but outlawing weapons of war and the ammunition that goes with them would be a good first step in making this country a safer, saner place to live.
232
Let me ask you a question? Why are you afraid of honest law abiding gun owners that legally carry a gun for their own protection? Do you seriously think that THEY are the ones who would inflict harm? I don't think so. Do you honestly think that they are going to start shooting up Wal-Mart? I sure wish you folks that don't like guns would stop mislabeling those who do, and are exercising their second amendment right, and also COMPLYING wit the law, because when you do this, you are creating an atmosphere of fear and distrust aimed at the WRONG people.
1
Yes, I do want to take away their "hunting rifles," because one man's hunting rifle is the next man's instrument of massacre. At long last, can we not acknowledge the monster we have created, and get rid of it?
1
Actually, I'd be ok with taking away people's hunting rifles. I've had hunters on my property line shooting directly towards my neighbor's home. They have a small child and two dogs. Why are we hunting animals anyway? It's a cruel and unnecessary "sport" (and yea, I don't care if you eat the meat, it's still heartless and cruel). And how about when they're wounded by bullet or arrow, wander off and can't be found and bleed out slowly?
1
C'mon now. Why shouldn't I grow rich on the deaths of my neighbors' children? It's the American Way, and the glory of corporate capitalism.
23
It is not just the NRA.
ALEC- The American Legislative Exchange Council- has it's fingers all over many bills designed to ease the few restrictions placed on firearms, fight or make impossible reforms and expand the places people can carry. Stand Your Ground Laws are commonly pushed by ALEC and it's members. They mark up cookie cutter model Bills that allied politicians introduce in State Legislatures all over America.
Most Republicans and many Corporate or Business Friendly Democrats are deeply involved with ALEC and are actively undermining democracy. The roll call of contributors is very long and a few companies have withdrawn when their ties to ALEC became broadly known- after much of the damage has ben done. Much of what has created the incarceration nation, the privatization of prisons, the policing for profit and the easy availability of firearms can be played squarely at their feet.
Here is the information on ALEC by SourceWatch, operated by the Center for Media and Democracy.
http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
It is time to call those funding and organizing this to account by naming and shaming , if necessary. ALEC needs to be put out of business.
ALEC- The American Legislative Exchange Council- has it's fingers all over many bills designed to ease the few restrictions placed on firearms, fight or make impossible reforms and expand the places people can carry. Stand Your Ground Laws are commonly pushed by ALEC and it's members. They mark up cookie cutter model Bills that allied politicians introduce in State Legislatures all over America.
Most Republicans and many Corporate or Business Friendly Democrats are deeply involved with ALEC and are actively undermining democracy. The roll call of contributors is very long and a few companies have withdrawn when their ties to ALEC became broadly known- after much of the damage has ben done. Much of what has created the incarceration nation, the privatization of prisons, the policing for profit and the easy availability of firearms can be played squarely at their feet.
Here is the information on ALEC by SourceWatch, operated by the Center for Media and Democracy.
http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
It is time to call those funding and organizing this to account by naming and shaming , if necessary. ALEC needs to be put out of business.
117
David, Thanks for reminding us all of this. ALEC is a scary organization and not nearly enough is known about it. Can the Times do something about that? I know you've run stories in the past, but perhaps you can run more and perhaps persuade your media colleagues to do the same.
4
Thank you for calling attention to ALEC. This organization is doing more to undermine democracy than any other, save the Supreme Court. The media needs to do a better job reporting on them. Hear that NYT.
4
Yea I think the OP is a bit biased against guns don't you?
"Across recent decades, gun manufacturers, facing a decline in general gun ownership as demographics shifted and sports hunting faded, have cynically created a domestic market for barely altered rifles and pistols developed for the military. These are weapons designed for the rapid spray-shooting of multiple enemy soldiers in wartime, not homeland civilians living in peace."
Barely altered?? the guns you sort of pictured here are all legally ownable firearms except in stupid states like CA where a person's 2A rights sort of just go out the window.
Rapid spray??? No, that would be a fully automatic weapon which these are not. These are SEMI automatic weapons which means you have to pull the trigger to fire 1 bullet.
That said, it doesn't take long to empty a 25 or 30 round magazine.
Perhaps instead of trying to push fear to cause more gun control (which wont work), maybe you should try getting rid of gun free zones so these areas are no longer killing fields. Arm some peoploe in your offices and schools so that when an active shooter situation does come up (which would be less likely with armed people in the buildings) they can be taken down more quickly and therefore have much less loss of life.
Gun control will never EVER work to stop criminals from getting guns or attacking soft targets, only armed citizens can stop that.
"Across recent decades, gun manufacturers, facing a decline in general gun ownership as demographics shifted and sports hunting faded, have cynically created a domestic market for barely altered rifles and pistols developed for the military. These are weapons designed for the rapid spray-shooting of multiple enemy soldiers in wartime, not homeland civilians living in peace."
Barely altered?? the guns you sort of pictured here are all legally ownable firearms except in stupid states like CA where a person's 2A rights sort of just go out the window.
Rapid spray??? No, that would be a fully automatic weapon which these are not. These are SEMI automatic weapons which means you have to pull the trigger to fire 1 bullet.
That said, it doesn't take long to empty a 25 or 30 round magazine.
Perhaps instead of trying to push fear to cause more gun control (which wont work), maybe you should try getting rid of gun free zones so these areas are no longer killing fields. Arm some peoploe in your offices and schools so that when an active shooter situation does come up (which would be less likely with armed people in the buildings) they can be taken down more quickly and therefore have much less loss of life.
Gun control will never EVER work to stop criminals from getting guns or attacking soft targets, only armed citizens can stop that.
22
I have yet to read an advocate of these weapons here whom I would trust with one.
1
Considering the number of already armed citizens how come we still have so many mass shootings. Don't say it's gun free zones because many aren't. There is no legitimate or other excuse for assault weapons to be legal. For that matter, there is no real basis for individual rights to bear arms. The language of the militia states only a 'well-regulated militia' which does not describe the vast majority of individual gun owners. Oh, and what happened to the well-regulated part of that?
3
It seems to work very well in all other civilized countries.
4
Several of the early responses to this editorial reflect the disconnect with reality that characterizes our gun culture. Ideology and fear, rather than practical common sense, appear to shape the values of these critics. They argue as if the right which the 2nd amendment protects trumps all other rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
The fundamental purpose of the Constitution is to ensure an orderly and peaceful society, governed by law, an objective endangered by a principle that enables almost anyone over a certain age to assemble a deadly arsenal of weapons. The longterm decline in the rate of murders committed with firearms, while welcome, does not change the ugly reality that the level of gun violence in the U.S. greatly exceeds that of any other industrialized country.
Stout defenders of the 2nd amendment tend to claim that the right of self-defense lies at the heart of that provision of the Bill of Rights. If so, that clearly implies that any weapon not essential to that purpose lies outside the guarantee contained in the amendment. A simple six-shot pistol would suffice to protect anyone outside a war zone. Nor would the amendment include the freedom to carry the weapon into areas where one's life was not at risk. Schools, churches, and businesses become dangerous only in the presence of guns.
We are stuck with the 2nd amendment, but it doesn't have to rule our lives.
The fundamental purpose of the Constitution is to ensure an orderly and peaceful society, governed by law, an objective endangered by a principle that enables almost anyone over a certain age to assemble a deadly arsenal of weapons. The longterm decline in the rate of murders committed with firearms, while welcome, does not change the ugly reality that the level of gun violence in the U.S. greatly exceeds that of any other industrialized country.
Stout defenders of the 2nd amendment tend to claim that the right of self-defense lies at the heart of that provision of the Bill of Rights. If so, that clearly implies that any weapon not essential to that purpose lies outside the guarantee contained in the amendment. A simple six-shot pistol would suffice to protect anyone outside a war zone. Nor would the amendment include the freedom to carry the weapon into areas where one's life was not at risk. Schools, churches, and businesses become dangerous only in the presence of guns.
We are stuck with the 2nd amendment, but it doesn't have to rule our lives.
189
Well Gee we have more criminals than any other country. Somehow you forget those countries with basically a civil war running?
"Nor would the amendment include the freedom to carry the weapon into areas where one's life was not at risk. Schools, churches, and businesses become dangerous only in the presence of guns.
We are stuck with the 2nd amendment, but it doesn't have to rule our lives."
You honestly expect a criminal to obey gun free zones?? They wont, so the next best thing is to have armed people in those areas and do away with gun free zones. Gun free zones are target rich environments to criminals and only serve to get people killed needlessly.
We are stuck with the 2nd amendment, but it doesn't have to rule our lives."
You honestly expect a criminal to obey gun free zones?? They wont, so the next best thing is to have armed people in those areas and do away with gun free zones. Gun free zones are target rich environments to criminals and only serve to get people killed needlessly.
3
"The fundamental purpose of the Constitution is to ensure an orderly and peaceful society, governed by law"
Wrong.
The fundamental purposes of the Constitution are 1) To define the sovereign; 2) to better order the relations among the several states, 3) to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and 4) to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
The Second Amendment is integral to all of these fundamental purposes.
Wrong.
The fundamental purposes of the Constitution are 1) To define the sovereign; 2) to better order the relations among the several states, 3) to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and 4) to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
The Second Amendment is integral to all of these fundamental purposes.
2
Republicans and some Democrats, bought and paid for, kind of like soiled Doves!
10
"soiled Doves" Perfect description.
Just as we discovered the propaganda put forth by the tobacco industry with deliberate intent to mislead the public into believing that cigarettes were safe and non-addictive. As we are starting to learn about Exxon and others in the oil and gas industry funding climate change opposition fiction masquerading as scientific fact. And as we are learning about Coca Cola doing the same I wonder when or if we will find out how the gun industry exerts pressure to sculpt reality. At what point does sculpting reality become deception?
All I can say with conviction is that the days of our legislators, our elected officials acting in the best interests of the general public are long gone.
All I can say with conviction is that the days of our legislators, our elected officials acting in the best interests of the general public are long gone.
56
Legislators were concerned with public opinion before the nation became an oligarchy. Now it's just who pays the most.
Let's not leave out big pharma, the banking industry and private corrections companies. Oh yeah, some companies formerly known as Haliburton and Blackhawk also come to mind.
1
I am all for additional gun control; however, the editorial board clearly knows virtually nothing about guns. The facts are that any reasonably modern gun (short of a muzzle loader) would do about the same damage in about the same time frame as an assault rifle when someone is using it against unarmed men, women and children huddled in the same small space. It takes less than two second to change a magazine even in a bolt gun. Assault rifles are on the low end of power, as far as rifles go. They are designed to be capable of suppressing enemy fire when used by multiple soldiers in a platoon to enable maneuvering.
California already bans "assault weapons" and the ones used in the terrorist attack were altered substantially. In a day and age where 3D printers and bomb plans exists everywhere online, how hard is it bend a few springs and mill out some material on virtually any rifle?
Furthermore, the idea that pistols that are as powerful as rifles are somehow flooding the market is absurd. There are guns classified as pistols that shoot the same cartridge as a rifle but they aren't at all concealable (about the size of a baseball bat) and for all intents and purposes are pretty much useless.
If the California terrorists had had hunting shotguns, it is unlikely that any fewer people would have lived. So, rather than start a hard to win war over an issue that actually wouldn't make any difference in the number of people killed... advocate for something meaningful.
California already bans "assault weapons" and the ones used in the terrorist attack were altered substantially. In a day and age where 3D printers and bomb plans exists everywhere online, how hard is it bend a few springs and mill out some material on virtually any rifle?
Furthermore, the idea that pistols that are as powerful as rifles are somehow flooding the market is absurd. There are guns classified as pistols that shoot the same cartridge as a rifle but they aren't at all concealable (about the size of a baseball bat) and for all intents and purposes are pretty much useless.
If the California terrorists had had hunting shotguns, it is unlikely that any fewer people would have lived. So, rather than start a hard to win war over an issue that actually wouldn't make any difference in the number of people killed... advocate for something meaningful.
16
We need to think about the fact that the arms merchants sell to the same "base" that the Republican Party has cynically manipulated by stoking their political anger against government, the Bill of Rights, minorities, women, immigrants, gays, etc. Shooting up a Planned Parenthood facility as a self-styled "soldier for the babies" exemplifies more careful targeting than spraying death randomly in a school or movie theatre. Connecting weapons with targets is the next step, and needs urgently to be prevented now.
16
This is exactly why I will vote for Hillary Clinton. No other person running for President has expressed outrage over the all too-frequent murders of innocent Americans, including children, at schools, shopping centers and movie theaters, due to guns. Not one, save Hillary Clinton. I disagree with her on several issues, but I trust her to call out the NRA and do something about this clear and present danger to everyday Americans. I am voting for her solely on this issue. My life, the lives of my children, grandchildren and every other American are threatened ever single day by a proliferation of deadly weapons.
33
Trusting Hillary will get you killed or injured. Benghazi, anyone?
2
About time for this editorial. In fact, way past time.
Next time, how about naming these manufacturers, along with their top management, Board, and ownership structure. Let's know who is churning out these weapons of choice for deranged killers and unhinged jihadist terrorists.
Next time, how about naming these manufacturers, along with their top management, Board, and ownership structure. Let's know who is churning out these weapons of choice for deranged killers and unhinged jihadist terrorists.
20
Why don't you pressure the present government - Namely the White House to stem the tide of terrorists sneaking into this country? and taking steps to ensure that mentally unstable people or refugees for that matter don't get their hands on one. That would be the logical place to start. Being so naive as to think that embarrassing or harassing firearms manufacturers will actually work is not a good idea.
2
Uh, no; your so-called "assault weapons" are just military-looking semiautos that are rarely used in crime. What you're really telling all of us is that our government can't trust its own people to be responsible. I thought that we were our own government, right? What none of you can face is that except for a very small fraction of Americans, almost all of us live up to our responsibilities exactly the way we always have as citizens.
If you choose not to own a military-style semiauto, it's your call. After all, you know how to value yourself and your abilities. For the rest of us, give it a rest.
If you choose not to own a military-style semiauto, it's your call. After all, you know how to value yourself and your abilities. For the rest of us, give it a rest.
15
Time the 2A people "give it a rest."
This is the Only "civilized" country that allows the sale of such weapons basically to anyone.
Most other countries have banned such weapons, and their societies are not anarchic. In fact, they have MUCH LOWER incidents of even terrorist-related events, because it is hard to get the tools. Certainly, the FACTS show that societies with much more restrictive laws have much lower death rates related to shootings.
But you know better.
This is the Only "civilized" country that allows the sale of such weapons basically to anyone.
Most other countries have banned such weapons, and their societies are not anarchic. In fact, they have MUCH LOWER incidents of even terrorist-related events, because it is hard to get the tools. Certainly, the FACTS show that societies with much more restrictive laws have much lower death rates related to shootings.
But you know better.
You can't keep emphasising capital over labor and property over people without ending up where we find ourselves. The gun is the ultimate expression of individual private property - a tool of personal power that trumps all social and collective needs. Don't ever underestimate how powerful this resonates in the American psyche, where men believe that guns make them strong while unions make them weak. Meanwhile, the gun company executives live respectable lives in neighborhoods where guns are't necessary.
12
I find editorials that demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter (firearms) not very persuading.
The author(s) need to demonstrated that they have a grasp of the legal and regulatory issues, as well as the practical aspects of firearms.
Otherwise, they just sound stupid.
The author(s) need to demonstrated that they have a grasp of the legal and regulatory issues, as well as the practical aspects of firearms.
Otherwise, they just sound stupid.
16
So Facts, does it matter you didnt elaborate on the legal and regulatory issues you claim the author doesnt grasp?
In addition what part of the editorial demonstrated a "complete lack" of understanding of the subject matter (firearms)? The subject matter, as I comprehended the article, is that weapons manufacturers are making profits (capitalism where making a buck reigns supreme no matter the civilian body count resulting from the sales of their product) selling to civilians weapons more appropriate for the military. One would think the US is Somalia. Hey, got a special on grenade launchers?
In addition what part of the editorial demonstrated a "complete lack" of understanding of the subject matter (firearms)? The subject matter, as I comprehended the article, is that weapons manufacturers are making profits (capitalism where making a buck reigns supreme no matter the civilian body count resulting from the sales of their product) selling to civilians weapons more appropriate for the military. One would think the US is Somalia. Hey, got a special on grenade launchers?
4
I agree with this Times' editorial and I do not want what I write to diminish the Times' arguments.
Most gun deaths are with hand guns.
Heller / McDonald upheld the right of gun ownership in the home but allowed for some restrictions on guns in public.
Whether Heller / McDonald were wise or not is a separate discussion I will not address.
Given the make up of the Court Heller / McDonald is now the law.
We can however pass laws restricting guns in public and tightening up requirements for public carry permits.
We can advocate for laws like California's Mulford Act [signed by Governor Ronald Reagan] mandating 5 years in the clink for anyone carrying a loaded gun in public.
We can limit magazine /clip capacity. The Tucson shooter had a 31 capacity clip. He was stopped when he paused to reload. If his clip held fewer bullets he would have killed /wounded fewer before being stopped.
We can close the gun show loop hole.
{I will ;post as a reply to this comment one program in NYS that should be adopted in all states}.
The Columbine killers were underage. They asked an above age girl friend to get them guns. When she went to a licensed gun dealer and learned she had to undergo a background check and fill out a form , she balked. She then went to a gun show and bought guns where no check and form were required.
see Winkler, "Gunfight", pages 74-76
Most gun deaths are with hand guns.
Heller / McDonald upheld the right of gun ownership in the home but allowed for some restrictions on guns in public.
Whether Heller / McDonald were wise or not is a separate discussion I will not address.
Given the make up of the Court Heller / McDonald is now the law.
We can however pass laws restricting guns in public and tightening up requirements for public carry permits.
We can advocate for laws like California's Mulford Act [signed by Governor Ronald Reagan] mandating 5 years in the clink for anyone carrying a loaded gun in public.
We can limit magazine /clip capacity. The Tucson shooter had a 31 capacity clip. He was stopped when he paused to reload. If his clip held fewer bullets he would have killed /wounded fewer before being stopped.
We can close the gun show loop hole.
{I will ;post as a reply to this comment one program in NYS that should be adopted in all states}.
The Columbine killers were underage. They asked an above age girl friend to get them guns. When she went to a licensed gun dealer and learned she had to undergo a background check and fill out a form , she balked. She then went to a gun show and bought guns where no check and form were required.
see Winkler, "Gunfight", pages 74-76
10
Here is a procedure adopted by operators of major gun shows in NYS.
How could anyone object to this sensible procedure.
“They [ operators of major gun shows in NYS] agreed to procedures that would track all guns brought into the show by private sellers. Each weapon is tagged so that operators could track sales and background checks. Private sellers have to account for every gun they bring into the show. If they sell a weapon they have to produce paperwork to prove that the buyer passed a background check and the buyer has to show proof that he passed a check before leaving the show with his purchase."
See “Enough” by Kelly and Giffords page 188
"An investigation of gun shows in three states found that 63% of private sellers sold guns to purchasers who had told the sellers that they [the purchasers] probably couldn't pass a background check."
Winkler “Gunfight” page 74
How could anyone object to this sensible procedure.
“They [ operators of major gun shows in NYS] agreed to procedures that would track all guns brought into the show by private sellers. Each weapon is tagged so that operators could track sales and background checks. Private sellers have to account for every gun they bring into the show. If they sell a weapon they have to produce paperwork to prove that the buyer passed a background check and the buyer has to show proof that he passed a check before leaving the show with his purchase."
See “Enough” by Kelly and Giffords page 188
"An investigation of gun shows in three states found that 63% of private sellers sold guns to purchasers who had told the sellers that they [the purchasers] probably couldn't pass a background check."
Winkler “Gunfight” page 74
7
Why does the NYT not care about the "casualties" unless it involves a mass shooter? San Bernardino has 5 times the murder rate than that of NYC, yet it if weren't for the terrorist killings there, you'd never report on that.
Second, we don't blame unions for their lush benefits - we blame the politicians who agreed to those deals. The same goes for the gun - and any other lobby. Of course they advocate for themselves. All do. But they do not make legislation - our elected leaders do that. Therin lies any blame. If they vote in a given way because of donations from lobbyists, then that's a bribe.
But the focus where it belongs - on those who make laws - not those who advocate for their cause.
Second, we don't blame unions for their lush benefits - we blame the politicians who agreed to those deals. The same goes for the gun - and any other lobby. Of course they advocate for themselves. All do. But they do not make legislation - our elected leaders do that. Therin lies any blame. If they vote in a given way because of donations from lobbyists, then that's a bribe.
But the focus where it belongs - on those who make laws - not those who advocate for their cause.
15
Define "lush benefits" will you please because the term is tossed around with reckless abandon.
Do you think there would ever be a middle class if it were not for unions in this country? And now that the unions have been beaten down and back lo and behold we come to learn the middle class is shrinking, hmmm.
Do you think there would ever be a middle class if it were not for unions in this country? And now that the unions have been beaten down and back lo and behold we come to learn the middle class is shrinking, hmmm.
15
There is no single "blame." There is no single "cause." Simplistic thinking is much of our problem today. Legislators matter. Lobbyists matter. Manufacturers matter. Advertising matters. Regulations matter. Voters matter. Gerrymandering matters. Voting processes matter. We must all acknowledge that this situation, like life, is complex. Black and white thinking gets us into trouble. A multi-pronged approach is essential and complex actions are required. Nobody and no topic is exempt.
1
The NYT editors having already made known their disregard for the Second Amendment, this editorial is replete with distortions of fact.
First, including a .50 caliber sniper rifle as an argument to bring back the assault weapons ban is ridiculous. Weighing nearly 30 pounds, the Barrett .50 cal rifle is hardly a weapon of choice for criminals and has never been used in the commission of a crime. Secondly, since the assault weapons bill expired in 2004, gun sales have skyrocketed while murder rates have dropped to historic lows. The recent spate of mass shootings not withstanding, anti gunner predictions of a return to the wild west were clearly disproved.
A mugger commits a crime, blame the gun. A disgruntled worker shoots up his office, blame the gun. A racist murders parishioners at a church, blame the gun. Terrorists slaughter hundreds of innocent people, blame the gun. Repeating firearms have been in existence for over 150 years with mass shootings becoming a relatively recent phenomenon. Perhaps we ought to look elsewhere to get to the root of the problem.
First, including a .50 caliber sniper rifle as an argument to bring back the assault weapons ban is ridiculous. Weighing nearly 30 pounds, the Barrett .50 cal rifle is hardly a weapon of choice for criminals and has never been used in the commission of a crime. Secondly, since the assault weapons bill expired in 2004, gun sales have skyrocketed while murder rates have dropped to historic lows. The recent spate of mass shootings not withstanding, anti gunner predictions of a return to the wild west were clearly disproved.
A mugger commits a crime, blame the gun. A disgruntled worker shoots up his office, blame the gun. A racist murders parishioners at a church, blame the gun. Terrorists slaughter hundreds of innocent people, blame the gun. Repeating firearms have been in existence for over 150 years with mass shootings becoming a relatively recent phenomenon. Perhaps we ought to look elsewhere to get to the root of the problem.
25
In reply to Mike - common sense says the more guns there are, the more likely they are to be used. And the more assault type weapons there are, the more likely they are to be used. This isn't rocket science. While you are indeed correct that repeating firearms have been around over 150 years, it is only recently that civilians can purchase them. Assault weapons are meant to do one thing - to kill the enemy. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct. What do you think the root of the problem is? Btw, I'm a gun owner.
2
Like most of life, this is not an either/or situation. To combat the increasing number of deaths by firearms in this country, which are abnormally higher than any other country, we must take a multi-pronged approach. Sensible regulation of guns is one essential prong of that approach. And because the situation with guns is so complex in our country, that prong has multiple sub-prongs, all of which need to be looked at in detail: the manufacturers, the weapons themselves, the ammunition, the licensing, the retailers, the purchasing process, the safety and training process, etc. It all matters. Jumping to conclusions, over-simplifying complex situations and taking a blanket approach of 'guns are ok; fix something else' will only exacerbate our problems.
2
You are correct about the Barrett. NYT writers do not know their guns. As a hunter and gun-owner, I do.
Yet you are not correct about where blame lies. The easy availability of guns makes the crimes you cite more deadly. I don't blame the tool. It's just metal and an explosive charge. I blame the industry and culture for promoting versions of that tool that make crimes more violent.
Finally, your argument that since 2004, "gun sales have skyrocketed while murder rates have dropped to historic lows" demonstrates a post-hoc ipso propter-hoc fallacy. Please show me evidence that the decline in murder rates was caused by increased gun sales.
If you want to make a better claim, I'm ready. One you might consider is how semi-automatic handguns, not assault weapons, were at fault in many mass shootings. I don't have numbers, but we might begin at looking at how many shooters used standard vs. high-cap magazines in standard pistols such as my 1911A1 .45 , a weapon that has been around, as the name implies, 104 years.
Yet you are not correct about where blame lies. The easy availability of guns makes the crimes you cite more deadly. I don't blame the tool. It's just metal and an explosive charge. I blame the industry and culture for promoting versions of that tool that make crimes more violent.
Finally, your argument that since 2004, "gun sales have skyrocketed while murder rates have dropped to historic lows" demonstrates a post-hoc ipso propter-hoc fallacy. Please show me evidence that the decline in murder rates was caused by increased gun sales.
If you want to make a better claim, I'm ready. One you might consider is how semi-automatic handguns, not assault weapons, were at fault in many mass shootings. I don't have numbers, but we might begin at looking at how many shooters used standard vs. high-cap magazines in standard pistols such as my 1911A1 .45 , a weapon that has been around, as the name implies, 104 years.
1
Sensationalism like this make it difficult to take the NYT seriously.
The adoption of "military style" firearms by the public is not new. When government armies had smooth-bore muskets the civilians had smooth-bore muskets. After revolvers were introduced to the battlefield they were soon adopted by civilians. The same thing happened with semi-automatic pistols. Then after the two world wars the civilian market was flooded with surplus M1 Garands. Civilian firearms tend to follow military trends.
Features like pistol grips and adjustable stocks are ergonomic advancements. There is nothing particularity "military style" about them. The military is more progressive and naturally adopted the things that were made possible by new materials and manufacturing techniques first; and the civilians are just now catching up.
Detachable magazines are similarly part of the natural progression of technology. I'm sorry if it scares you. But it's unlikely that it's going to be stalled or that things will forever remain the state that they are in. When you put it all together, these developments are inevitable. You're not gonna stop it. But I'm sure you feel the need to try.
The only regulations that make any sense at all at all those related to magazine size. But arguments, both for and against, are not particularity compelling. It's like combating alcoholism by banning vodka.
The adoption of "military style" firearms by the public is not new. When government armies had smooth-bore muskets the civilians had smooth-bore muskets. After revolvers were introduced to the battlefield they were soon adopted by civilians. The same thing happened with semi-automatic pistols. Then after the two world wars the civilian market was flooded with surplus M1 Garands. Civilian firearms tend to follow military trends.
Features like pistol grips and adjustable stocks are ergonomic advancements. There is nothing particularity "military style" about them. The military is more progressive and naturally adopted the things that were made possible by new materials and manufacturing techniques first; and the civilians are just now catching up.
Detachable magazines are similarly part of the natural progression of technology. I'm sorry if it scares you. But it's unlikely that it's going to be stalled or that things will forever remain the state that they are in. When you put it all together, these developments are inevitable. You're not gonna stop it. But I'm sure you feel the need to try.
The only regulations that make any sense at all at all those related to magazine size. But arguments, both for and against, are not particularity compelling. It's like combating alcoholism by banning vodka.
50
Thank you! Very well-said.
1
Alec, There are all sorts of restrictions banning how manufacturers and retailers sell alcohol because of alcoholism, because of the dangers that excessive drinking pose to drinkers and especially the dangers that excessive drinking poses to others. You know this as well as I. And the relationship between weapons and alcohol is a perfect parallel.
For instance, on a completely micro level my village is completely within its rights to require any business wishing to sell alcohol come to the voters for approval. We are also within our rights to negotiate with retailers to use cash registers that won't ring up alcohol purchases without scanning an official ID. We are also within our rights to negotiate with retailers not to display alcohol signs outside their store.
Regulation is one prong of a necessarily multi-pronged approach to this national crisis. Regulation is for the purpose of public safety and public health.There is no lethal or potentially lethal item in our country that is without regulation .... except for the most directly lethal of all: guns.
For instance, on a completely micro level my village is completely within its rights to require any business wishing to sell alcohol come to the voters for approval. We are also within our rights to negotiate with retailers to use cash registers that won't ring up alcohol purchases without scanning an official ID. We are also within our rights to negotiate with retailers not to display alcohol signs outside their store.
Regulation is one prong of a necessarily multi-pronged approach to this national crisis. Regulation is for the purpose of public safety and public health.There is no lethal or potentially lethal item in our country that is without regulation .... except for the most directly lethal of all: guns.
4
I'm grateful you were able to get through the editorial and eloquently reduce it's rhetoric so precisely. I developed a decidedly unpleasant taste of bile after the first paragraph. After the second, I had indigestion. The mis-characterization of the technical aspects/capabilities of these weapons, coupled with phrasing like "butcher's toll" and "lurid looking" would normally be an embarrassment for a serious journalistic enterprise. That's why the Times usually leaves the "gotcha" headlines and lurid photos to others. I'd take your example about vodka a bit further, it's like banning decorative stirrers and little pink umbrellas. I have an old red stirrer from Anthony's Pier 4 in Boston, with an excellent rendition of a lobster on the business end, you'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers. But, I digress.
There are very few handguns that fire rifle ammo. There's one or two that will fire a small (410 gauge) shotgun shell. Any of these rare firearms will knock you on your kiester, and are in most cases totally useless. To conflate them with concealed carry permits, and suggest they are abundant in the field is beyond irresponsible, it's patently false, and the editorial board knows it. Claiming they don't put's them on the same level as infotainment tabloid rags like The Enquirer. Will we soon be reading about aliens, Elvis and movie stars' affairs on these pages? And how many teens own Barrett M82 .50s? You can buy 4 DJI drones for that kind of money. Horse hockey!.
There are very few handguns that fire rifle ammo. There's one or two that will fire a small (410 gauge) shotgun shell. Any of these rare firearms will knock you on your kiester, and are in most cases totally useless. To conflate them with concealed carry permits, and suggest they are abundant in the field is beyond irresponsible, it's patently false, and the editorial board knows it. Claiming they don't put's them on the same level as infotainment tabloid rags like The Enquirer. Will we soon be reading about aliens, Elvis and movie stars' affairs on these pages? And how many teens own Barrett M82 .50s? You can buy 4 DJI drones for that kind of money. Horse hockey!.
3
The problem is that the gun fanatics see every public massacre on our USA domestic battlefield as further proof that we need more not less guns. They sell this as protecting ourselves against the crazies out there. How do you fight that? It’s a vicious cycle.
Others are more clear eyed, and so revolted by our death and destruction they realize that guns are The problem. They acknowledge cause and effect. People in all countries can have the same mental illnesses and hostile urges. But where they have sane gun regulation, their deaths are a fraction of ours, per population.
For 1 thing, they don’t have the constant, detailed, graphic media publicity on each killing, with all the facts about the shooters and victims, the press conferences, day after day. This can motivate unhinged minds. And they know it’s easy to get the weapon they want.
Now it seems sheriffs are urging the public to arm, to counter any threats or 'civil unrest'.
We need more media testimony from actual people, abroad, living with strict gun laws. Like Australia and Scotland, whose changes in gun laws are described in 2 recent articles. Interesting quotes.
We need more quotes from American gun owners and NRA members who agree with the Times editorial. Look at the polls.
Others are more clear eyed, and so revolted by our death and destruction they realize that guns are The problem. They acknowledge cause and effect. People in all countries can have the same mental illnesses and hostile urges. But where they have sane gun regulation, their deaths are a fraction of ours, per population.
For 1 thing, they don’t have the constant, detailed, graphic media publicity on each killing, with all the facts about the shooters and victims, the press conferences, day after day. This can motivate unhinged minds. And they know it’s easy to get the weapon they want.
Now it seems sheriffs are urging the public to arm, to counter any threats or 'civil unrest'.
We need more media testimony from actual people, abroad, living with strict gun laws. Like Australia and Scotland, whose changes in gun laws are described in 2 recent articles. Interesting quotes.
We need more quotes from American gun owners and NRA members who agree with the Times editorial. Look at the polls.
109
Meredith, First, since we have the second amendment of the constitution, it has allowed a large number of guns to be imported and manufactured here in the US, so it is much harder to get rid of any guns that are already here. Furthermore just because guns are banned, doesn't mean that the criminals will give them up. If you ban guns, only criminals and police/military will have them, and that is not what most people want. The reason so many mass shootings are happening is partly due to all the "Gun Free" zones that people have dreamed up. This is because the law abiding citizen will not take a gun into a gun free zone, but criminals will TARGET these areas as target rich environments. This is why you often see the argument that only good people having guns will stop criminals from killing people. Because criminals will avoid areas where people are armed, unless they just have a death wish.
11
As long as there are profits, rational quotes and ideas mean nothing. The horse has left the barn and we reap what we have sown.
1
Meredith, I do agree with you in principle. However, I'm dismayed to read that sheriffs may be "urging the public to arm" and wonder where you read or heard about that. One of the few comforts that I take these days in knowing that the law enforcement profession supports gun regulations and gun control measures, and that they do not support concealed carry and that they want more, not less, firearms training for people who wish to obtain a license. I do hope this is one isolated sheriff and that perhaps some of his or her colleagues can help stop such irresponsible talk.
3
The Executive Director of the NRA, Wayne La Pierre, Old Blood, Guts and Dead School Children drew #92 in the Viet Nam draft lottery, a one way ticket to basic training. So, this red blooded, macho, staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment got a doctors excuse to get himself exempted from the draft. Like fellow warmongering republicans Trump, bone spur, Rush Limbaugh, anal cyst, Pat Buchanan, bad knees, Ted Nugent, physically unfit.
La Pierre was exempted for an anxiety disorder.
Lil Wayne, you see, was positively anxious about the possibility of being shot.
La Pierre was exempted for an anxiety disorder.
Lil Wayne, you see, was positively anxious about the possibility of being shot.
234
Mr. LaPierre, whom I would probably dislike if I met him personally, is not an advocate of war and violence (unlike fellow draft dodgers, like Messrs. Bush and Cheney), but of the preservation of our civil rights.
Had the director of the ACLU avoided the draft in Vietnam (and perhaps he did. I don't know), would you be criticizing him in this way?
Regardless, Mr. LaPierre's draft status half a century ago is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and your bringing it up only indicates that you have no real argument.
Had the director of the ACLU avoided the draft in Vietnam (and perhaps he did. I don't know), would you be criticizing him in this way?
Regardless, Mr. LaPierre's draft status half a century ago is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and your bringing it up only indicates that you have no real argument.
4
Wayne is the executive VP. the ED position is held by either Chris Cox or Kyle Weaver, depending on where you're looking.
1
LaPierre and the other NRA executives make $8 million each year in their salaries, bonuses, and benefits. They literally profit with each massacre, as do the gun manufacturers for whom they lobby. Blood money.
6
There is NO war! Why are the gunmakers making such enormous profits? Go look in the mirror.......
3
Gun makers war profiteering on the Home Front. Can the board explain following
Gun Imports 2010
Country Handguns Rifles Shotguns
Brazil 526,0111 46,241 169,136
Austria 431,118 2,759 497
Italy 129,509 16,393 139,181
Germany 230,477 38,847 2,364
Croatia 239,000
Turkey 24,443 400 122,721
Canada 6 159,953
Russia 1,050 90,854 3,709
Argentina 74,245
China 300 61,956
Romania 16,945 35,197
Japan 49,946 344
Philippines 44,626 2,050 1,139
This is a partial list
Total Handguns Rifles Shotguns
1,782,585 547,449 509,913
Can the board factually prove to me what US companies profited from the importing of these weapons? We're these countries contributing to war profiteering and if so what proof do you have?
According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report Homicides Table 1 the number of homicides have dropped from 16,528 in 2003 to 11,691 in 2014 That is a drop of 4,827
Table 20 Weapons show that the number of gun related homicides dropped from 10,190 in 2006 to 8,109 in 2014 That is a difference of 2,081
Does the board believe that writing endless columns are going to change the facts? Apparently so. The facts don't lie. Too bad they refuse to address them
Gun Imports 2010
Country Handguns Rifles Shotguns
Brazil 526,0111 46,241 169,136
Austria 431,118 2,759 497
Italy 129,509 16,393 139,181
Germany 230,477 38,847 2,364
Croatia 239,000
Turkey 24,443 400 122,721
Canada 6 159,953
Russia 1,050 90,854 3,709
Argentina 74,245
China 300 61,956
Romania 16,945 35,197
Japan 49,946 344
Philippines 44,626 2,050 1,139
This is a partial list
Total Handguns Rifles Shotguns
1,782,585 547,449 509,913
Can the board factually prove to me what US companies profited from the importing of these weapons? We're these countries contributing to war profiteering and if so what proof do you have?
According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report Homicides Table 1 the number of homicides have dropped from 16,528 in 2003 to 11,691 in 2014 That is a drop of 4,827
Table 20 Weapons show that the number of gun related homicides dropped from 10,190 in 2006 to 8,109 in 2014 That is a difference of 2,081
Does the board believe that writing endless columns are going to change the facts? Apparently so. The facts don't lie. Too bad they refuse to address them
11
I'm certainly interested in the data you've shared, and they give rise to several questions:
1. What is the source the list you quote?
2. What is the country of manufacture for the imported weapons? Just because they were imported from those countries doesn't equate to having been manufactured there.
3. Who imported the weapons? Were they imported by private individuals or corporations? If by corporations, who are those corporations? Were they imported for resale to American consumers?
Please include all sources and contextual information when you cite data. Data points aren't facts without context.
1. What is the source the list you quote?
2. What is the country of manufacture for the imported weapons? Just because they were imported from those countries doesn't equate to having been manufactured there.
3. Who imported the weapons? Were they imported by private individuals or corporations? If by corporations, who are those corporations? Were they imported for resale to American consumers?
Please include all sources and contextual information when you cite data. Data points aren't facts without context.
2
When the American people (in their search for candidates for public office that pass various 'litmus tests') start including the refusal to take money from the gun industry or the various groups allied with that industry as one of those 'litmus tests', they will finally get legislators and a judiciary that put an end to this uniquely American phenomenon. In Canada (where hunting guns are common) no firearm can a have a magazine with more then 5 bullets and hand-guns are virtually unknown and we don't suffer mass shootings. Is that really just a coincidence?
138
Umm, according to the Ontario CFO, there are more than 250,000 legally owned Restricted and Prohibited firearms in Ontario. Definitely not "virtually unknown".
4
Very true but, by law, those guns may only be discharged at approved firing ranges, may only be owned by those whose gun permits specifically allow them to do so, must be transported in lock boxes directly to said ranges and then directly home (no stopping at Tim Hortons for coffee!), must be stored in approved gun lockers, etc. The end result remains- we don't suffer the epidemic that our neighbours to the south live with.
3
"When the American people... start including the refusal to take money from the gun industry... as one of those 'litmus tests', they will finally get legislators and a judiciary that put an end to this uniquely American phenomenon."
When the American people no longer care about their Constitutionally protected rights, that may happen, but they won't allow it to happen any time soon.
When the American people no longer care about their Constitutionally protected rights, that may happen, but they won't allow it to happen any time soon.
1
This article is way off the mark in understanding how the majority of Americans feel about guns. Guns are being bought at a high rate because people feel their constitutional right to buy them may be taken away and because they are sensing more and more they might need them.
Numerous law enforcement officials have acknowledged that officers can not be there when most life threatening events occur. People are ultimately responsible for their own safety and well being. Guns are used between 1 and 2.5 million times a year to thwart potentially deadly and injurious situations.
We have many well trained people in America who are capable of carrying concealed weapons and using them if needed. Education and being prepared is a better solution than only letting the bad guys have guns.
Please note: Only drug dealers and hardcore criminals have assault weapons. Assault weapons were banned years ago. The guns sold today need one squeeze per shot. There are a lot of guns made to look like assault weapons but they are not.
Numerous law enforcement officials have acknowledged that officers can not be there when most life threatening events occur. People are ultimately responsible for their own safety and well being. Guns are used between 1 and 2.5 million times a year to thwart potentially deadly and injurious situations.
We have many well trained people in America who are capable of carrying concealed weapons and using them if needed. Education and being prepared is a better solution than only letting the bad guys have guns.
Please note: Only drug dealers and hardcore criminals have assault weapons. Assault weapons were banned years ago. The guns sold today need one squeeze per shot. There are a lot of guns made to look like assault weapons but they are not.
18
"Guns are used between 1 and 2.5 million times a year to thwart potentially deadly and injurious situations."
Do you have a reliable source for that statistics?
Do you have a reliable source for that statistics?
69
No. The NRA has ginned up its sychophants to write the posts on this thread. We armed to the teeth, have more homegrown gun violence than any other developed nation, and the NRA supporters are hysterical at the thought of more regulation. That's pathetic!
61
One of the follow-up activities of Sandy Hook was a study on firearms violence. The report stems from executive orders issued by President Obama in January 2013 directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of the causes of firearm violence, interventions that might prevent it, and strategies to minimize its public health burden. One of the items mentioned in the study were defensive gun uses.
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).
3
"These are spreading powerful semiautomatic pistols with the firepower of rifles through the civilian population"
Holy Smoke! and Mirrors!
Seriously, If you're going to do an editorial as least get some BASIC facts correct. NO pistol has the "firepower" of a center-fire rifle PERIOD!
This is what people who believe in the right of self defense truly despise about the Gun Grabbers - The don't know what they're talking about!
What the Times and the rest of the gun grabbers fail to comprehend is that the RIGHT of SELF Defense is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT! The Second Amendment does nothing more than guarantee the the Government can not take that right away from it's Citizens.
Gun Grabbers have been screaming for years about "the out of control gun violence in America" What they never seem to mention is that gun related homicides have dropped precipitously in the last 25 years.
Rifles Homicides? Well if you read the NY Times you would think thousands are being killed each year. NOT the case.
Last year Hands and Feet and Fists committed over twice as many homicides as rifles!
The number homicides committed with a rifle have been dropping for years
2010 -367 Homicides with a Rifle
2014 -248 Homicides with a Rifle
That's a 35% decrease in 4 years
2014 Hands Feet Fist accounted for 660 murders
If you want to have a real effect on the murder rate you should seek to ban Hands, Feet and Fists. Cut that rate in half and you still wont be below the Rifle rate!
Holy Smoke! and Mirrors!
Seriously, If you're going to do an editorial as least get some BASIC facts correct. NO pistol has the "firepower" of a center-fire rifle PERIOD!
This is what people who believe in the right of self defense truly despise about the Gun Grabbers - The don't know what they're talking about!
What the Times and the rest of the gun grabbers fail to comprehend is that the RIGHT of SELF Defense is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT! The Second Amendment does nothing more than guarantee the the Government can not take that right away from it's Citizens.
Gun Grabbers have been screaming for years about "the out of control gun violence in America" What they never seem to mention is that gun related homicides have dropped precipitously in the last 25 years.
Rifles Homicides? Well if you read the NY Times you would think thousands are being killed each year. NOT the case.
Last year Hands and Feet and Fists committed over twice as many homicides as rifles!
The number homicides committed with a rifle have been dropping for years
2010 -367 Homicides with a Rifle
2014 -248 Homicides with a Rifle
That's a 35% decrease in 4 years
2014 Hands Feet Fist accounted for 660 murders
If you want to have a real effect on the murder rate you should seek to ban Hands, Feet and Fists. Cut that rate in half and you still wont be below the Rifle rate!
19
What is the murder rate with hand guns.
Why did you omit that statistic from your argument/
Why did you omit that statistic from your argument/
18
You have a point that the number of homicides by rifle is not very high. But compare the number of unarmed homicides with the number of homicides by handguns (according to FBI statistics https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the... you see why the US homicide rates are extreme in comparison to countries with well-regulated laws concerning weapons.
16
Like homicides with rifles, murders with handguns have also have also declined. Note FBI statistics below:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the...
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the...
6
Of course this proposal makes sense and is actually a conservative beginning on changing a violent gun culture into a return to civilization.
America's aggressive form of capitalism has wrested control of politicians to achieve this level of gun sales. With terrorism frightening citizens, it will be even harder to obtain gun control.
Would that Americans will finally take a serious look at Senator Bernie Sanders proposal of balance between capitalism and social democracy.
America's aggressive form of capitalism has wrested control of politicians to achieve this level of gun sales. With terrorism frightening citizens, it will be even harder to obtain gun control.
Would that Americans will finally take a serious look at Senator Bernie Sanders proposal of balance between capitalism and social democracy.
66
Excellent lead editorial, Board. A telling quote: “Assault weapons were banned for 10 years until Congress, in bipartisan obeisance to the gun lobby, let the law lapse in 2004.”
Presidential leadership is needed now on how to reduce gun violence, since Congress has decided not to act on this issue. We simply cannot just let this threat to our safety continue on as we sit idly by.
President Obama should quickly form a panel of experts, covering both sides of gun control and other aspects of firearms protection, and task them to quickly develop recommendations for reasonable actions that should be taken quickly to reduce gun violence. Then the President must act on these recommendations - he and his task force should work long hours with Congress to change laws as may be required, work with state governments and others to implement these and other recommendations at the state level, and implement executive orders as appropriate.
Regarding federal legislation, the President must exert maximum pressure on the Senate and House leadership to bring proposed legislation from this task force to vote. Senators and Congressmen must have a voting record on the legislation so that voters can shine light on these records during election seasons.
Presidential leadership is needed now on how to reduce gun violence, since Congress has decided not to act on this issue. We simply cannot just let this threat to our safety continue on as we sit idly by.
President Obama should quickly form a panel of experts, covering both sides of gun control and other aspects of firearms protection, and task them to quickly develop recommendations for reasonable actions that should be taken quickly to reduce gun violence. Then the President must act on these recommendations - he and his task force should work long hours with Congress to change laws as may be required, work with state governments and others to implement these and other recommendations at the state level, and implement executive orders as appropriate.
Regarding federal legislation, the President must exert maximum pressure on the Senate and House leadership to bring proposed legislation from this task force to vote. Senators and Congressmen must have a voting record on the legislation so that voters can shine light on these records during election seasons.
14
How to reduce gun violence.
1 Follow all current gun laws on the books.
2 Increase prison times for violent offenders in possession of firearms to LIFE without parole.
3 Discontinue gun free zones except in Bars and churches ( churches would be up to the pastor/father etc to decide if they wish to allow guns or not).
4 Get rid of gun bans in cities and states, as they do no good anyway.
Just these 4 steps alone will go a long way to restoring safety to the public
1 Follow all current gun laws on the books.
2 Increase prison times for violent offenders in possession of firearms to LIFE without parole.
3 Discontinue gun free zones except in Bars and churches ( churches would be up to the pastor/father etc to decide if they wish to allow guns or not).
4 Get rid of gun bans in cities and states, as they do no good anyway.
Just these 4 steps alone will go a long way to restoring safety to the public
2
One of the follow-up activities of Sandy Hook was a study on firearms violence. The report stems from executive orders issued by President Obama in January 2013 directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of the causes of firearm violence, interventions that might prevent it, and strategies to minimize its public health burden. One of the items mentioned in the study were defensive gun uses.
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#31
According to the Congressional Research Service, public mass shootings “have claimed 547 lives and led to an additional 476 injured victims” since 1983. Mass shootings are a highly visible and moving tragedy, but represent only a small fraction of total firearm-related violence. Although it may seem that protection against such an event is nearly impossible, proactive law enforcement activities, including community policing and intelligence-led policing, may help prevent some mass shootings . Analyzing the details of a prevented event against those of a realized event might provide guidance to schools and other locations with large groups of people about efficient and effective ways to avoid such an event. Proactive mental health risk assessment and interventions may also prevent some mass shootings. It is also apparent that some mass murder incidents are associated with suicides. However, the characteristics of suicides associated with mass murders are not understood.
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#31
According to the Congressional Research Service, public mass shootings “have claimed 547 lives and led to an additional 476 injured victims” since 1983. Mass shootings are a highly visible and moving tragedy, but represent only a small fraction of total firearm-related violence. Although it may seem that protection against such an event is nearly impossible, proactive law enforcement activities, including community policing and intelligence-led policing, may help prevent some mass shootings . Analyzing the details of a prevented event against those of a realized event might provide guidance to schools and other locations with large groups of people about efficient and effective ways to avoid such an event. Proactive mental health risk assessment and interventions may also prevent some mass shootings. It is also apparent that some mass murder incidents are associated with suicides. However, the characteristics of suicides associated with mass murders are not understood.
1
Gun deaths are on track to surpass auto-related deaths for the first time this year and you are calling for more studies?
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killi...
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killi...
1
CIA's (a certain irony there) guns wound up with the contras in Nicaragua and the mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupation. CIA is owned by a Canadian family. Just thought this might be an interesting FYI.