The present gun culture of 2nd Amendment nuts who translate it to mean that every citizen has a right to own a gun no matter their stability is leading us to all out war with ourselves. It is no longer the right that matters, but the offensive against the "liberals who want to take our guns away." There is no rationale for that argument. The owning of guns without the laws to regulate that which kills will in effect affect us all at one time in our lives. Someone will be taken from us for no fault of theirs. And it seems odd that many of these same self-entitled gun owners don't balk at renewing their driver's licenses in order to legally drive a potential killing machine to work or take their kids to school. They don't fear their cars being taken away from them as they fill out the form and pay their fee. Their argument is not about guns. Their argument is a childish need to win one against the government and against the "libtards."
7
Since when is "driving" a right protected by the constitution?
2
The Second Amendment has outlived its purpose. Good people and children are dying. Families of our police force, our state patrols, first-responders, our sheriffs and their deputies, our military forces, our volunteer forces are grieving a huge amount of losses associated with gun ownership, violence and senseless killing. The Second Amendment is out-dated. Is it time to rewrite it?
3
Ask my Mother-in-law, a Holocaust Survivor who lost her Mother, Father, Aunts, Uncles and Cousins what happened BEFORE her relatives turned to ash. Hitler instituted sweeping Gun Control measures for “Safety” for the Jews, it was a death blow. Firearms crimes are not prosecuted to the extent they need to be, and as such we have the porous justice system we have today. Gun “culture” is really about familiarity with weapons. The effete left rarely is represented in the military, and they are not rural folk, by and large, accordingly, guns are scary things owned by others.
1
"Is it time to rewrite it?" - NO! It is time to enforce the amendment on the states that think that they can make laws that "infringe" on basic human right of self defense.
Since we know that an armed citizen prevent 2 to 5 million violent crimes every year, it is time to have more armed citizens that are not criminals. Gun Control merely insures that fewer guns will be in the hands of the good guys and more guns will be in the hands of the violent criminals.
1
A piece about guns and gun control, in the NYT Business section, and not a mention of $$ (except that of the NRA lobby). No tally of the enormous profits reaped by the civilian sales of these WMDs.
US Congressional action on gun control is a distant dream. In fact, in these United States, money, and only money talks. Dead babies, moms, dads? Not so much.
I propose that we BOYCOTT gun-source states, that we use the power of our purses and help people of good will in those states to push their state legislatures toward sane gun control legislation.
Don’t vacation/hold conferences/invest in states with a Giffords Law Center Score of worse than C. And be very vocal about WHY you’re not spending your money there. Loss of revenue is a powerful motivator.
In Arizona and again in Virginia, anti LGBT legislation was defeated by organized action aimed at emphasizing what these states had to lose financially by passing bigoted laws. The NFL got on board.
Money talks. Forget Congress: their ears are stuffed with NRA dollars. Target the states.
4
I see you are in Massachusetts. Where do you think those Springfield Rifles are manufactured?
3
CJSCOTUS Burger. MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word 'fraud'—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
4
As everyone knows, guns don't kill people. Idiots with guns kill people. So let's get rid of the idiots. Feel free to identify yourselves.
We have gun control today. Not as comprehensive as it could be, but then we all know why. Congress won't write a simple bill that only addresses common sense gun control, they just will not. The far left, as most of us know, wants to eliminate guns completely. A non-starter in the US. The far right wants to keep guns legal and in the hands of all under the pretense that the government is going to come get you and you need defense. Somewhere in the middle is where most sit - common sense gun control. Why does Congress on both sides continue to embrace the extremes? Yes, you'll lose votes from the extremists if you don't do 100% of their bidding, but that shouldn't stop you. Politicians have become a rabid bunch.
PS The NYTimes has become far left, wants guns outlawed, and will continue to print articles to that end; just as they do on open borders. Please, call them on it so that we can get a once good paper back?
2
There was politricks involved in the defeat of Mr. Toomey's legislation re: universal background checks. On the one hand, even the NRA didn't oppose expanded checks. What they DID oppose was forcing all gun sales through FFL dealers. Such a move would add a defacto TAX to all private sales, since these dealers won't work for free. This is unfair and, to the NRA and other rational people, a non-starter. A proposal to beef up the NICS system, put it online and allow ANY seller free access was nixed. Why? Because it would not price out those of lesser means, who are often the people who need self-defense more than any other group! Yet this is STILL a possibility, and one that, if no registry is created in the process, would likely gain support of the NRA and NSSF.
1
The reach of the gun lobby is great. Steve Sanetti, the CEO of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and former Ruger executive, is quoted in this article as saying, "You give people who are truly anti-gun an inch, and they'll take a mile" Since the public partnership between NSSF and the American Foundation to Prevent Suicide (AFSP) was announced two years ago, many survivors of suicide loss who raise money for AFSP are finding our voices are being silenced regarding our support for more gun violence prevention legislation as well as research on this topic. More than 23,000 people in the U.S. each year die by firearm suicide; they are our loved ones and we need courageous leadership to stop the easy access to guns that make these deaths even more senseless than they already are.
3
The problem is this: who can predict who will become suicidal? And how reliable is that prediction? It must be 100% in order to come in and seize someone's property (i.e. their firearms). And that is the thing: most guns used in suicides are, on average, six or more years old. The "easy access" you speak of isn't the gun shop, but the gun safe in the home. And even if it weren't, how do you propose that a gun seller divine that someone is going to take his or her purchase home and kill themselves? What barrier could we erect, legally, that would filter out suicidal people without infringing on everyone else who is legally buying a firearm? There's no "gun control button" to press to magically make these problems disappear. If it was easy, we'd have done it a long time ago.
2
A GOP-led Congress won’t debate solutions to gun violence on the Senate or House floor. The NRA and guns rights lobbyists demand inaction and pay Congress for its silence. Since Congress won’t discuss improving public safety, here’s an idea to consider in this comment section.
Gun ownership should parallel car ownership. Americans register cars, must pass a licensing test and owners of fast, expensive cars with poor driving records pay larger liability premiums compared to careful commuters in subcompacts. Defensive driving courses reduce an individual’s insurance premium.
A gun owner should pass a basic competency test to receive a gun license. Owners should register guns at the County Clerk’s office. Gun owners should carry liability insurance with premium costs based on market factors. Low risk entitles low cost with higher risks costing more. Risk factors being an owner's age, safety record, type of gun(s) owned and conditions of use. Costs could be reduced through additional, regular safety training.
Guns rights lobbyists foster falsehoods like “government will take your guns if there’s a database” and “more guns makes everyone safer”. The 2nd Amendment states "well-regulated" for valid reason but the pro-gun lobby ignores discussion of that part of the 2nd Amendment.
Denying any and all gun regulation to improve public safety, and open discussion by Congressional representatives, sadly buries our your proverbial head in the sand.
2
"Guns rights lobbyists foster falsehoods like “government will take your guns if there’s a database”"
What else would such a database be useful for?
4
You ask a question and I answer with a question? Should drivers of cars also go unlicensed? Would you allow your child to drive on a road with unlicensed drivers...or any loved one? Only the criminal mind fears the licensing of guns.
2
“You give people who are truly anti-gun an inch, and they’ll take a mile,” Stephen L. Sanetti, a former Ruger executive, " sounds like it's right out of the NRA playbook... what does it even mean? other than it's a good bumper sticker
1
No one hunts with a sem-automatic rifle.
No one hunts with a sem-automatic pistol.
Sem-auto weapons were developed for military use to kill as many enemy combatants (other people) as fast as possible.
Enough said.
8
I hunt with semi auto's and know many others that do too. It improves the experience and lets you tag your daily limit for overpopulation reasons if you choose to. You should try it some time. Not trying to start an argument.
2
One of the most popular hunting rifles in Michigan was the Model 81 Semi Auto “Brush Gun”
It went on sale in the early 1930’s
Hunt much ?
2
Except it's not true. I hunt with both.
2
Perhaps if more gun-manufacturers were observers of people instead of corporate gains or worship at the altar of NRA, many families would still have their children who might have lived full, fruitful lives. That our country defines "manly" to be armed, are willing participants in the profits gleaned on movies filled with killing machines, and pervert the noble desires of our forefathers in order to "protect our rights" (however misinterpreted they are), is a direct path to the governmental mayhem we are now experiencing.
Perhaps, before we became such a mobile and global society, many of us perceived our nation as great. Yes, there were issues. Yes, discrimination was as bad as the purges in third world countries. Yes, women's roles were defined by an apron. But we weren't killing each other at the rate that we are today.
I was recently burglarized while at home. My grown children suggested two things...move to a retirement community, and buy a gun. Really? A home intruder wouldn't have to be very strong to take it away and use it on me. I did own a gun once. It was stolen while I was across the country at a business meeting. It has never been recovered, which leads me to suspect it is still in the hands of a past or would-be perpetrator of a crime.
Thank you NYT, for this article. Wish that guns were still only in the hands of the police. Even with the unqualified shootings of young black men, would they have been shot if it was not possible they had weapons as well?
4
How much did it cost to get Steve Scalise back to work after he was shot?
Maybe the NRA would like to pay for injuries caused by assault weapons
and high capacity magazines owned and designed to kill.
4
If we just stayed in the British Empire, we be so better off.
1
In hwhat formal colony do you reside in?
Guns didn't break society. Leftist nihilism broke society. We don't have a gun problem. We have a culture problem.
There was a time in this country when a boy would get a rifle at 12-13 years of age and never use it to kill people.
In 1973, at 16 years of age, I would hop on an L.A. city bus with my .303 British Enfield and an ammo box to go to the range. I'd make two bus transfers. No one batted an eye. The extent of any conversion was the bus driver or passenger asking me about my rifle and whether or not I was any good with it.
10
Would you want to live in a city with 10,000 teenagers riding the bus displaying their rifles?
6
No ... not because of the weapons, but because of the culture/mentality of those teenagers.
It isn't a shift in the weapon, but rather a shift in society's mores and willingness to inflict pain with whatever weapon is at hand ... physically or emotionally.
3
Never forget the personal responsibility in designing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling guns.
3
We are so far past the point of return we can’t see where we started. It’s too late. Too many guns, too many believers. If Sandy Hook couldn’t change things, nothing will. By the way, would someone ask the newly esteemed (compared to Trump) whether W Bush whether he regrets not extending the ban in 2004.
2
More dribble from the left -Bush and Trump are responsible, not the people who commit these horrors !
3
The NRA is a terrorist organization that is funded by foreign powers and weapons manufacturers that want to create chaos in the US. They are succeeding.
12
Ruger was an ass, and "gun control" is useless Fascism.
2
We have clearly shown that we are not mature enough as a society to have guns. Other nations that have much tougher gun laws than us also have a lower crime rate, fewer deaths and seem to be as free or perhaps more so, if current trends continue.
I do not propose to confiscate guns, that is a good way to get a lot of honorable police killed. Instead I would bad the manufacture, sale, importation, trading, and possession of ammunition. That would include the bullets, gun powder, casings, tools, chemicals, reloading equipment and all intermediates for producing and reloading ammunition. I would convert guns in a few years to expensive bricks. I would make the penalties for selling ammunition and banned products draconian, so no business would risk it. Committing a crime using a gun would be evidence to allow a search of that person's home for ammunition, with appropriate penalties.
There would be a decade or more of court fights and eventually a Supreme Court case over this, but we must change what we are doing. We are slaughtering ourselves and it is stupid to keep doing so. As of today there have been 1,605 gun deaths in the US and 26 mass shootings and it is only Feb. 9th; for the love of god and ourselves, STOP!
5
I have rounds that are almost100 years old, and have thousands of rounds that are 70 years old. You do realize that they don't have a shelf life. I could come to your house and acquire the tools to reload rounds, what should your punishment be?
The problem with the debate about gun control is that the arguments may mention the second amendment (SA), but do not talk about anything in the SA, or the militia acts (MAs) that were written to help define the SA. The SA is quite clear. The people (which is every able bodied man as per the MAs) are to keep a military rifle with them, and be trained in how to use it (it used to be that they were supposed to bring the rifle with them to training conducted by officers of the company, but the MA of 1903 defined everyone not in the National Guard as the unorganized militia, and therefore, responsible for there own training). Hunting does not have anything to do with the SA, self-defense directly does not (indirectly I think it does). And the one fault that the MAs had was the sexist and at times racist nature of the language. Women are just as capable as men at learning to shoot a rifle.
Every able bodied man and women should possess a current technology service rifle and sidearm, be trained in how to use those, and be able to carry those firearms. While all gun regulation is not necessarily unconstitutional, any regulation which would prohibit, or restrict the above is. My suggestion to people who want gun control would be to work with people on the other side of the debate to figure out a system that screens dangerous people from having firearms, while keeping a civilian militia (every able bodied individual), as intended by the SA.
2
Reese: I suggest that you read the Heller decision by the SCOTUS regarding limitations on the second amendment. I don't want to live in a country that is awash in guns. This is my country too. I should be able to attend movies and concerts without worry of a mass shooting. How could "working with people from the other side to screen people" have prevented the man in Las Vegas from picking off concert goers below? In hindsight, he seemed like a reasonable person. His bump stock and arsenal of guns allowed him to carry out the assault just because he could. When people go searching for other reasons for this sort of crime, it is pointless. We are a gun crazy culture and my ability to pursue happiness is limited by this love affair.
2
Maureen:
-I have read Heller, "common use" is the operative word. Scalia himself and Thomas wrote that lower courts were misusing his words to justify assault weapons bans. A weapon possessed by every able bodied individual is by definition in common use.
-The justice department in this country needs to be reigned in. There is too much judicial activism. The constitution is the highest law in the land, and is what we need to go by.
-The best way to have prevented Las Vegas was to have the hotel security be armed, or have sniper teams. Las Vegas learned from its mistake for the New Years celebration.
-I have never seen any gun violence study that was able to show that any gun control resulted in a decrease in the rates of murder, rape, or assault. The assault weapons ban definitely did not do anything, so I'm curious as to why you seem to think doing so again would make your life any more safe.
-"Your rights end where mine begin" is the old saying. If my rights have to go away because they are interfering with yours, then logically, your rights are interfering with mine. It's a two way street, and this is ALSO my country.
-No system created by humans will be perfect. Perhaps every endeavor is pointless, but I would be willing to look at enhanced screening. What I am sure of, is that further restrictions on my rights will not make me or my family any safer.
1
William Ruger's position is neither surprising nor should it have been unusual. Mr. Ruger was a decent man who had abundant reserves of common sense. I am a sportsman and hunter who owns fifteen firearms, all shotguns for bird hunting. While I believe that the Second Amendment grants Americans the right to possess and own firearms, the NRA and other organizations have wrongfully argued an absolutist argument that the Constitution prohibits nearly any gun regulation. Unfortunately such arguments have successfully skewed the debate to the point where Congress regards any sensible gun regulation as a third rail of politics. There is no need for folks to possess bump stocks that permit rapid firing of rifles, armor piercing bullets or large magazines. You cannot use such products to hunt game. And if you are at a rifle range, you don't need a large magazine where you can take your time to reload a weapon. Even personal defense does not require such products. If you had to shoot a burglar, one or two shots will effectively dispatch the idiot; you don't need a twenty shot magazine. If such products are prohibited, there will be no attempt to seize rifles, handguns or shotguns from the public.
7
The fact is the 2nd amendment does pretty much prevent any gun regulations, as it's written. It wasn't written so people could hunt, but rather so people could take up arms to protect themselves or their country, or even to prevent their country from becoming tyrannical. I also own several weapons, mostly for hunting but a few for self-defense. I have no use for bump stocks, but the fact is, they were developed so some disabled people could shoot at a range. That's an interesting tidbit, yet one person has ruined it for those people. BTW, it is possible to achieve the same firing rate by simply using a belt loop. I also see no need for armor-piercing bullets, BUT what is the definition of an armor-piercing bullet? A few years ago, there was an attempt to ban a popular bullet that was widely used on gun ranges, claiming they were armor-piercing. As for personal defense, obviously, you know nothing about that. Police will often fire the full magazine, yet only hit a suspect once or twice. Sorry, but the larger the magazine, the better chance you have. At one time, I would have agreed with your comment, but I have studied it and found that large magazines are often the difference between life and death.
6
Please consider this counter argument to your mistaken belief that the core of the 2nd Amendment intended to facilitate citizens "taking up guns against a tyrannical government". While it's an arguable point, your conversation clearly parrots a Tea Party and pro-gun "Don't Tread On Me" attitude that because you carry a firearm you're somehow "more correct or right" in your belief. Obviously since you abhor tyranny you understand that might does not make right. As President Lincoln stated, the reverse is true; "Let us have faith that right makes might".
So my counter interpretation of the 2nd Amendment -
For certain purposes in early America, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, instead of having a full-time paid army, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.
This is why the term "well-regulated militia" is prominently stated in the 2nd Amendment. Sadly this is language and discussion there of is ignored by rabid pro-gun enthusiasts.
3
Money, jobs and "freedom" or child sacrifice, human misery and domestic terrorism? An easy choice in the USA.
As a CT resident, I am constantly reminded of my state's role in global, state-sanctioned mass murder and domestic terrorism. In the Civil War era, Connecticut was unironically called "the arsenal of democracy." Perverted then, perverted now.
Gun manufacturing has long factored bigly in Northeast economies. Indeed, the Springfield, MA, Armory is a National Historic Site. It operated 1777-1968, during which time the USA became the world's Top Gun Dealer. We remain the world's Genocide Kingpin: In 2016, the US was 11% ahead of 2nd place Russia (33% v. 22%). CT manufacturers include Colt (daily mass shootings in Vietnam 1964-1975), Mossberg (Salt Lake City '07), Remington (Sandy Hook), Stag, and Sturm Ruger (Sutherland Springs). Smith & Wesson (San Bernardino) is based in MA; Sig Sauer (Orlando) in NH.
This being America, everybody knows but does nothing. What our abdication of responsibility has produced are child sacrifice and human misery via domestic terrorism. It's a reverse lottery, which Republicans (see Scalise, Steve) are OK with since their base's potential ability to murder minorities and Democrats in a putative civil war is sacrosanct.
Last, it's worth pointing out one more time (if anyone's listening) that a major reason the GOP is fighting the Russia investigation is that the NRA laundered Russian campaign money, and GOP leaders were *all* in the know.
9
Ok, I'm listening. Now, provide the facts that back up your money laundering claim against the NRA.
4
Wow. Tell me more about how you'd like to control the lives of other people and substitute your values and limited experience for theirs.
Since you know what's best for everyone, why don't we make you king?
8
I think plenty of people are stepping up and carrying. Whether we'll achieve an effective density of carriers to suppress mass murder is unclear, but that is the way to quit abdicating our responsibility to be prepared, armed and ready at all times, in all places.
3
"The rate of homicides with guns in the United States is 16 times higher than it is in Germany, 6.6 times higher than it is in Canada and more than 30 times higher than in Australia or Britain, according to data collected by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime."
And the majority, often around 80%, are committed with handguns. But that doesn't stop the mantra of focusing on mass shootings with assault weapons, even though even the majority of those are also committed with handguns. More people are murdered each year with hands and feet than with rifles, of which assault weapons are a subset.
Looking at firearm homicides by county the top 24 of 25 counties were Democrat in the last election, looking at the top 50 46 were. Who makes Democrats buy guns? Who makes Democrats shoot people?
The NYT and other gun control advocates could gain some credibility and more support if they were more honest with their use of data and about their agenda.
8
Many gun enthusiasts, as myself, don't own or like weapons similar to ak-47 and ar-15s. My favorite big game rifle happens to be a single shot Ruger Model 1.
Many of us would support limitations noted by Mr Ruger but can not..because once private "assault weapons" are banned leftist will only feel empowered to go after traditional hunting ,sport shooting guns,revolvers ,or as in California ..restrict ALL ammo.
5
I owned and liked a Colt Match Target rifle (AR-15 with removable handle), but I became so disgusted with the NRA and American gun owners' near total ignorance of reality that I gave away my AR-15 and all of its accessories to a neighbor who is a policeman and all-around good guy, and this a responsible gun owner.
Since I could never verify that anyone I sold it to might not end up putting the AR-15 in the wrong hands, I put it on loan in the hands of someone I knew to be responsible until he could afford to pay me something for it, even though we disagree on the unique and dangerous problem that gun ownership presents in America.
2
Are we supposed to be impressed at your lack of confidence in your ability to not use a simple tool improperly? You don't sound like a rational OR capable adult.
4
Simple tool?
A pair of pliers is a simple tool.
A gun can be a deadly weapon, particularly one with a high capacity magazine modified with a bump stock, hell-fire or gat trigger.
Some people with guns kill many innocents and there are too mass shootings. If the pro-gun lobby won;t propose how to reduce the frequency of these events, then the availability of these types of weapons needs to be more strictly regulated. An angry person not being able to easily purchase a military grade weapon is less deadly. It's that simple really.
A useless "simple tool" argument.
An irresponsible person uses a firearm - - either recklessly or with malice - - to commit homicide(s), and the calls for universal disarmament - - mostly from people who dislike and want to blame the gun - - ring out.
An irresponsible person uses an automobile - - either recklessly or with malice - - to commit homicide(s), and the cry to ban automobiles is never heard.
It's easy to demand confiscation of someone else's property when one doesn't own or depend upon an item that one wishes the government to ban, and the loss of that item would't inconvenience or deprive one's self of the use of that property.
[W3]
8
True. However, you're missing the forest for the trees. While no one suggests banning automobiles, laws have been enacted to penalize drivers if (for instance) the driver was driving impaired, or caught numerous times breaking laws (speeding, running red lights, etc.) Most importantly, drivers must have licenses and insurance. I know of no one who wants to take your guns. However, like drivers of vehicles, I would love to see all gun owners required to carry insurance and pass rigorous tests proving their ability to handle a gun safely and licensed! You see, no ban on autos = no ban on guns. Just proof you've got insurance and a license.
3
Herein lies a fundamental problem that gun-control advocates face: The proposals suggested would do nothing. If Kelley didn't have "high capacity" magazines, he would have brought 20 or so 10-rounders. Switching out magazines takes less than 1 second. The time you save is negligible considering that he had at least 15 minutes in the church to do his evil.
It should be noted that "assault weapon bans" are really just cosmetic feature bans. You could still buy an AR15 during the 94 AWB, it just didn't have a telescoping stock or a flash hider. Likewise, only NEW high capacity magazines were banned during that time, there were still millions in circulation. Side note: Adam Lanza's Bushmaster was legally purchased despite CT having extended the 94 AQ ban within CT. AWs are banned in California, yet the #1 selling rifle here are AR pattern rifles.
And therein lies the 2nd fundamental problem with gun-control suggestions -- they're not grounded in reality. There's probably more than 20 million semi-auto rifles owned by civilians, and probably more than 200 million "high capacity" magazines of any sort. These items will last generations (I still shoot my 1890's bolt action rifle). You can't ban your way into safety. It's not possible.
If you want a better solution, consider community self-policing and responsibility. If the family members of Kelley were more involved in his mental state, perhaps they could have sought help before he started his killing spree.
3
I think the only reasonable solution in the U.S. is the Australian solution: ban private gun ownership except for carefully controlled purposes and confiscate guns that do not meet these controls. Australians used to have a high firearms homicide rate, but it's rate is now 30 times less than the U.S. That is reality.
Obviously, the Second Amendment would have to be curtailed by an abrogating Amendment in order to allow this to happen, and a lot of irrational folks would submit to such a change only with mortal violence. However, most of us would live far safer and more peaceful lives as a result.
This may never happen without a major social and political revolution, possibly one that threatens the very integrity of the USA. I wish it were not the case, because such an event would not occur without horrific death and damage ot our society. Our children and children's children and their children do not deserve that, but like the irresponsible tax bill that Republicans passed and our possibly criminal president signed, these children are already facing plenty of reasons to suffer far into the future.
3
The “Australian solution”. Sure, because nobody needs a blank firing starter pistol, a muzzleloader, or a cross bow unless they have a valid reason.
Hello Mr. Rose,
I just wanted to let you know that you are making an assumption by saying, "irrational folks would submit to a change only with mortal violence".
I most definitely would not submit to disarmament, even with the threat of mortal violence.
I can guess what you may be thinking, something along the lines of, "big dumb redneck is beating his chest pretending to be a big manly man", or something like, "he may say that now and then change his mind when it becomes too much of a reality".
Those are also dangerous assumptions, I do know the reality of seeing mortal violence. I am well aware of the pain, misery and tragedy of state sanctioned violence.
With that realization, I solemnly tell you again, I will not submit to disarmament, especially with the threat of mortal violence.
.....
Also, what has our republic come to when I am afraid to make this statement?
That I cannot express my opinion and what I value without repercussions?
4
The National Shooting Sports Foundation is not a lobby group. It's a manufacturer's trade association that employs a lobby group if they need one.
1
But the NRA's Institute for Lobbying Action, begun in 1975, certainly is and they pay lots of Congressional representatives to ignore gun violence and mass shootings so more guns can be sold.
Before 1975, when I was a kid in the Scouts, the NRA taught gun safety.
Now they are high paid lobbyists with little or no ethical or moral standards.
3
The NRA is not the NSSF and the NRA and the NSSF still teach gun safety, unlike those fake gun safety (gun control) organizations like "Everytown for Gun Safety" or Gabrielle Giffords "Americans for Responsible Solutions".
Look on their websites. You won't find any gun safety suggestions, guidelines or training there.
1
The NRA still teaches gun safety to scouts, adults, police officers etc. Go do your research before making false or incorrect statements.
On your second point, the NRA is an organization made up of over 5 million members, of which, I am one. By your statement, you have alleged that I have no morals or ethics. That is far from the truth in my case and that of all the other NRA members that I know personally. I have held a high-level national security clearance for over 30 years and have passed a polygraph test concerning my integrity, honesty, morals and ethics. Can you claim the same?!
Making a blanket statement about any organization is very prejudicial and narrow minded, and is the type of action that hinders a true dialogue about facts, myths, options, ideas, and alternatives. This is one of the primary reasons why those who support the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment do not trust those who continually press for more gun control measures - just because one doesn't want to own a firearm, doesn't make those who do ethically and moral deficient. Be careful not to tar yourself with the broad and accusatory brush you are swinging.
2
The 2018 elections bring a chance to reign in the NRA's power. Texas Rep. Lamar Smith (R), who heads the House Science and Technology Committee, is stepping down, and taking his climate-change-denying, Trump-supporting, anti-choice, anti-stem-cell-research, pro-gun beliefs with him. No longer will a devout Christian Scientist head a powerful House committee that helps shape medical and health policy. Gun control advocates should elect members of Congress who support development of biometric controls on guns--including smart gun R&D and mandatory retrofits of existing weapons with that technology when it's developed.
3
Yes, we need to elect people who actually know what they are governing. (btw, rein in, not reign in)
1
Bolt action rifles, shotguns and revolvers; ok. Anything else should be banned.
3
It's really that simple.
Bolt action rifles and shot guns are great for hunting.
Shotguns and revolvers are fine for home defense.
Carrying those or any guns into the public square because "you are afraid" is part of the nonsensical argument that "more guns makes everyone safer".
Life need not be a continuous Mexican standoff. If citizens are worried about crime or police response time, hire more law enforcement. Arming everyone is ludicrous.
7
Only if your idea of home defense is formed by movies and comic books.
Maybe you haven't noticed. The criminals have automatic and semiautomatic weapons.
2
Didn't you mistakenly suggest earlier that modified AR-15s and automatic weapons weren't used in mass shootings? Yet "the evil them", criminals and others you fear, all have automatic and semi-auto firearms?
So do gun companies make and sell these dangerous semi-automatic and modified semi-automatic weapons that "they", the "bad guys", all seem to easily acquire.
I wonder if there was a way to keep that from happening so easily or....
...everyone should own a semi-auto gun? Is this your solution?
Good for him. That is ethical, responsible, moral and compassionate entrepreneurism! I wish all makers of weapons felt that way and was willing to put his money where his mouth is. He is one in a million. No reason for laypeople, for example, to be able to buy AK-47s or have access to bump stocks. Common sense!
3
The NRA is Americas most sucessful special interest group.
2
Only because so many Americans support them
2
So if 80+% of NRA members want expanded background checks... is the NRA-ILA and it's millions in lobby money reflecting the wishes of those members or has the NRA sold its soul the gun industry?
2
80+%? Where are you getting these numbers? I am an NRA Life Member. No one has ever asked me where I stand on this as a member? I go to gun shows, I hang around in gun shops, I go shooting at gun clubs and public ranges. I have never heard any support for that position. Another lie from the anti-gun groups.
2
It's interesting that we can actually ban smoking but we cannot ban firearms. In fact, those who carry them, and there are many, are allowed open carry almost everywhere. What is wrong with this picture?
3
We have NOT banned smoking, we only limited the places where you can smoke, just like we limited the places you can carry a firearm. In addition , most states ban open carry.
Smoking is not an enumerated right guaranteed protection by OUR Constitution. I'm not sure that smoking ranks any higher than a privilege. The debate as to banning arms was settled 15 December 1791 with the ratification of the "Bill of Rights".
[W3]
5
The only thing wrong with that picture, is the restrictions still in place on the 2nd Amendment.
2
"Mr. Ruger once said that he was open even to waiting periods for handgun purchases. “If the truth be known, I see no real harm in the concept,” he said, but cautioned, 'The trouble is, where does it end?'
That's like saying, "I'm all for stop signs, but where does it end?" So, therefore we can't have stop signs. If ,"Where does it end?" is accepted as a valid argument against sensible gun laws, without which we plunge into a sort of libertarian anarchy, then the foundations of democracy and even civilization are truly at risk. We must not abrogate our obligation as responsible citizens while the forces of individual greed try to weaponize the 2nd amendment, with the vacuous, "Where does it end?" Not to do so "ends" with Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Southerland Texas , etc., etc., ad infinitum.
8
If you examine the motivations of these shooters most of them were inspired and agitated by liberal media reporting (agitation propaganda).
Some examples please?
With 345 mass shootings in America in 2017 alone you should have no trouble coming up with a dozen or so.
1
No. You do the research. You'll have to admit it then if you read it yourself.
Wonder how it feels working at a company that arms nut jobs to kill people in schools, churches, etc., all the while lobbying to make sure the killings can continue unabated. I guess they go to church and expect to get to heaven.
7
Our medical system kills 400,000 people a year. These are from preventable errors, not just people who were going to die anyway. Medical error is the third leading cause of death in the USA.
Now try your moralizing on that situation, including all of the drug manufacturers, nurses and doctors, hospitals, etc. who are responsible for those deaths.
4
Taking what you say at face value:
That is why there are so many regulations, licensing restrictions, educational requirements, and research into making the medical system safer.
Not only is the gun industry protected from all the regulations that the medical and automobile industries contend with but you can't even sue the gun industry.
Breakfast cereal is more tightly regulated.
1
There are more deaths from alcohol in the US than firearms. Why aren't we asking how it feels to work for a beer company? Simply because more people drink than use a gun. People need to attempt to see the other side of the argument. I do not drink, and never have. Yet I do not advocate for prohibition for two reasons: 1. I think people should have the right to consume alcohol if they want to; 2. We tried prohibition and it was just as ineffective as gun control is. What I do advocate for is harsh punishment for drinking and driving. Not being a drinker myself I do not have direct experience with drinking and driving but friends of mine who do drink say that pretty much everyone who drinks does drink and drive at some point. That leads me to the conclusion that all of the law abiding shooters that I know of are far more responsible with firearms than most people are with alcohol. We need to get the focus back on the problem: people who defy the law and do horrible things whether that be killing someone in a drunk driving accident or shooting them with a firearm. All this discussion of limiting our rights to solve the problem is just a distraction.
1
1. Universal background checks.
2. Ban on semiautomatic rifles with removable magazine.
3. A 'cool down' period of 1 day to a few weeks.
These are the gun control measures that make sense. Ruger probably was for a ban on 'high capacity' magazines because he was the gun maker, not the magazine manufacturer. The magazine ban is useless chum for arguments and solves nothing.
6
"2. Ban on semiautomatic rifles with removable magazine."
Do you have any idea how many are out there? The Federal government has sold a few million to civilians, not to mention companies like Remington. They have made hundreds of thousands of semi auto rifles starting in 1955. How do you plan to locate these millions of firearms and take possession of them?
2
Hey Russ. Personally I'm against a ban on semi auto rifles with interchangable magazines. And yes a buyback or confiscation program would be needed to make it meaningful, something that seems untenable in America. But since magazine size limits and aesthetic rules banning black plastic and 'military style assault weapons' are useless bromides, I just want to point out the meaningful options.
1. Requires registration to enforce, which is a no-no.
2. Fails Constitutional muster.
3. Waiting periods = death by infringement.
Even if these were permitted they would have little effect on mass murder.
2
As a company, Ruger must have a 'death wish'...........
I plan to buy MORE Ruger stock after reading this article.
1
Please don't use the names of mass murderers in your news stories. Don't give them any fame, lest some other crazy want to be famous for 10 minutes, too.
11
Repeal the Second Amendment and replace it with one that will allow our legislators to pass common-sense laws regulating the ownership, possession, and use of firearms.
For now, every person in range of the village idiot's firearm of choice must take the risk that he will accidentally discharge it, or will misunderstand a situation or mistake his target and will purposely discharge it. And the carnage goes on...
4
2A protects a pre-existing right that cannot be abrogated.
3
I am a 35-year career prosecutor. I agree that restrictions on gun ownership are appropriate, and if I have my way, gun control would be far more sweeping than is publicly proposed by many on the left (although I recognize that their public positions are probably far more moderate than their private positions). However, I tire of the drumbeat of propaganda produced on the left about gun violence. Press outlets like the New York Times tirelessly publicize shooting incidents in an attempt to promote what they know is a false narrative about gun violence.
Despite the cavalcade of press horror stories, both gun violence and gun ownership in America have decreased dramatically in this country. Although the average NYT reader would never believe it, the rate of gun violence has decreased by 75% since 1993, and gun ownership is at its lowest level since the 1970s. It represents the most benign gun crime situation in the lifetimes of most Americans, and a little press honesty about that point would allow a far more realistic debate of the issue.
https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/pages/welcome.aspx
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-owne...
7
I disagree with Chuck about wanting far more sweeping laws than the left will admit to (which is why the right doesn't trust the left). But Chuck's other point is a good one: the left trumpets an "epidemic" of gun violence in order to drum up support for gun control. The right trumpets that risk exists around every corner in order to sell guns and sell the NRA narrative. But in reality, gun violence is way down and a far more realistic discussion about violence in general would include a lot more efforts to solve the social problems that drive violence, and therefore gun violence, in the first place. The fact that murder rates vary by two orders of magnitude from one part of Chicago to the next in spite of all having the same gun laws, or that VT has very low gun crime rate in spite of a lack of gun restrictions, suggest something else is going on here that the left would like to ignore.
7
With all due respect to Mr. French, it's worth noting the stats dropping rates of gun violence are from the Justice department led Jeff Sessions, an avid gun advocate. Who knows how much the NIJ.gov website has been redacted or altered to please Trump donors and supporters, including the NRA and police unions. It is another way Trump has debased American institutions and eroded public trust in government.
4
Forgive me for not paying attention, but how is it that a gun control measure can "expire"? Or rather, why should it expire at all? Clearly nothing changed.
America, you have no idea whatsoever just how out of step with the whole world you are (in a bad way), and nothing good flows from that distinction.
5
I know this will cause a lot of eye rolls, but we were out of step with the rest of the world in 1776 also. I find it comical that people from all of the world try to "shame" the US into conceding our 2nd amendment rights. I do believe that in my lifetime we will see the erosion of our 2nd amendment to the point that it is basically nonexistent. But I still firmly believe in our right to bear arms just as much as all of our other rights including free speech that are guaranteed to us on the same document that "guarantees" our right to bear arms. Yes, I've heard the arguments that they did not have assault rifles when the 2nd amendment was written; but neither did they have the internet or social media when the 1st amendment was written. This idea that we cannot know what the founders intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights is a big lie. There is so much out there that they wrote afterward where they explained exactly why they guaranteed the people the right to bear arms. Everyone needs to stop being fooled, stop being willfully blind, and stop being part of the problem. Focusing all of our efforts fighting against law abiding citizens and their constitutional rights is just a big distraction. What if we took all resources that we spend advocating for gun control and the resources that we spend defending the right to bear arms and put those resources into solving problems like mental illness and other social problems that are the root cause of all the violence?
3
@James of Kansas - Well, I see we can agree that the US was out of step with the world when the traitors to the British Crown established a country founded on slavery and expanded through genocide.
But seriously, in saying that the US was out of step with the world, I am comparing the US to civilized nations that manage the access to firearms for sport and recreation purposes. Noting that military type assault weapons remain inaccessible for obvious reason. Also, noting that proof of this being sound public policy is found in the absence of the ritual slaughter in civilized countries of the innocent that makes America so disgustingly exceptional.
2
@James of Kansas - Well, I see we can agree that the US was out of step with the world when the traitors to the British Crown established a country founded on slavery and expanded through genocide.
But seriously, in saying that the US was out of step with the world, I am comparing the US to civilized nations that manage the access to firearms for sport and recreation purposes. Noting that military type assault weapons remain inaccessible for obvious reason. Also, noting that proof of this being sound public policy is found in the absence of the ritual slaughter in civilized countries of the innocent that makes America so disgustingly exceptional.
The NRA's mission as a manufacturers lobby, is to sell more product, nothing more.
12
Do you know of any other national organization teaching gun safety besides from the NRA ?
2
Asking the gun industry to support regulation is akin to expecting the tobacco industry to help ban smoking. Both sell deadly products that kill their customers and innocent bystanders but they always seem to find new ones.
10
The fact remains, this was a gun manufacturer who literally did propose a restriction on how one of his products could be obtained, and who could obtain them. Was it made out of pure altruism? Of course not. Would it have solved the problem of gun violence? That's a definite no. Does it remove the need for legislative action? No way.
But can you see a gun maker doing this sort of thing now, when the NRA has made clear that they'll even block common-sense ideas that 90 percent of the country can get behind? Well, you get the trend I'm going for here.
6
That's a pretty narrow view of gun rights and a woefully inadequate comparison with apples and oranges.
The people have a right to arms because they have responsibilities to defend life and safeguard the nation's liberty, which is A Good Thing.
1
As a European I have no understanding for automatic weapons, even in the hands of police. Action is always creating counteraction. Maybe the next time, as a kind of upgrade, hand grenades are being thrown.
To create authority by building the police into a kind of second army is the wrong step. The State should consider other ways to bring education to its citizens. But since the police is dreaming of fire power, or should I say is possessed by fire power, nothing will change. Mankind is a strange appearance.
I, for myself, can't keep from laughing when I see the famous couple of police men (one can read, the other write) with their digit at the trigger of their automatic weapons.
5
Guns are here to stay. Most of our mass shootings occur through disaffected people whose mental state is not conducive to gun ownership. If we eliminate all automatic and semi automatic weapons and turn all guns into single shot affairs, we may have a chance at stopping mass killings.
12
Moving toward gun confiscation one dead child at a time.
7
Sensible gun control:
http://greigolivier.com/sensible-gun-control.html
1
The reporter gathered a lot of quotes to flesh out this story that a senior gun executive was actually in favor of some gun restrictions, but failed to dig deeper. On this quote, for example:
“You give people who are truly anti-gun an inch, and they’ll take a mile,” Stephen L. Sanetti, a former Ruger executive, told The Hartford Courant in 2013. Mr. Sanetti, who now runs the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a lobby group, declined to comment through a spokesman.
The reporter tried to create controversy about two senior people at Ruger disagreeing. The real controversy was missed by the reporter altogether. The headquarters for Mr. Sanetti's new job at the National Shooting Sports Foundation? It's in Newtown Connecticut. Those Newtown families NEEDED those inches, Mr. Sanetti, they needed them desperately - and so do we all in a decent society.
23
Don't dare to cross the NRA. They run our country now.
9
I just read that the NRA is trying to "deregulate silencers". At least people will not be disturb by the noise of guns, only by the cries of pain of the injures.
20
No, you are wrong. Any NRA supporter or member worth his ammo will get a clean kill with a silencer; no cries of pain.
3
Slow time for gun control advocates, so publish an article about a man who is no longer around. The 79 people who were reported killed and 130 injured over the last 72 hrs per www.gunviolencearchive.org isn't going to make anyone blink, unless its an illegal immigrant or muslim who did one of the killings/shootings.
13
The real gun violence that the left ignores is the daily death toll in inner cities run by democrats.
4
If gun makers were really concerned they would only sell guns with biometric locks.
4
They've tried and the industry (NRA) attacked them.
3
The technology is not yet matured, and the vast majority of people will find no use for it when it is. The trouble with selling such guns is that it triggers an ill-conceived NJ law. Eliminate that law, and the free market can decide.
1
I am so sick of hearing about the rights of gun owners to carry lethal weapons everywhere. In Missouri, the NRA is pushing for guns on campus, guns in bars, guns in day care centers, and guns in churches.
When do lawmakers consider the rights of average citizens to be safe in their communities? I will continue to work to defeat legislators who ignore common sense gun limits.
49
Lawmakers will consider the rights of average (normal) citizens when the US stops electing Republicans.
3
"Mr. Ruger once said he was open even to waiting periods for handgun purchases."
Oh, you mean background checks favored by about, oh, 90% of the nation's population about which Congress does nothing because it's in the pocket of the NRA? THAT kind of waiting period?
31
When Congress and the White House was controlled by Democrats, no gun legislation passed. Why do you think that is - and don't tell me the Reps stopped it. It was Reid. He added so much unrelated liberal junk to ensure it didn't pass so that he could blame Reps and keep most Dems happy. You see, the Dems were reluctant too as their constituency wanted minimal government interference when it came to guns. Yup, Dems like their guns too!
1
Dear Danny Hakim,
Using "A semiautomatic assault rifle" to describe a firearm is roughly the same as using the term "semiautomatic stick shift" to describe a car. Accuracy, please.
5
Oh my gawd, do you think it really matters? Quit blowing smoke. Gun fetishists always try to deflect from the issue by nit-picking the lingo around their precious guns. Not everyone has the time to learn all the gun lingo. It's enough we have to live with the results. What more do you want?
9
Can't stand the heat? Then-get out of the fire!
1
Here is the problem. The BATF has clearly identified an "Assault rifle" and Federal law is clear on the requirements to manufacture, import, transfer, and even possess such a firearm. What you are really saying is "Not everyone has the time to learn all the gun LAWS", yet you somehow know that we need more.
1
The more sensible gun regulation is murdered, the more murder becomes the core business of gun makers and gun dealers.
If only cowardly politicians favor gun control, then attempts at legal reform will continue to be only cowardly failures.
It is high time to call spades spades.
4
There are about 350 million firearms in private hands in the US.
If "murder were the core business of gun makers and gun dealers" as you say, wouldn't it mean that we'd have about 350 million murders? Wiping out the entire population of the US, including gun owners themselves?
The overwhelming majority of firearms are used for sport shooting or protection. Most firearms owners, including military and law enforcement, have never aimed a firearm at another human being.
5
And yet, we still drastically outpace other developed countries in our rate of gun deaths.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/11/06/562323131/gun-viole...
2
This makes him some kind of hero or visionary? He's a death merchant, plain and simple.
5
I wonder how much of my investment funds Fidelity has in gun stocks. Show me the money...just wondering.
2
I understand that the NRA is now pursuing legislation which will legalize personal howitzers.
2
It makes NO difference what someone owns. It's how they are used that matters.
"Guns don't kill people, people do - but I think the gun helps, you know?"
-Eddie Izzard - somehow still the smartest insight on this debate I have yet heard.
3
The NRA has a vested interest to keep guns easily attainable. The NRA along with their propaganda arm, right-wing media, and the political party they bought, Republicans, have brainwashed a percentage of Americans that more guns, not less, equal safety. It is truly shocking that the sheep that follow the NRA are so easily swayed.
Until there is a national tragedy on a scale here to unforeseen, we will not curtail guns.
5
This is just another "same old, same old" article speaking to the horrors of gun violence. Ruger was a man who realized the bad side of guns in the hands of criminals but to what end?
The only workable solution to the unchecked gun carnage will come when the NRA awakens to the damage their organization is doing through their political demands and policies. They need a reasonable, moderate, caring leader and there is none to be found.
3
The NRA, high paid lobbyists for the gun industry, hype fear of criminals and terrorists among us so we'll buy guns to protect ourselves. There's no discussion of safety statistics but merely that "more guns makes us safer". Oddly they want Americans buying guns to protect themselves from "them" who are other Americans having easy access to guns.
More guns does not make America safer. It puts more guns into society where on any given day, someone feeling wronged, treated unfairly or just having a bad day can commit mass murder.
The fallacy of a "good guy" stopping a bad guy with a gun has been repeatedly disproven. Here's two (of many) major flaws in that position which the NRA fails to address. First; a "good" person buying a gun can, for any number of circumstances, become a "bad" person with a gun and harm innocents. Second; a person buying a gun is not given training equal to law enforcement so they don't know when and how to pull their gun in public which can have very bad consequences. Police officers don't want armed people entering a dangerous situation since they have no way of knowing if that person is "good" or "bad".
SOLUTION (not infringing on 2nd Amend. rights): For every gun, bump stock or accessory purchased, a surcharge is levied creating a pool of money to be paid out to mass shooting victims and their families. Surcharge rates can vary to keep the pool funded. Either that or train, test, license and require insurance from gun owners.
19
In Germany, the law licenses guns like cars. In order to get a license, you have to show that you know how to use the gun and you have to have liability insurance. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-ed-licensing-guns-20130428-s...
Doing that would not bring us to parity, but it surely would reduce the 16 to one edge reported in the story.
9
And mandate that guns are kept under lock and key, with followup checks by police. The Swiss have some of the world's highest rates of gun ownership. Such policies have helped keep Swiss death rates due to guns low.
2
“If the truth be known, I see no real harm in the concept,” he said, but cautioned, “the trouble is, where does it end?”
It ends with the United States being a country with far fewer people than now dying of gunshot wounds every year, the number of mass shootings dropping to near zero, and truly responsible gun owners still getting to enjoy their firearms.
6
These merchants of death and their gun-fetish customer base, happily led by the National Terrori$t Association, effectively conclude that the massacres of schoolchildren at Newtown (28 dead), the Orlando nightclub shooting (50 dead and 58 injured) the Sutherland Springs church massacre (26 killed and 20 more injured), the Las Vegas massacre (58 dead and 422 injured), and all of the smaller mass gun murders throughout the years are the price of freedom.
Their solution to these unspeakable events that cry out for improved public safety and respect for human life ?
Thoughts and prayers, more guns and bullets, more paranoia, more profits for gun companies, a nationwide shooting gallery, more campaign finance corruption by the NRA of Congress....and no funding for mental healthcare.
It's an American Death Wish cult incapable of grasping the ideas of public safety, society and mild compromise.
"For the umpteenth time, Drop Dead, America !"
Guns Over People 2018
49
Bravo Socrates. Well Spoken as usual.
3
Here’s a partial explanation for the firearm industry’s adamant stance against universal background checks: 15% of newly purchased firearms end up on a crime scene within a decade. (ATFE stat)
Crime is 15% of their revenue. Responsible gun owners take care of their guns, which tend to stay useful for decades. I know more than one hunter who uses a rifle passed down through two generations. This is bad for repeat sales. Criminals regard firearms as disposable. They don’t want them around as evidence after use. They don’t maintain or protect their firearms the way a collector or hunter does.
Universal background checks would deeply cut into the manufacturers’ revenue, as would any laws making the purchase of firearms less convenient.
16
"Universal background checks would deeply cut into the manufacturers’ revenue"
How is that? Almost every firearm manufactured is transferred with an NICS check the first time a private citizen takes possession.
3
Russ, guns get stolen from those first time buyers. I know--I had mine stolen when a heroin addict moved in next door. First time buyers may sell to other individuals, without keeping records. And some of those first time buyers are straw buyers who purchase several guns per month and then resell to criminals.
1
None of those situations do anything to cut into the manufactures revenue. A manufacturer, or FFL does not pay for an NICS check, the customer does, even on the inicial transfer.
1
What I have always found troubling is how the representatives and voices of law enforcement have either cozied up to Republicans whom they knew would never allow meaningful gun control, and otherwise remained too silent in the debate. Now, their men and women on the front lines have to contend with high capacity magazines, automatic capabilities, and armor piercing rounds, as well as the anti government sentiment on the fringe that has been stockpiling all kinds of weapons.
6
Seems that the media should publish the names and photos of the company, the manufacturing plant, workers, management, and CEOs of the gun company that produced the weapons for each of the frequent massacres in the US. Interviewing the personnel at the company or their refusals to be interviewed would be a small step towards a "fair and balanced" view of these incidents.
5
Many Western Democracies have far tighter gun control laws - and yet some other ones have laws which are on the same level as United States. It's interesting to note that Czech Republic has laws which are less restrictive than California or New York - and yet enjoys gun homicide rate rate that's 7 to 8 times LESS than both. The driver of the homicide rate is not the law, it's the culture of violence. Trying to reduce the murder rate by changing the gun laws is akin to trying to slow down the car by twiddling with the turn signals.
Mr. Ruger's approach has been decisively repudiated by US gunowners. In the wake of Ruger's support for Assault weapons ban the company (alongside with Smith and Wesson which took a similar stand) sales have cratered. It was not because NRA has waved a magic wand, but because the support for assault weapons ban has become anathema to gunowners.
It's also may be instructive to note that before the AW ban was passed, American interest in "assault weapons" was fairly limited. The sales of AR-15 and AK-47 were low (low hundreds of thousands per year) and most gun owners didn't want them. That all changed after the ban was passed - the interest in the "forbidden guns" has spiked and hasn't come down in the decade and a half since.
3
Research (see Australia) has proved that more guns equal more gun deaths. Don’t expect reduced gun deaths to happen in the U.S. without gun restrictions.
1
Right-We will switch to knives, swords, and rocks instead.
It's not the weapon-it's what lurks within the hearts of men !
2
Actually, reseach (see Australia) has not shown anything of the sort. The murder rate in Australia was declining before the gun confiscation, during the gun confiscation period and afterward as well - all pretty much at the same rate. Of some interest is the fact that the decline has since reversed itself to some degree - despite the fact that the laws became even more stringent.
Frequently people point out that Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since the gun confiscation was enacted. On the other hand, they frequently avoid pointing out that as spree shooting have declined, other forms of mass murder (arson, poisoning, mass stabbings) have picked up the slack. If you have a particular aversion to being killed by a gun and don't mind being murdered via some other method, it may be of some comfort to you - but I suspect most people would beg to differ.
2
"The rate of homicides with guns in the United States is 16 times higher than it is in Germany, 6.6 times higher than it is in Canada and more than 30 times higher than in Australia or Britain..." Gun violence in the U.S. is now a Public Health issue. It's time to model our approach to gun control on those countries where it's proven to reduce deaths!
6
The overwhelming majority of homicides are committed with illegal handguns. If you factor out those committed in the 10 or 20 cities where gun homicides with illegal guns are most prevalent, the rates for gun homicides in the rest of the US are comparable to those in the countries you cite.
Gun control proposals will not be any more effective than current laws because the criminals using illegal firearms to commit homicides are no more likely to obey new laws than they are to obey current laws.
The solution is strict enforcement of current laws, including prosecutions and incarceration.
2
Perhaps the Second Amendment itself should be amended to read that firearms ownership is restricted to active duty personnel and reservists serving in the military, as well as honorably discharged veterans.
That was the obvious intent of our flintlock-bearing Founding Fathers when they inserted the phrase, "A well regulated Militia" for future jurists. Evidently, Federalist Society members on the SCOTUS believe they are able to divine the Founding Fathers' thoughts, or "original intent", from their Ouija boards and/or crystal balls regarding background checks, high capacity magazines, bump stocks, American corporations shirking taxes, Super PACS anonymously financing political campaigns, etc.
Besides possibly stimulating enlistments, requiring membership in "A well regulated Militia" might reveal how many Americans actually "walk the walk", as well as "talk the talk". When it comes to protecting our Nation and its citizens' rights, instead of just rendering lip service, enabling "wannabe" civilians to play soldier, frontier pioneer or fearless hunter.
It's too bad the gun manufacturers' lobbying firm, the NRA, would never allow that amendment to be considered.
2
"If he were alive today, America’s most outspoken gun maker would likely have had something to say."
Maybe he would say that if existing laws are not being enforced, we should focus on that before passing new ones.
5
Why can't we do both? What's the down side to finally preventing people on terrorist no fly lists from unlimited purchase of automatic weapons, or outlawing bump stocks, or increasing the requirements for someone with a mental health history from loading up?
1
let's face it, what you really mean by "enforce existing laws" is police should crack down on black urban gun violence and leave the rural and exurban white folks alone. have you noticed who actually carry out mass shootings? it ain't the black gang members, and nobody cares if they shoot other black people anyway.
1
"increasing the requirements for someone with a mental health history from loading up?"
How can you increase a requirement when the current requirement is that the person may not possess a firearm at any time in any place?
1
The gun industry is all about the courage of the non-combatant. When kindergarteners, teachers, and other innocents are being mowed down, that's their problem. As long as no one in the gun industry is a victim, nothing will change. Once they find themselves or their families on the the receiving end, then you will see true gun control. Do I advocate it? No. Do I see it happening in the future? It's just a matter of When.
2
BIll Ruger was wrong. The 1994-2004 10 round national magazine limit was studied in detail and proven to have no effect on the dealiness of mass murder or any other type of homicide. States that have attempted to solve their crime problems through gun control have failed to do so, as evident by their non-stop ‘fixing’ of their regulations through additional regulations. Are we to believe that just one more regulation is going to make all the difference? Finally, the author cherry-picks a statistic about how extreme firearm regulation can reduce firearm homicide. What they omitted was the fact that overall homicide stays the same. Austraila has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the english speaking world and after 20 years of it, they had only a minor drop in homicide and no drop in suicide. In fact, the US has a 3x larger drop in homicides per capita over the same period as we were mostly rolling back gun regulations. Nowhere in the world has weapon control legislation been proven to correlate (cause) a drop in homicide, which is why I oppose gun control. It is a waste of legislative resources and tax dollars that could otherwise be going to efforts that HAVE been proven to reduce violent crime.
6
Sadly it seems you read and easily agree with nonsense from John Lott, the NRa and others of that ilk.
So is doing nothing your the gist of your comment? Are you only willing to continue under-regulating gun purchases and use that allowed the Las Vegas shooter and so many others to buy guns and mow down innocents?
Why not universal background checks?
Why are private gun shows exempt from oversight?
Better yet, how would you try and solve the problem?
1
Actually, the study on effectivness of the AW ban was released by Department of Justice in 2013, under Obama administration - hardly somebody you would include with "NRA ilk", yes?
And though I am not Jack, I would say that to reduce the gun violence rate we need to target people and places where the violence happens - Baltimore, Flint, Chicago etc. etc. etc. It's much more likely to have an impact then taking away a 30 round magazine from a guy in Northern Vermont.
1
You have made an assumption that gun sales between the law abiding and criminals occur through unregulated private sales. This is actually not true. In fact only 0.6% of guns used in crimes were transfer to the criminal privately from someone obeying the law. Even with the regulations you propose, this number would likely be only marginally reduced. Essentially, universal background checks are a waste of resources if one's goal is to reduce violent crime.
None of the regulations you proposed here have any relevance to Las Vegas since that terrorist bought his guns through licensed dealers.
In regards to solutions. There are many:
1.) Accessible education on gun safety for all
2.) School and Public Spaces Safety officers (Effectively deputized citizens with the authority to engage perpetrator's of violent crime)
3.) Positive community engagement with police - A change in attitude where the police are not seen as the enemy and people talk to the community
4.) Enforcement of current anti-straw purchasing laws, almost no one goes to jail for straw purchasing and yet it is one of the most common ways criminals get guns. This should also come with an awareness campaign because many people don't realize that straw purchasing is a serious crime.
5.) Expand public space security camera networks - Security footage is very helpful in prosecuting gun crimes
6.) End the war on drugs, which has created a dispute resolution environment based on violence
3
The reason we have the production of deadly high capacity weapons is there is a huge demand for it from the public.
The problem isn't the gun manufacturers or the NRA. The problem is we have a huge portion of our population that has a fascination with guns coupled with a paranoia that civil society is a thin veneer for the violent deadly nature of our neighbors, children, husbands and wives. We are a deadly animal at the top of the food chain.
The need for all these guns is really about our inability to accept the concept of civil society and peace.
4
The NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation are the nation's premiere gaslighting institutions. Even the word "Sports" in its name is an NSSF deception, used to evoke wholesome activities like target shooting and hunting. But follow the money and you find they spend pennies to support sporting activities and millions of dollars annually on preventing even the mildest restrictions on access to weapons designed specifically to kill humans. The NRA was once a sporting group (and I was a member back then), but that was decades ago. They are now all about protecting the gun industry, however much blood is spilled daily across America.
4
As a gun owner who enjoys shooting for the sake of the sport, I find the rabid positions of the NRA and the gun industry frustrating and irresponsible - except when one realizes they are only responsible to shareholders and each other.
There's only two things civilians can use that can cause mass mayhem and death; a gun and an automobile. To be able to drive a car one has to go through a written exam, hours of supervised practice (40 in MA), and then a comprehensive practical exam (not to mention eye exams and re-licensing over time). To get a license to carry a gun you only have to avoid falling asleep during the gun safety course (often taught by gun stores) and not be known as a psychopath to local police. There is no effort to certify one's practical ability to be competent and safe in owning, using and storing your firearm.
This is ridiculous. Thirty years ago about half of households had a gun. Now it's down to about 20%, although some of those people are armed up for the next war. As gun owners we need to realize that we're building a profile as a bunch of over-armed dingbats who don't care about the safety of our communities. We can't be surprised when 80% of household who don't want a gun, think there needs to be more gun controls. Either we retake the role of responsibility and competence as owners (i.e., the "well-regulated militia" some of us have read about in the 2nd Amendment), or we risk a real legal and social backlash of our own doing.
21
Let me fix this for you.
"To be able to drive a car. OUTSIDE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, one has to go through a written exam, hours of supervised practice (40 in MA), and then a comprehensive practical exam (not to mention eye exams and re-licensing over time)."
1
Once you get into specifics you can begin to understand gun matters.
1
I am licensed to carry a gun in New York State and believe in strict gun control legislation. When are we going to get serious about doing something about all these senseless killings. When are we going to actually do something about people owning massive amounts of guns and ammunition? I am actually afraid of the answer as I know in my heart that America is not ready and will never be ready to give up their guns. Lord knows, I am!
5
The proliferation of firearms in America has led the militarization law enforcement agencies, and may well be the cause of increased use of lethal force in civilian/police confrontations. Domestic violence interventions and traffic stops, once the mundane quotidian of police work, have become increasingly dangerous and unpredictable, with the threat posed by the ubiquity of firearms in our lives. The NRA claims that the threat implied by an armed society ensures civility, but civility based on the threat of lethal retaliation doesn't seem like progress.
17
Part of the Cornell mechanical engineering curriculum was a required class on product liability--how to design products that were as fool-proof as possible. For example, the bottom drawer of a file cabinet might be used as a step to reach what's on top. We were taught to design for all possible misuses of our product, to make sure what we manufacture is safe no matter how it is used. We were also taught that there are some activities, like transporting inflammable gases and liquids, that are inherently dangerous, and it is impossible to shift the (moral and financial) liability for this to a third party.
It seems to me that the manufacture of firearms falls into the same category, and that this is the way forward, around the 4th Amendment. Sure you can own a gun, but if it's used (improperly) to harm another person, the manufacturer must accept the blame that they designed and sold a product that was so easily misused. Likewise the ammunition makers: require a serial number on each bullet, traceable to its point of origin, and hold Winchester et al responsible, too.
I applaud Ruger for this forward thinking in this vein.
12
In 2005, Congress passed The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Gun manufacturers may not be held liable for the injuries and deaths their products cause. This makes sense, because death or injury caused by a gun is not misuse, but proper use of the product. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products. So, if in the course of attempting to shoot someone the gun fails to work properly and the shooter is somehow injured, he could sue the gun maker for damages. But, if the shooter is successful, the injured party (or survivors of the dead party) could not.
1
" Mr. Ruger once said that he was open even to waiting periods for handgun purchases. “If the truth be known, I see no real harm in the concept,” he said, but cautioned, “the trouble is, where does it end?” "
As of today, right question, but wrong context. Thirty thousand people dead per year, including thousands of children, and hundreds of mass shootings. Where does it end?
But let's at least concede that his willingness to compromise was worth every respect. That there seems to be no possible political compromise today whilst polls consistently shows that some 80% people support some form of gun control speaks loads about the disastrous state of dialog and democracy in the US. How can political decisions not follow when the vast majority of people is against the status quo? Political donations by corporations should be prohibited, and they should be capped per citizen, period.
16
"How can political decisions not follow when the vast majority of people is against the status quo?"
a. They're not.
b. That pesky Constitution.
3
a. You're right, my apologies, it's 90% not 80%, I stand corrected: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/d...
b. That's a tired argument. The second amendment grants gun ownership right to ordinary citizens, yet nowhere does it say that that ownership should be completely deregulated. In fact many Supreme Court decisions have upheld this notion, quoting the District of Columbia vs Heller decision: "2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. pp. 54–56."
The gun industry now direct sales and marketing strategies towards the big gun incidents like the recent Las Vegas shootings. They understand that their gun sales spike after such incidents. They also understand which politicians like Trump will say, "if only the victims had guns, they could have taken down the shooter." For them mass gun killings are a gift to profit from, a gift that keeps on giving. For the victims and the rest of society, guns are gift that keeps on taking lives.
24
Ah Tony. If only life were that simple.
Few Americans object to Americans' right to purchase and use hunting rifles, pistols and shotguns.
So why would citizens need high capacity magazines, bump stocks, armor-piercing bullets and other military grade components?
The Second Amendment allows the right to bear arms. Hunting rifles are safely used by hunters, shotguns are good for home defense and a concealed carry permit for a pistol issued by law enforcement makes sense if a person proves they are in personal danger for a range of reasonable circumstances.
There are few, if any, good reasons for citizens to have access to military grade and other exotic armament that's appropriate for the battlefield but not Main Street. I acknowledge that "good" is a subjective term, but the right to bear arms has been regulated for public safety since machine gun murders first occurred in the 1930s.
Why shouldn't the gun industry and private "dealers" be liable and/or take responsibility when their products are used in mass murders?
Why not ban high capacity magazines, bump stocks, armor-piercing bullets and other weaponry that can too easily be used to kill tens or hundreds? Citizens can use shotguns and pistols for personal protection, but do they need a semi-automatic AR-15 (easily converted to a machine gun) for any reasonable use?
Of course the NRA will object o any infringement but with many mass shootings regularly happening, more guns does not make us all safer.
77
Please cite an example of a crime committed using an AR-15 (or any other semiautomatic gun) converted to automatic fire (other than the conversion itself, which is of course illegal).
Just one example.
Crickets?
3
The 2017 Las Vegas shooting in which 58 people were murdered when a man with several military grade weapons converted with bump stocks to fire at a rapid rate opened up on a concert.
That was literally a couple months ago.
Regardless, automatic fire has two purposes: section- and platoon-level fire support and close-quarters combat. There are precisely zero situations when any civilian should be a participant in either and therefore absolutely no reason why automatic weapons should ever be permitted in civilian hands.
5
A bump stock does not convert a firearm to an automatic weapon, a machine gun is defined as a firearm that fires 2 or more rounds with a single action of the trigger. A firearm with a bump stock only firea 1 round with a single action of the trigger. The availability of automatic weapons for civilians in the U.S. is very low, probably around 120K total.
2
To me, the issue is one of effective communications strategy. Certain societal "norms" are now gone. Boxing was a big mass culture allure. No longer. Cigarette smoking. Now, pro football is starting to falter. I think all true sportsmen understand the need for common sense gun registration. But when anti-gun shriekers get the microphone, it pushes gun owners deeper into their tribe, and they dig in deeper. You need a common sense, calm approach, without a lead spokesperson that drips with contempt for guns and those who own them. Show respect and people will listen.
23
It's disappointing to see you compare our gun homicide rate to countries who restrict gun possession. If you are going to do that, then it's only fair to also compare knife homicides, or poisoning, etc. You also cherry picked the countries you compared the U.S. to, while failing to mention any of countries that have a higher homicide rate than the U.S. and that is more than half the countries in the world. Lets look at what happened to murder and violent crime rates in countries after they implemented strict gun laws. The murder rate in the UK increased after enacting gun laws in 1968 and 97. In fact the murder rate increased substantially, and only started dropping recently. It is still above 1968 levels while the U.S. was at 50 year lows. The violent crime rate in the UK is more than double that of the U.S.. In Australia the murder rate was falling before it implemented tough gun control laws after a mass murder. After those laws were implemented the murder rate continued to fall at the same rate it was falling at prior to the laws. During that same time period, the murder rate in the US dropped approximately 17 times more than Australia's did. If you don't believe me, do the research yourself. Compare apples to apples. See how crime statistics are compiled and how different countries define crimes differently. See where most homicides in the U.S. occur and realize that over half of them occur in 2% of all the counties and that over half the counties have 0 murders.
11
States in the US with the highest gun ownership have the highest rate of gun deaths.
some examples of data
https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/states-gun-laws-domestic-violence-homici...
US higher gun deaths compared to other developed countries
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-w...
29
Read much? S/he asked you to compare murder rates, not murder-by-gun rates. If there are fewer guns, then yes, conceded, there will be fewer murders via gun. But the question is: Will the murders simply happen via other means?
3
Texas and California have almost identical murder rates, despite Texas gun laws being famously liberal and California gun laws being the most restrictive in the US. That alone tells me that gun control has practically nothing to with murder rate.
3
A relative of mine, an avowed firearms enthusiast, started teaching firearms safety courses a few years ago. He saw himself as a staunch defender of Second Amendments rights, and had a fascination with deadly, high-kill-capacity firearms. A surprising number of people began to attend who brought with them concealable, very deadly, weapons not suitable for hunting or sport. His views have evolved and become nuanced because of what he saw. One person, one time, losing control for whatever "reason", can do great damage to many. He began to refuse service to and send away anyone who came to the door with assault weapons. And, he told them why.
59
Why would it be surprising that a large number of people were bringing the type of weapons they were bringing? They are required to take that type of course in order to possess those guns. Hunters take a completely different type of course and most of them take those courses in their teens. To be honest, it doesn't sound like your relative should be an instructor. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Very very few murders are committed with so-called assault weapons.
4
"both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were banned through a 1994 measure"
No, "assault weapons" and "high-capacity" magazines have never been banned by the Federal Government.
"co-sponsor of legislation that would have required universal background checks."
There has never been legislation proposed at the Federal level that requires a non-FFL to perform a background check for a firearm transfer. There has been legislation proposed that requires almost every firearm be transferred through an FFL, something I am sure that is opposed by the majority of the Country.
5