Joe Farmer, all American, patriotic, salt of the earth, etc etc. owns 30 guns, what ever, and believes guns should be registered, that "assault weapons" should be banned. He's one of you. He's an NRA member, etc etc (Blah, Blah, Blah)
There have been lots of these types of stories, that just happen to describe ordinary gun owners who just happen to endorse the liberal agenda of gun control, including measures that would lead to wholesale confiscation of guns.
How convenient. It's a common rhetorical propaganda technique. I wonder if these people even actually exist. I'm sure it took a bit of effort and weeding out of likely subjects to find one that suits the purposes of the NYT writers. Washington Post does the same thing.
10
The formula is simple. Universal background checks, close all loopholes (gun shows, private sales) and require that all transaction are made through licensed dealers, with a new background check for each purchase. For all long arms, maximum magazine capacity of 5 rounds. Those who insist on high capacity magazines will be able to buy them under a different, more stringent program requiring interviews with police, an additional fee, and the understanding that the serialized magazines are tied to the purchaser for life.
Let's not forget handguns, which are actually a bigger problem than high capacity long guns.
6
In this entire article universal background checks are the only control mentioned. Other than background checks the article is empty of any meaningful ideas that will help. In 2017 there were over three hundred guns stolen from unlocked cars in Jacksonville, Florida. And that was only the stolen guns that were reported and only in Jacksonville. Maybe universal background checks should be required for these gun thieves.
2
Americans love guns. Individualism seems to be part of our DNA and the gun is the ultimate expression of individualism, I decide if you live or die, my life is much more important than yours and my gun proves it.
The NRA is merely the marketing arm of the gun industry and America also loves unbridled capitalism. We value rich lives more than poor, net worth is more important than any human values.
Until we re-balance the relationship between "me" and "us" in America we will continue down the path of commercialism and death by gun.
6
"Dr. Spitzer said gun owners who favor gun limits reflect an often-silent middle who could be powerful allies for gun control groups.
“It’s a dog that doesn’t bark,” he said. “It’s a voice that’s not heard.”"
It's time to bark, and be heard. The loudest noise makers from both extremes desperately need people in "the middle" to speak up, to intervene, to try to bring some sense to the currently mindlessly stubborn (for the most part) people noisiest around the edges of the current chasm. There IS a bridge between the two extremes. We just need to find that path, take some first steps from both sides, and meet somewhere in the middle. Our country is better than the current politically motivated stalemate suggests. We all know it deep down.
5
I'm a responsible gun owner. I would prefer to live in a gun free society, but since I live in a violent society in which sociopaths of every stripe have easy access to guns, I choose to protect myself. I am safe and proficient when using my guns. I train and practice strict safety rules. My weapon is a burden and a responsibility, not a toy.
Concerning checks, I underwent 2 months of screening before being an unpaid social work intern at the VA. I can buy a Ruger AR 556 in 10 minutes. That's ludicrous. I want a more thorough check for a gun owner than a therapist. That's not irrational. Moreover, I want the age of purchase to be 27 for military specification rifles, like the AR15, as well as handguns.
Finally, if you're not for closing the private sale and gun show loophole, you supoort criminals having access to guns more efficient at killing than the ones police carry, which leads to the militarization of the police force - just to keep up with civilian weaponry and not be outgunned. No more private sales. The American gun industry doesn't need to support MS13 and the Sinaloa Cartel.
The status quo leads to an arms race among civilians and criminals. It also facilitates the militarization of our police. The status quo allows sociopaths not only to commit murder easily, but to wage war on innocent Americans. I don't want to live in this society, and I would give up my guns to live in a world where those threats don't exist.
13
OK sorry but you do realize enlistings at the age of 17 in the United States for military service?
So are you raising the drinking age the smoking age the voting age The enlistment age and selective service age with the driving age?
You do realize A life or death situation actually happens most of the training goes out the window and less you do it every day for muscle memory. So when you want it it’s there.
So you are you or the idiot politicians get to make the determination of what firearm people can purchase. Considering most people that scream for this type of legislation have no concept of firearms.
With this so-called gun show and private sale loophole let’s look at the states that the past that. New York and California is a 14 mass shootings New York is at one even with the passage of these laws.
But I also guess you missed the concept of escalation. Plus The people have allowed law-enforcement to militarize. Oh and they get the fun stuff. But criminals normally don’t purchase weapons from gun shows or license Dealers. It’s straw purchasers to the gang members or they’re stolen.
But you give up your guns and live your gun free utopia you’re not putting the genie back in the bottle.
2
“I honestly believe that God-fearing, gun-owning Americans should be leading the debate on gun laws,”
It's about time. I've been wondering why responsible gun owners haven't stepped up. I hope we hear from more of this type of common sense gun owner. Hopefully it will lead to a more sane and rational discussion about how to address the out of control level of gun violence in our country.
Kudos!
6
Maybe because the Left is so busy calling us "terrorists" and blaming us for the actions of deranged individuals. There are some areas where I do think we can do better, but as long as I'm given a choice between folks who just want to ban as much as they can and refer to a rifle that's not considered powerful enough to hunt deer in many states as a "military grade machine gun" and the NRA who I don't entirely agree with I'll take the NRA. I'm also going to want to have a discussion about the lack of Fathers, discipline, and traditional American values in today's society. I grew up in an environment where we all had guns, often kept them in our trucks at school yet there we no school shootings. This issue is far more about the lack of traditional values that the Left has been pushing than it is about firearms.
2
That's because they probably don't actually own guns. That's why you don't hear actual gun owners speak up. Because the whole gun laws stuff articles like this write are full of fake studies and half truth. People who actually understand the second amendment understand why you own a gun. Not just to hunt and self protection but tyranny. That's why it's so dangerous when people want to make absolutely unnecessary gun laws that stop only lawful citizens.
2
Sorry, but I don't go with your view of the left having no morals. Since most of the right are Republicans, you may want to take a hard look at how quickly the right abandoned all of its so called family values while demonstrating its own immorality time and again, e.g., Tim Murphy and Eric Greitens are two examples. This includes unwavering support of Trump, who is an obvious immoral person of low character, having fathered children with three different women while having multiple sexual affairs on a consistent basis.
1
SOME?! If polling were even remotely accurate (no one I know has had a “land line” in over 5 years) you would know “we the people” are vastly against gun ownership in total, have no belief in god, want a constitutional re-write (and a whole lot more besides) that would address the abject poverty that has almost everyone living paycheck to paycheck. Wake up NYT.
The same polling that said trump would lose the election? It was soooo accurate.
2
I own 10 guns included a hyper custom AR-15 and I believe in gun control.
I believe in universal background checks, red flag laws, annual gun re-registration, continuing safety courses, waiting periods, electronic guns with fingerprint locks, non-lead bullets, everything except banning assault weapons and repealing the second amendment.
You know whats funny? None of my liberal friends EVER talk to me about my guns. I am a transgender queer who works in medical marijuana and I have A LOT of liberal friends. They told me they refuse to talk about guns. They just want to impose their views on me without any compromise or discussion.
In my mind liberals are becoming Big Brother fascists really fast. Now my friends tell me that when they come over I must hide my guns because even seeing them could "trigger" my friends. I asked them what bad experiences they have had with a gun to get triggered and they to a T said they had never even touched a gun or taken a gun safety course.
Liberals dont have any interest in having a discussion with independents like me, much less conservatives. They seem to be biding their time for the Demographics is Destiny to come true. Then, there will be no need for discussion, just time for imposition.
6
Well you can believe in anything you want but know why. Please go look at New York State re-registration law how well that’s worked out.
Oh I’m sorry what training have you actually been through in the last year and by who?
Oh I guess you don’t have that fingerprint thing on your phone because I don’t want that on my gun because I want to use it when I need it.
You do realize none lead bullets ruin your barrel and shorten the life of the firearm.
Oh what does a waiting period do? Oh what is the universal background check do especially to the people that don’t go through it? How about backround checks for everthing you buy with DNA sample.
But you did forget your license registration and insurance . If I’m not mistaken that’s done with vehicles how do thed stop DWI hasn’t stopped murder with them.
But Red flag laws have to be clear and to the point but If it is a false accusation it’s a felony for the person that made it. There will have to be the appeals process through the courts.
There is a very good reason why the NRA is so powerful. Last month the NRA collected a record amount in donations, including my $20.
Firearms ownership represents more than just gun ownership. Ownership represents free people. We'll make our own decisions as to how we live. We don't want a nanny state governing us, and where will it end?
7
In the spirit of trying to make something good out of something very bad, I thought about comparing a gun to a rental van in an attack on strangers. The van attack in Toronto killed at least ten people and injured at least a dozen others. if any specific firearm is less lethal than a rental van, it may be difficult to show it is so uniquely dangerous that it needs to be banned.
Semi-auto rifles with multiple magazines or a large magazine have exceeded this number of victims more than once. As a result, one might call them unusually dangerous and consider a ban on new sales and similar measures, as we have done with sub-machine guns.
I can't think of any other firearms commonly owned by the public that have often been more lethal than this rental van attack (or the one in New York), so a ban would not be that likely to reduce the harm from a "mass homicide" attack. Fifty-caliber rifles may be a unique danger, and some unbiased analysis could determine if this is the case - there is no need to wait for one to be used in an attack to act, or to conclude the risk is near zero.
Using an outside measuring stick such as this to objectively think about risk may help break the current stalemate.
2
I'm the opposite. I was was a staunch pro-restrictionist after Sandy Hook, but learning about guns and crime has brought me to become a staunch 2A supporter. Living in California, I can see the first hand effects of gun control paradise -- it doesn't work (CA's gun homicide rate is about the same as that of Texas's, for example).
The problem with "common sense" gun control is that it's neither common sense, nor will do anything to control "guns" (if anything, it's "people" control, not gun control). Almost none of the staple proposed solutions -- be it Universal Background Checks, "Assault weapons" bans -- will have any inkling on actual gun homicide rates, and will no doubt also have very little to no effect on actual mass shootings. Likewise, other restrictionist plans such as increasing the legal age to practice a civil right, or gun restraining orders, border on being unconstitutional as they violate US civil liberties.
The genie is out of the bottle, there are 400 million guns in the US. Instead of trying to restrict their way to paradise, folks should think of solutions that work in addendum to having a right to bear arms legally. For starters, it's important to note that the gun homicide rate has fallen by more than half from the highs of the 90's, and all in that time frame the number of guns in this country has more than doubled. The sky isn't falling; our love affair with guns isn't making things worse.
11
First, the most recent data on CDC site for firearm death rate is for 2016. California was 7.9 and Texas 12.1. So I would consider Texas significantly higher than California. You may have more recent data, but I question that CA and TX are equivalent.
I'm a gun owner and a recreational shooter. Stricter controls will be an inconvenience. A small price to pay.
5
I’m a gun owner and I totally support common sense gun control. I support universal background checks and raising the age to 21 to purchase a weapon.
I’m very concerned about letting people buy guns that have more firepower than the average police officer carries. An AR 15 has three times the fire power of a typical officers Glock. With the addition of a high capacity magazine, a police officer is outmatched. That is not right.
With respect to the NRA, let’s be blunt - they are a marketing machine. Their membership count is overstated and misleading. For example, a gun range in my county requires NRA membership in order to join. That pressures people into joining the NRA. Additionally, the NRA has “family” memberships - these also lead to over counting of members.
It’s important that we stand up to the NRA - they have lost touch with the pace of our current society.
9
Common sense gun laws? What would have stopped any of the mass shootings? What if people said let's ban those guns you own. Will you be all for it?
1
Give me 10 minutes with those gun owners in favor of more laws and I guarantee you they'll change their tune. These gun owners are simply uninformed/misinformed in regards to what the new laws would actually be capable of, and why the gun grabbers really want them. Once the facts are laid out it would be impossible for a gun owner to support the vast majority of laws being suggested at this time.
5
You're so right about this. For example, when the gun-control people talk about banning evil assault weapons, they show an AR15, but the scope of the proposed laws is always much broader. According to the newest proposed ban, my little Walther .22 pistol is now an assault weapon.
3
I’d be glad to hear you out.
1
I own guns and am a member of the NRA. This article and most of the comments in this thread embody why I don't trust anyone who talks about the need for gun control. What's missing from the gun-control argument is any discussion of the repeated failure by the authorities in protecting the public by not taking action against dangerous individuals. The recent Waffle House shooting. Parkland. Sutherland church. Charleston. Aurora theater. Everyone of those shooters fell through the cracks. And most egregiously, the failure to discuss gun homicides as a symptom of gang violence and the drug trade. Gun-control advocates operate under the delusion that once we get more gun control laws then the authorities will magically become accountable and criminals will become nice people. Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, South Africa, Central America, the Philippines are great examples where strict gun control has been a failure.
6
I couldn't agree more. The Parkland shooter who had posted his intent had no less than 30-40 visits from both federal and state law enforcement yet nothing was done. The circumstances surrounding latest shooting at the Waffle House are no less disturbing. They also scream for bans on the AR 15 yet more people are killed each year by hands and feet than with rifles of any kind. The people calling for these restrictions rely on emotions since the facts do not support their agenda.
5
Thank you for this article. I am a gun owner. I own a personal defense weapon and make no claims to be a hunter or any cultural right claims to the weapon. I know the horrible truth about what the weapon’s purpose is and I support the second amendment. I also believe that the policy suggestions around universal checks, magazine capacity limits, modification prohibitions, and even strong limits on ownership of entire classes of weapons are within a reasonable understanding of the 2nd amendment.
I also believe that criminal and civil liability laws (or enforcement of them if that is the real problem) are woefully inadequate in our culture. If I have the right to own a deadly weapon then I should have close to unlimited liability to appropriately secure this weapon against unauthorized use. As is the case so often, and has been the case in Portland, some family member gets access to a weapon and commits a crime with it. The owner rarely faces consequences for this “unauthorized use” and when they do it is woefully inadequate compared to the consequences. By increasing the real risks of responsible ownership we should be able to increase responsibility among the gun owners. And we would be that much closer to justice. But what do I know. I’m a gun owner who detests the NRA and also the “repeal the 2A” crowd. In today’s America that makes me a non-voice.
5
Not true. People get sued all the time for the misuse of guns. You think lawyers are going to pass on that opportunity? Gun owners face huge liability risks and so are extremely careful. Don't believe me? Check out your homeowners insurance. You have blanket coverage for gun accidents. According to the CDC, more people get killed falling from ladders than are killed in gun accidents. The reason people think that gun owners aren't held liable is that this seldom gets reported. But criminals don't care about liability.
3
The electorate must demand real and significant gun law reform and must insist that any person running for political office on any level must stand first and foremost upon that platform. The media has a role to play in keeping the public focused on that goal and in moving public opinion toward that direction. The electorate must not be distracted by the machinations of the powerful influences who feel otherwise. This is the only way for us to effect change and I think if we accomplish this achievable goal many other progressive issues will follow.
The media is partly responsible for the copycat mass shootings happening. Saturation and ratings are more important. Make criminals famous for shooting people giving lunatics ideas. Don't be fooled. Nuances. Critical thinking. Do new gun laws stop this from happening?
The republican's credo
"Any gun nut, homicidal mental case, has a right to buy a gun"
We've all watched in horror what has been wrong with that mental state, for far too long.
Will you, or your child, be the next one with a bullet through the head?
"Some say." Weak headline. You can always find "some" people to say anything. "Some" people believe the earth is flat. You have my email; always happy to help with headlines or story edits.
1
In the liberal gun control state of California, with the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, the police forces in that state have killed more than 610 people in a six year period.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/police-in-californi...
But gun control liberals want only the police and the military to have guns. They want civilians to be disarmed. They want "universal" background checks, which includes universal registration of guns. Registration precedes confiscation. Ok, fine. Ignore history and reality. Set the nation up for a police controlled state with dictators like Michael Bloomberg as president. He will ban 32 oz beverage cups for our own good, and, of course, guns too.
5
You know, it's odd to read an article like this, because most we see are from either extreme: take all guns or from my cold, dead hand. In this debate, as with many others, the large bloc of reasonable middle-grounders are ignored in favor of the yahoos.
6
I am an enthusiastic multiple gun owner.
My completely non-statistical impression among us gun-owners, is that most can list an acquaintance or three who qualifies as a true-blue gun nut, who believe that even the mentally ill should be allowed firearms based on the second amendment.
BUT- those opinions, IMHO, are in the extreme minority of the gun toting public. I truly believe that if the average gun owner is quite pragmatic, and if given certain guarantees about keeping his/her firearms and mags, most would actually agree with most common sense measures now being put up for discussion (background checks, registration, etc).
This is most definitely not a "your in or your out" type argument among gun enthusiasts, though the NRA is trying to paint it that way.
6
“I honestly believe that God-fearing, gun-owning Americans should be leading the debate on gun laws." YES. This is the public health issue of our times.
1
Cdc says over 2 million defensive uses of a gun per year. Over 6000 per day. Positives completely dwarf the negatives of gun ownership.....
5
Link? Pretty sure this is patently false.
1
Where can we see this "unpublished study" people keep talking about?
1
It is not false...you might try doing your own research as it is not hard to find.
2
I own and have always owned guns. I am not a member of and not a supporter of the NRA. I use my guns to hunt birds, target shoot, and shoot skeet. I support legislation regarding restrictions on guns, not only high capacity guns but most pistols (which I believe are the largest killers in the US). So place me squarely in the group of gun owners that support more restrictive legislation regarding the ownership and possession of guns.
5
Unless your shotgun is used in a mass shooting. Then people want your gun. See if your so gun ho.your the typical it won't effect me I don't care about other people. Take all the guns. I don't own any people are just like you.
Own three handguns. Please ban them all, and I will happily give them up. Or make me keep them at the range. Or something. This is stupid.
I recall as a young man living in Japan. The ability to wander stone drunk around a major metropolis with no fear of violence is a most liberating and wonderful experience. Let's strive for that kind of safety all around our country, which means no guns. We're in this together.
2
If you wandered around Japan stone drunk in your youth, why are you now “fit” to own any firearms at all? Turn ‘em in to your local police department or smash ‘em with a two-pound sledgehammer.
Forget about keeping them “at the range.” You’re a danger to society, and I say that as a lifelong gun owner and shooter.
1
Finally a honest gun grabber! The truth finally. Ban them all or nothing.
1
I've been a gun owner, hunter and shooting enthusiast for seventy years and I think we should repeal the second amendment and start over. It is a dinosaur that was meant to protect states from a national standing army. The founders were very well educated in English history and understood that the greatest internal threat to the new republic, second only to official government religion, was a standing national army.
The civil war made that a moot point and established that the national government is superior to states rights. There is no way a bunch of yahoos with their guns are going to stand up to a Marine expeditionary force if the military gets out of control. The only thing that is protecting us is the law, not our guns.
13
The entire NRA business model, income from manufacturers, membership, political activity, publications, partnerships, foreign contributions, and sources unknown to the public, is built and supported by the fear of a federal and all-encompassing siezure of weapons from citizens in general. Never mind that one needs an advanced degree in delusional thinking to believe that such an outcome now or ever is possible. Without that paranoiac energy, the organization would be about as dangerous as the Sierra Club. The raving lunatics who advance this paranoia make their living, and for many it's a very comfortable one, by promoting this dystopian (for them) vision. Every reasoning citizen, politician, social scientist, law enforcement professional, and anyone else who understands the symbolic importance of firearms in the U.S. knows this. Unfortunately there are enough true believers in the gun-siezure fairy who command the political heights of the argument. If any more proof of this were needed, look only to the recent tragedy in Tennessee and consider how such a deeply disturbed individual with a proven record of psychotic and criminal behavior could so easily and quickly obtain such a dangerous weapon. The NRA membership may be overrepresented by irrational gun nuts, but the vast majority of them are rational, thoughtful, and open-minded people.
4
RE: your closing sentence: I am relieved & delighted to learn this. So why don't THEY do something to change the NRA - or create an alternative?
1
I don't think the NRA position even reflects their own members inclination. Most or many NRA members support some gun control. The hard liners (activists) and more importantly, the gun manufacturers and sellers are the real NRA constituency.
As I keep saying, why don't these NRA members quit and form an alternative national association?
1
There are other organizations but none will support the far reaching and ludicrous proposals being tossed at us from the anti-gun crowd.
1
While most NRA members do support some further restrictions on firearms ownership, it's not a driven factor and when were constantly faced with calls for restrictions that far exceed what we support the NRA looks preferable. Then there's the fact that we could concede on what we find agreeable today only to find that were fighting to prevent further restrictions tomorrow. I don't like the NRA's tone on a lot of issues, but I'm glad they are there, and the actions of the Left over the past few months has convinced me to join. Better the group I agree with 80% than the one that I agree with 5%.
2
Anyone who owns a gun is a part of the gun culture which is itself the, repeat THE primary enabler of gun carnage in this country. Simple as that.
If guns are sold everywhere, and to everyone, then the wrong kind of people are going to get them without any difficulty. No other way to thread the needle. In countries where few guns are sold to the public and there are stiff penalties for ownership, most criminals choose to go unarmed, and the deranged or psychotic are forced to use less lethal weaponry such as knives. The result is less fear, injury and death.
1
I have been a gun owner and shooter since my father gave me my first .22LR bolt-action on my twelfth birthday. I am now 67, and see myself as a responsible gun owner. I believe that I could tolerate a greater level of “gun control” than we currently see at both the state and federal levels.
However, when I see the level of contempt and invective that you aim at even responsible gun owners, you only make me want to dig my heels in deeper and oppose you—and your ilk—at every turn.
People like YOU are at least half of the reason that there can be no reasonable discussions between gun owners and gun-control advocates.
You will never insult gun owners enough to bring us around to your narrow point of view.
8
“People like me” ...
I am the Rest Of The World. I guarantee you, almost everyone outside the USA sees this issue the same as me.
Who cares if the rest of the world agrees with you. Completely irrelevant.
2
The second amended is obsolete and needs to be discarded. Nevertheless, as a gun owner, I believe we can have our cake and eat it too. We should protect law abiding hunters, collectors, hobbyists and those who demonstrate a need to carry self defense (that does not include paranoids who think they need to carry a weapon to go to Walmart). Lyndon Johnson wanted to mandate licensing of firearms just the same as automobiles. For the paranoids, let me assure them that nobody is coming around to take away cars! The social experiment of unrestricted guns everywhere has failed miserably. It is time for something else.
1
Believe it or not, there are liberals who own guns, and I am one of them. I do support common sense gun laws and I think the NRA’s stance, in its rabid stupidity of opposing any type of restriction, will ultimately result in “rebound” laws that are far more restrictive than needed.
In Oregon, there is a citizens’ petition that will soon be circulated calling for the banning of ALL semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines. To the uninitiated non-gun owner, that may sound reasonable—but that actually means a ban on a .22 rim fire rifle used for target competition and any other non-single shot firearm. This is far too extreme and it feeds the claim that “they want to take our guns!”
I support uniform and universal background checks for ALL gun sales, as well as proof of firearm safety via training and passing a test. I also believe that many (perhaps most) of the mass shootings at schools occur through a systems failure in this country—the Parkland shooter is an example of every “red flag” being raised and ignored because of a lack of safety-net (mental health) and systems communication (reports of threat to FBI, for example). Simply banning weapons is not going to solve this problem, but it makes an easy argument for lazy thinkers.
6
Yours is a voice of reason, and for that very reason it will be ignored by your “lazy thinkers.” Simple-minded solutions from lazy thinkers are just so much easier and convenient to implement, dontcha know.
As I outlined in an earlier reply to someone else, though a long-time gun owner and shooter, I believe that I could tolerate more [practical and enforceable] gun control than currently exists at either the state or federal levels.
But the more extreme, unreasonable and outright silly the demands of the Left become—e.g. , banning ALL semi-automatic weapons without even understanding what a semi-automatic weapon IS—the more I am inclined to resist their every effort to “control” both me and my guns.
THEY are at least half of the reason that “reasonable” discussions about gun control will NEVER occur.
3
Yours is a voice of reason, and for that very reason it will be ignored by your “lazy thinkers.” Simple-minded solutions from lazy thinkers are just so much easier and convenient to implement, dontcha know.
As I outlined in an earlier reply to someone else, though a long-time gun owner and shooter, I believe that I could tolerate more [practical and enforceable] gun control than currently exists at either the state or federal levels.
But the more extreme, unreasonable and outright silly the demands of the Left become—e.g. , banning ALL semi-automatic weapons without even understanding what a semi-automatic weapon IS—the more I am inclined to resist their every effort to “control” both me and my guns.
THEY are at least half of the reason that “reasonable” discussions about gun control will NEVER occur.
1
Exactly. I firmly believe that anyone who owns a firearm should complete safety training and show proficiency. However, I do not trust a liberal executive to use these limits fairly. I firmly believe that once elected any Democrat will use any means at their disposal to restrict law abiding gun owners from exercising their Second Amendment rights. e.g. "We will process your paperwork by Aug-11-2134; have a nice day"
1
I'm wondering if there wouldn't be more buy in from gun lovers and gun owners if the terminology around the debate were changed.
Routinely substituting " sensible gun safety regulations" for " gun control regulations" might help reassure those who are concerned that all their firearms would be confiscated and destroyed.
1
Whenever I see someone call for "sensible" or "common sense" gun control I already know what their agenda truly is.
3
As a gun owner I support regulation designed to keep guns out of the hands of those who have demonstrated through their behavior that they are a danger to themselves or others - as long as that restriction is administered with appropriate due process necessary to infringe upon a Constitutional Right.
I do not now and never will support blanket bans that serve as collective acts of punishment for the actions of a few.
3
The problem with ‘gun control’ is that most of it is driven by headlines, but since there are few opportunities to pass gun laws it requires careful consideration of where firearm violence in being committed by who using what. If given the ability to pass one gun law most would opt for some type of assault rifle ban, but such a law would have pretty much an unmeasurable impact on the national firearm homicide rate. The reason is so few people are killed with rifles on any type, look at the FBI data, much less assault rifles. The reality is that almost 75% of firearm homicides occur in low income urban minority neighborhoods, and are committed almost entirely with handguns. We need people control as much as gun control, but some of these areas won’t pass effective gun laws because they are concerned that it would result in too many minority offenders being jailed. Instead the media uses the firearm homicide statistics to blame assault weapons and demonize gun owners. As an example NYC has always had some of the most stringent gun laws in the country, and firearm homicides have been high and low regardless. It seems it was focusing on potential offenders that brought the firearm homicides to such low levels. Upstate NY has a much higher rate of gun ownership, where the firearm homicide rate is low outside of the urban centers.
1
Almost every gun control bill is ineffective. However, gun ownership control and gun possession control IS effective and that's where most gun owners will go, and where most gun-control advocates SHOULD go.
While it's true "assault weapons" look scary, any gun can kill--easily. It's true that they are 1st weapon of choice by the sickos who commit mass murders, but are a tiny, tiny percentage of gun deaths in the US--like less than 1% (ballpark 36,000 gun deaths vs 300 "assault weapon" deaths each year). And we've seen the sickos are just as willing to use "assault vehicles" when guns aren't available.
In fact, in almost every mass shooting in the US, with few exceptions, systems to keep guns out of the hands that should have worked, failed. Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter seems to be the exception.
The are some device restrictions that may help, like outlawing bump-stocks and universal magazine limits, although we're about to see in NJ if lower the current limit of 15 to 10 rounds has any effect in what is an uncontrolled "experiment".
Still, it seems to be far more effective to reduce wrongful shootings by seeking to keep guns out of the hands that should not have them, rather than deciding what kind of weapon should be controlled.
The genie is out of the bottle and there are 10's of millions of semi-auto rifles and pistols already out there, so let's focus on who shouldn't have them!
4
As a gun owner, I want to protect public safety, the safety of family and friends, of men, women and children. I want all of us to bel safe, to not live in fear of senseless gun violence. Towards that end, I'm willing to consider new firearms laws. However, I'd like those laws to be thought out, not knee jerk restrictions. In order to do that, we need to change the conversation to protecting public safety which means we need to vote against each and every politician who has an NRA "A" rating because it is the NRA, and the politicians it controls, who will not allow us to change the conversation.
Your gun doesn’t protect you, it endangers you and those around you. Multiple controlled studies have shown the risk of the gun being used by you on you, or by you against those around you, or on you or them by an intruder, exceeds the likelihood of it being used defensively by a factor of 6-1 or greater.
Gun ownership in his country is here to stay, but that doesn't excuse irresponsible ownership. If these folk really feel this way they need to be encouraged to put their vote in November where their mouth is and vote against Republican candidates that take NRA money. They need not vote for the Democratic candidate, just the one who is willing to support bills calling for real reform regarding our gun laws.
When the way to use a product irresponsibly is to use it for its sole designed purpose, then perhaps the product shouldn’t be legal in the first place.
Responsible gun owner is an oxymoron. Anyone can shed their self restraint and critical judgment under the right deteriorating circumstances, and coupled with a gun, become a significant danger to those around them. Any product that requires a waiting period and a background check shouldn’t be sold to anyone.
And comments like yours are the reason the gun rights supporters won't give another inch. Stating that "responsible gun owner is an oxymoron" is why your side can't be trusted and why you aren't taken seriously. You seem content to blame all gun owners for the evil acts of a few which is like getting a vasectomy because your neighbor has too many kids...
1
If you support a ban on “assault weapons,” you support a full ban on guns, as assault weapon is a meaningless political term that can apply to any semi-automatic handgun or rifle. In other words, nearly every modern gun in existence.
4
I do not understand why people are even asking the question: Gun Control or not? We already HAVE gun control. It is illegal for private citizens to own a machine gun...a fully automatic weapon. In every state. I have heard no one arguing to change this law. Therefore, (almost?) everyone is in favor of this type of gun control.
Therefore, the question is not "whether." The question is "how much?" I cannot understand how it is that seemingly reasonable people do not perceive this truth.
Although largely anecdotal, hopefully it is accurate that a majority urge more care in regulating access to firearms. Calling it what it really is, People Control, not gun control, would help frame the issues. Time after time, there's a disaffected or outright mentally ill male who, for whatever twisted reason or no reason, murders. The NRA opposes universal background checks saying they won't prevent criminals from getting guns, they lack due process and will lead to confiscation. Those claims are obstructive. As an NRA member for over 40 years, I haven't seen NRA (or any Congress) propose any comprehensive plan to govern access to firearms. NRA and Congress are becoming irrelevant by being stubborn and refusing to recognize the realities of human behavior. Without appropriate people control, the bizarre gun violence will destroy the right to own firearms. See the UK and Australia. Not everyone has a right to possess a firearm, and until we create a rational system that regulates people, focusing on prevention rather than reaction, the crazies will continue to kill. State laws, as in Tennessee, can be foolish about humanity. As a young sheriff's deputy in the Southwest 40 years ago, when I had to return a seized firearm to a nut, I removed a few essential parts first because there was no law preventing that dangerous person from getting the gun back. It was self defense and defense of my community. People control by restricting access to firearms is self defense.
I'm a gun toting progressive liberal:
1) register every weapon with a 26 alphanumeric WIN -- weapon identification number;
2) limit gun ownership to pistols, rifles and shotguns that are bolt, lever, break or semiautomatic action, with pistols limited at 16 shots, all else at 5 shots, and no weapons designs that are assault style because that style enhances the kill capacity of humans, and no one needs an assault rifle to protect themselves since they are offensive weapons, not defensive weapons;
3) limit the number of guns to 2 of each kind described above per person;
4) require the driver's license or ID card to hold the gun and ammo information, and make gun use a privilege like driving, not a right, which it is not unless you are a member of a well regulated militia, the quality of regulated to be determined by the greater populace;
5) require ammo to have a 26 alphanumeric AIM -- ammunition identification number -- to be purchased with use of the driver's license or ID -- with the individual shell casings and bullets stamped with the same plus a 1 through 20 or 50 to note the unique shots so authorities can collect spent cartridges or pick bullets out of victims and trace them back to the purchaser;
6) only permit purchases of ammunition for which the customer has a gun for that is registered, making unregistered guns useless;
7) do not permit gun ownership for a variety of offenses and as a result of certain diseases -- an epileptic is not permitted to drive;
8) ...
3
All in favor of more sane gun laws, including gun owners should join the NRA and change it from within. Change it from a pure political entity back into what it was at it's inception, an organization which promotes rational gun policies and safety. It has been radicalized (since 1977) by folks who, for some reason see conspiracies in everything the government does. It costs 30 bucks to join and 19 to renew. You even get a nifty pocket knife as a gift. A few bucks to join and to try and rid our democracy of this political cancer is better than just bemoaning it's existence in attending rallies and writing letters to the editor.
I even have a sticker for my car window!
My grandfather, born in 1910, was a lifetime NRA member, hunter, amateur gunsmith, and competitive marksman. Gun safety, storage, and responsible handling were always the first topic when guns were being discussed. He collected hunting rifles and revolvers; I never once heard him say a good thing about assault rifles or military-style weapons. As far as I can tell, he was motivated by sentimentality for Old West style self-sufficiency and the heart of a craftsman . . . certainly not by anger or tribal paranoia. I wish he were still alive to give his opinion on today's rash of mass-shootings - I'm sure it would still be reasonable and focused on safety and responsible ownership above all else.
All statistics and studies show that owning guns actually DECREASES one's safety, so there are really no good reasons to own. With this mind, it basically just comes down to ego and emotion driving ownership--not good motivators for getting a hold of deadly weapons.
1
All legit studies. There are plenty of fake studies muddying the waters funded by gun proponents using dubious discredited non scientific random polling methods. They need to be challenged loudly and constantly.
What’s missing in the conversation is a willingness to compromise and LISTEN to facts by the anti-Gun movement AND the strident NRA position advocates.
I’m a life long left of center Progessive who happens to support the Second Amendment. Where are not an insignificant number and have our own pro-Gun groups. The California based Liberal Gun Club is just one example.
I’m a NRA Life Member, multi-discipline Certified Instructor, with hundreds of training hours under my belt. Although I differ very much with many of the NRA positions I stay a member so I can vote in the Board of Directors elections.
This year we have have been able to get members elected who are are open to being inclusive of LGBQT people, people of color, and left of center people like me. I’m. It naive. It’s a tiny start. But, we must start somewhere.
To the anti-gun coalition I say: if you want to dialogue meaningfully with gun owners don’t threaten us with confiscation, magazine limits which are arbitrary, and characterization of so-called “assault “ weapons as the only way to move ahead with your agenda.
These are not fact based arguments you are making and only make people like me , who support closing the gun show loophole, mandate training, and similar measures dig in our heels in fear what appears to be your true agenda: an Australian like ban which simply is out of character and unrealistic in our country.
6
The facts are that the USA has the most guns in the entire world, and the most gun deaths in the first world. It is the only nation that regularly suffers mass shootings and school shootings, and is only one of three nations that recognizes a citizen right to be armed, along with Mexico and Honduras.
And we are the only modern industrial country in the world without universal health care. How about root cause mitigation, i.e., making mental and physical health a priority for all instead of the privileged few? I suspect we agree on that point. Combine that with closing loopholes, proper background checks, and enforcement of laws already on the books and we’ve got a good start.
3
I know that most gun owners, be they hunters, sport shooters, lawful collectors or those concerned about personal protection, are not Second Amendment fundamentalists, but their strength as a political force has been high jacked by extremists. With one gun atrocity following another with scarcely a break, it is time for sensible voices to be heard.
We cannot ban or confiscate every gun, nor should we.. With over three hundred millions guns already in private hands in the United States, that would be pointless. We can and should license owners and limit new gun sales to ensure that the mentally impaired and criminally inclined cannot arm themselves without immense difficulty. Most responsible gun owners agree.
My ability to drive a car is not infringed by requirements that I demonstrate my capability, obtain a license, register my vehicle and purchase insurance against accidents. The same requirements for gun owners would not infringe their Second Amendment rights.
Responsible gun owners must speak up, vote and lobby their legislators. This has gone far enough.
Polls have shown that 70% of NRA members support strict gun control. In fact, before it was hijacked by ultra right wing extremists the NRA was the group pushing for strict gun control!
It's pretty obvious that the membership has no control over what the "leadership" of the NRA does. It is now just a lobbying arm of the gun manufacturers and uses it "members" as a prop to show it has support for it's actions. Indeed, the majority of the NRA funding comes from gun manufactuers, not its "membership."
The question is, why does that 70% of the membership stay with the NRA when they disagree with it's actions? if they quit the NRA would lose the rest of its little credibility.
There are tons of gun laws on the books which aren't enforced. Some of the mass shootings arguably could have been stopped by law enforcement officials .Liberal lawmakers even refuse to enforce stop and search which has proven to remove thousands of illegal weapons from criminals on the street. They refuse to enforce border control where thousand of illegal firearms cross daily but jump at the chance to legislate against ninety nine and nine tenths of citizens who safely own guns,of all kinds.The AR type rifle is the most popular weapon purchased today with millions in circulation.A few get into bad hands,a few cars kill people as do opiates in even much greater numbers .
2
I’m a gun owner who believes in unfettered freedom. Background checks give us a completely false sense of security; making use believe that we are safe when we really are not. After all, nearly every mass public shooting over the past 20 years was committed by a shooter that had passed a background check. And they did this in a gun-free zone. Both background checks and gun-free zones are government constructs that lull the people into a false sense of security. Both have been lamentable failures.
Before my great-grandmother was deported to Theresienstadt in 1942, she too thought the government would protect her. This was before they banned her ilk from owning firearms in the name of security, and neighbors began to enter her apartment uninvited to steal things because they knew she couldn't defend herself.
Most people commenting on this article are saying that they want the government to have monopoly control over firearms; and restrict the people’s right to own guns based on a collective belief that only certain arms belong in civilian hands. That’s EXACTLY what the Second Amendment was designed to guard against.
The Second Amendment is designed to guarantee that the people will always be equally armed as the government. Otherwise, what inventive is there for the government to remain benevolent? Other than the ballot box, there is no greater deterrent to dictatorship and authoritarianism than a well-armed citizenry.
2
The people in this day and age will never be "equally armed" to the armed forces. If our government is as malevolent as you imagine, the opposition will be vaporized in a flash of shock and awe (unless the military turns the guns around). Incidentally, my family suffered similarly to yours, and it was not due to a lack of firearms. The cause was the complete disintegration of social humanity and rationality and a thirst for an enemy to blame for all grievances. A refutation of your revolutionary pipe dream is the fate of the heroic resistance in Warsaw and Holland (etc.), which caused the Nazis some annoyance but were quickly annihilated. And Phillipes, are you so sure that the arms born by those Second-Amendment-enabled minutemen wouldn't be pointed at you? Incidentally, if your argument were plausible, I would be in favor of an armed citizenry with weapons stored safely at home, at the ready only when the cry for revolution is sounded, but to be strictly kept out of civil life.
1
I am a gun owner/hunter who marched in Albany. As noted by others, reasonable gun control is the goal of many law-abiding gun owners. The NRA has made itself into just another far-right wing interest group.
I am a retired law enforcement officer who owns 25 guns including 2 assault rifles. I have never sold a gun to a private party and always use a gun store, even though I lose money but am assured that a background check will be done.
I have been hunting since I was 10 and was taught to shoot by the NRA when I was 14. I would never join the NRA today because they are extremists who won't listen to reason. I loath them and their politics.
I possess a federal concealed carry permit that allows me to carry in all 50 states. I qualify often.
I support universal background checks and wrote to my senator in 2013 when that bill failed in the senate, saying I would never vote for him again.
I personally confronted my attorney general about his opposition to a public referendum mandating background checks that passed in 2016. He is now running for governor and I bad mouth him to anyone who will listen.
I have resigned from the republican party because they don't share my values anymore. Trump, McConnell and Ryan make me want to vomit.
How sad that it's "news" when we discover that - GASP!! - there are gun owners in favor of sensible gun laws. About as sad as an op-doc of conservatives who believe in climate change and agree with the -GASP AGAIN - facts of climate science.
To actually have something productive in this VERY polarized gun debate we need to find common ground ,reasonable common sense ,& reassure NRA members it's NOT about gun confiscation that the NRA continuously uses as an excuse for paranoia induced resistance. We need real, well managed & funded nationwide background checks for ALL sales & gun transfers to prevent lunatics easily getting guns ! Smaller gun magazines should NOT be a real problem either !They would lower the body counts & give an opportunity to wrestle the gun away sooner when attempting to reload like the recent waffle house incident ! ANY common sense restrictions are rejected by the NRA ! Their only proposal to help mitigate the increasing carnage is to get MORE GUNS!
If it's Not about confiscation then please do the following:
- Stop talking about "bans"
- Learn about firearms and terminology so you actually know what you're talking about
- Stop demonizing everyone who disagrees with you including the NRA.
e.g. When someone claims to want an "assault weapons ban" and defines an "assault weapon" in a manner that includes most pistols while calling the NRA a 'terrorist organization', I'm highly unlikely to believe they have any interest in finding common ground and certainly know that their idea of "common sense" is far different from mine
Yeah, I just fell off the tulip truck too.
You know who I am thoroughly sick of hearing about?
Law-Abiding Gun Owners, that’s who.
I am tired of having to buy them all a cookie every time somebody shoots up a school or a church or a restaurant.
I’m tired of taking them into consideration. I have no more room for their feelings, or their phony innocence.
Sorry, but there are no more seats left on my Consideration Bus.
There are too many coffins on board these days.
There is all this talk about military style weapons. If you ban those then the mass shooters can do just as much damage with hunting rifles. That is a fact. A deer rifle is a sniper weapon. You can kill someone from so very far away. A shotgun intended for hunting can kill just as many people as the Parkland Shooting. That is why all of us hearing that assault style weapons be banned know the reality of what is being said. It starts with banning the sale of assault weapons. Again. The people that own these can still sell them at gun shows and private transactions. There are enough of these out there to facilitate anyone that wants one for a few hundred dollars more than you can buy them for now forever. The ban on assault weapons will start there then what happens if people start using pistols and shot guns? Those will be next? That is the real issue.
The NRA has only five million members. The NRA does not represent the view of the majority of American gun owners.
If you are a member of the NRA and disagree with their radical and inflexible positions, cancel your membership and tell them why you did so.
1
Why is the news media always the last one to report the obvious? I think I've been saying the same message for at least a year. Maybe two. Gun owners need to lead the debate on gun control or we aren't going anywhere. The Parkland movement has given everyone a nice kick in the pants. The student activism in particular has mobilized the issue in a way Sandy Hook could not. That said, we come back to the same message anyway: What are you, as a "responsible" gun owner, going to do about it? Years have gone by, I'm still waiting for an answer.
“I have a little bit more trepidation now,” said Rob Mason, 47, an educational aide at a high school in Maineville, Ohio, outside Cincinnati, who owns several guns and practices shooting with his children at a range. “It seems like it’s going too far.”
Mr. Mason said he supports universal background checks. But he is uncomfortable with the notion of an assault-rifle ban. His daughter, Grace, who is 16, went to a march in Ohio. He was proud she participated. But he also felt worried. The marchers’ demands seemed fluid and ill-defined, raising the worry that the young people simply wanted to ban all guns.
“As a moderate, I’m like, ‘Hmmm, are they really just pushing for one type of gun to be banned, or are they pushing for everything?’” Mr. Mason said. “The protesters are not talking to me. I don’t think they believe that there are people like me out there.”
-----
These gun owners suffer from paranoia.
Gun safety and gun control do not eliminate the 2nd Amendment, but they seem obsessed with paranoia that that's what gun control means.
Maybe they step off their 2nd Amendment ledge and start smelling the senseless American slaughter instead of clinging to their guns.
And "uncomfortable with the notion of an assault-rifle ban" ?
Because everyday is war in his world ?
These folks could use some psychotherapy.
21
The NRA has been exploiting the confiscation paranoia for YEARS ! The usual boogyman panic lettter of the week is sent to members to write to & what to say!
1
Stop lying. The purpose of gun control is to slowly ban the private ownership of weapons.
1
The so-called assault weapon ban is without any rational basis, these are not military grade weapons, neither are they more likely to be used in the vast majority of homicides with guns. These guns are symbols of mass murder but only a small number of these guns or those who have them have ever hurt anybody. The insistence upon banning them is nothing but raw unknowing fear of guns and of gun owners being expressed. It is a big impediment to rational gun control.
1
Thank you to all sensible, law-abiding gun owners who are speaking up in support of sensible gun safety measures. I am as liberal as they get and even I don't want to deprive anyone of their 2nd Amendment right to gun ownership, however, ownership needs to happen responsibly. Dialogue and compromise needs to happen so that safety is paramount.
7
Hunting guns, sure. Personal protection handguns, yes. Combat weapons, no. Background checks? Sure...the military services do them on all applicants. Minimum training? Yes...the military obviously spends a lot of time and money on weapons training. The right combination of screening, training and restrictions on who gets to use combat weapons is in keeping with the Second Amendment, public safety and societal sanity.
9
You don't know too much about guns or gun ownership do you? The second amendment is not about hunting....
1
Based on many of the comments that I've read in the NYT online about gun control, the 2nd Amendment, the NRA, assault weapons, large-capacity magazines, background checks and related topics, an essential topic of discussion is often missing: informed opinions about what motivates shooters to commit these horrendous acts based on research. There's an interesting article in the April 14, 2018 issue (Vol. 193, No.7) of Science News magazine that discusses some of the existing research about the psychology of mass shooters. Before many of us convince ourselves that we know how to solve this complex problem based on our personal biases and convictions, let's hear what the criminologists, psychologists, and sociologists who are investigating the psychology of mass shootings have to say. In addition, let's do what we can as Americans to support additional research in this subject area of inquiry. So, if you genuinely want to understand and help solve this problem, let your politicians and medial folks know that more research is required rather than more conventional "wisdom".
6
At the state and national level Republican congressmen in conjunction with the NRA have stymied the scientific study of gun related death in the last 20 years.
And until they do that research (don’t hold your breath and don’t tell me it’s a mental health problem) let’s require universal background checks, ban all assault rifles and bump stocks, and require licensing (just like we do for other lethal weapons such as automobiles).
But the NRA pushed a ban on research into gun violence.
At least those who own guns are not portrayed as crazy nuts, here. This may enable people to start respecting each other which is the foundation of reasonable discussion and solving problems together.
15
I have never heard of any gun control advocate ever claim that 150 million other Americans are crazy. You are just repeating a straw man argument floated by the NRA.
My uncle was an Ohio farmer and an avid hunter. he had at least a dozen rifles and shotguns but no assault rifles. he had a woodshop and did custom stocks and checkering. he wasn't a paranoid sociopath type, so, Guns to shoot people or overthrow anything would not interest him. i see him as the NORMAL Gun owner.
Fact is MOST gun owners are RATIONAL, are not NRA members, will not be the paranoid trolls seen anytime guns get discussed on the internet. TRUTH? hardly ANY gun control proposed or realistically doable... would not impact most gun owners. Take the AR-15 (etc)....even a law to ban SALE ... won't have effect on the one you ALREADY own. Nobody is paying to search door to door.. anyone who imagines that is nuts. Who needs 30 rd mags for self defense? Well.. maybe the naked looney at the Waffle house.....he got stopped and disarmed when he had to reload. The Fetish types who fantasize about a great Shootout at the Waffle House... want a LOT of 30 rd mags.
The second amendment doesn't need to be repealed, as was suggested in this paper. I don't even think we need to ban assault rifles or high-capacity magazines.
But, yes, gun owners--and I think there are many like myself--do support gun control. And, yes, gun owners should lead this call to action. I don't mind registering my guns with the FBI or going through training--in fact, I welcome a national training standard. I don't mind going through a psychological exam either. It's all good with me. The problem, however, is a lack of trust between gun owners and the government. While I would give up my guns, if that's what the majority wanted, I'm outside of the norm in this respect. Among most, there is the somewhat irrational and paranoid belief that the Government wants to take their guns. And you simply can't use logical arguments with these types. It doesn't work. I've tried, believe me.
Instead, I think the solution is this: let's strictly enforce the 2nd Amendment as it was intended. You want a high-powered assault rifle? Okay, then, you have to join a "well-regulated" militia, run by the State. Doing this supports both narratives of 1.) strict gun control (i.e., by the state) and 2.) full support for the 2nd amendment. Let's just put the "well regulated" into strict enforcement.
After all, it makes some sense. We have millions of guys who are just rarin' to be the heroic defenders of Liberty and Justice. Why not just let them?
35
Much better gun control is needed. The fear of gun confiscation comes from reasonable concerns, not paranoia.
That is bit too far I think. Strict enforcement of the 2nd Amendment should be similar to registering your vehicle and operating it on the public roads. The NRA should realize that with proper regulations and monitoring, much as vehicular controls, would serve to preserve the 2nd Amendment. Why not mandate that gun owners be certified? That would create a whole new industry! Why not pay a registration fee on a fixed period basis? That would help fund background and investigative work. Why not periodically re-certify the gun owner? That would ensure that weapons are tracked. When you sell a car you are given a specific amount of time to report the exchange of ownership right? The right to drive is in no way threatened is it? Why not mandate liability insurance for weapon owners? After all, people are not just physically damaged/killed but monetarily harmed. This is not an issue of the right to bear arms. I want Americans armed. Especially with Trumps friendliness to Russians. We need to be able to stand up for ourselves and each other, but we need to be responsible too.
2
That's a great idea, and a cinch to implement. We've already got a militia every gun purchaser can join. It's called "The National Guard."
2
I fully support increased, sound firearms control. My gun safes contain fewer and fewer firearms because I realize that I'm in the waning years of my life. I sell firearms by consignment through fully licensed dealers. I've been shooting since my dad bought me my first Daisy Red Rider BB gun. All of my shooting activity is centered on competitive marksmanship and the guns used are all single shot, expensive target rifles.
The National Rifle Association does not represent me and I do not support the NRA; many of my associates feel the same way. Most of us believe strongly that disenfranchisement of the NRA must be a part of the long-term, difficult process of tougher firearms regulation in the United States and that until that happens sound, reasonable firearms regulation will not be effective.
The most telling aspect of this article is the dearth of comment. Most of us are sheepishly afraid to publicly, with the loudest possible voices, express our opinions. Most who agree that tougher gun control is necessary are afraid to say so in any sort of public forum. That, also, must change. Shoot and shout, people, or nothing constructive will happen.
46
Call me the day you give up your only means of self-defense by selling your last weapon. Bring back the Ten Commandments if you want to effect real change in society.
I'm a gun owner and never really thought much about the NRA. When I was a Boy Scout, 40-odd years ago, they taught me to shoot rifles and shotguns, targets and skeet. Two years ago, I paid $40 and joined the NRA to see what it was like "from the inside." At the same time, I joined the ACLU (they only asked for $35 but I gave $40) -- sort of a carbon footprint offset strategy) to see what they were like "from the inside." Their divergent policy stances aside, these 2 organizations couldn't seem to be more different: the NRA is a communications machine! I received 2 or 3 emails daily, a weekly policy email and 1 of 4 (4!) monthly magazines they publish. They called my home (often) to tell me that "radical liberal Democrats" [I assume the capitalization] are coming for my guns and, unless I give more money to the NRA, they will likely get them. And from the ACLU? Crickets. An occasional email and that's it. In one year, the only mail I received from the ACLU was a reminder to renew my membership (I did). Even after my 1 year NRA membership expired I've received consistent electronic and telephonic communication from them.
Is it any wonder that the voices of responsible gun owners are missing?
56
Your point is correct. The right wingers are utter fanatics and have been spewing their propaganda 24/7 for the last 40 years. Is it any wonder that so many have come to believe what they say even though any 6th grader can point out the irrationality of it? No periodic TV ad campaign will do anything to counter this.
1
I doubt if most people know you can still own a Thompson machine gun in the U.S. even though it was banned in 1934. But with ownership of such a weapon come some very strict rules. One must pass an intensive background check similar to an FBI background check. It must be registered with the proper authorities and secured to the satisfaction of law enforcement. The cost of such a weapon is also a deterrent. I recently saw one for sale at the price of $20,000.
Since it is highly unlikely Congress will ban the current class of military grade weapons, states could still impose a ban or implement the same measures as applied to the Thompson. We would all be safer for it.
8
A category 3 liscence also requires a signed endorsement by your local sheriff or Police Chief. Then there's a fee of several hundred $. in THEORY... one can jump through the hoops, get a Tommy Gun, get a 30 Cal belt fed machine gun.
yes... those items WILL cost as much as a good used sports car and....there's limited ways you'd get to plays with it.
If you dig a trench in your yard and set up your machine gun......you'll find out you ain't zoned for a Battlefield.
"Hmmm, are they really just pushing for one type of gun to be banned, or are they pushing for everything?"
The most vocal gun-rights advocates do not seem to be able to discriminate between the two.
10
I am a gun owner and have no problem with expanded background checks.... we all know people that should not have guns either due to mental issues or other things that may or may not be in their control. I had to go thru a background check to buy a bar and to get my last 4 Jobs. Why shouldn’t you have to go through one to own a weapon that can potentially kill multiple people? Jared Kushner needs a background check for his place in our current administration but not to own a gun?
20
The waffle house shooting shows the limits on "background" checks. The shooter had no problem getting guns even after multiple incidents and some very weird behavior.
1
Does the NRA not represent its members beliefs? Too many folks seem to forget the words “a well-ordered militia” appear in the Second Amendment. If the NRA continues to ignore their members who don’t see the legitimacy of assault weapons in private hands, then the members ought to resign their membership. Do the members believe in the goals of the NRA lobbyists? If not, members should resign. Money talks in both directions. Will the NRA continue to fund the campaigns of Republicans even if new laws curtail the sale and ownership of military weapons? You bet.
19
The NRA is a front for the gun manufacturing industry. It is in the business of telling people what to believe, not in representing responsible gun owners.
1
How about we all just join the NRA and change it from within?
Nice uplifting article and a welcomed counter to the endless NRA/weapons manufacturer propaganda which makes it seem like all gun owners are so vociferously against any regulation that each of us is condemned to an endless parade of despair and terror. Maybe the Times will next do some articles on the countless number of gun shot victims who are condemned to lives of disability. These forgotten victims are largely swept under the rug during this debate and they far outnumber those who have been murdered by a blood thirsty gun owner.
22
There needs to be sensible gun ownership. If I need a license to drive, need to attend hunter safety to hunt, need a motorcycle license to drive a motorcycle, a special endorsement to pull a trailer behind my car, why don't I need special training and licensing in every state to own a gun? Seems sensible to me.
39
Blaber, and let's add insurance to own a gun, similar to that required for cars. We allow cars to be driven on public roads but the driver must be insured in case he/she harms someone or damages property. The same should be true for owning and using guns. I'll bet that insurance would be quite costly for human assault weapons, just as it is for drivers more prone to accidents. That alone might deter some people from owning guns.
2
There's two reasons for owning an assault rifle.
One is ASSAULT...like killing people.
The other is for the 'fun' of firing a powerful weapon and seeing the result.
Ban ALL such weapons EXCEPT on gun ranges. Owners can visit them there, arrange for their transport to another range, expend all the ammunition they want and lock them away when they leave. The weapon NEVER leaves the range.
34
Why do gun owners in favor of gun control and in disagreement with NRA policies not create a new nation-wide association? In a democracy, there are alternatives: Democrat or Republican; labor union A or labor union B; this church or that, this brand or that. Somehow, a nation with only one national rifle association doesn't seem very democratic. So I'm issuing a call: All you NRA members unhappy with the way things are, get together, quit, and start a new national gun association.
11
As a gun owner who supports expanded background checks and several other sensible gun safety measures, I couldn’t agree more. There are more of us out here than people realize. In fact, if any group understands the awesome power — and potential danger — of firearms, it’s those of us who know them best. Don’t let the lunatic fringe fool you; responsible gun owners are the first ones to support responsible gun laws.
55
Responsible gun owners and NRA members obey the law. They are not the problem. Criminals laugh at gun laws like they laugh at theft laws. Those with mental illness don't conceal it. Solve these problems and there will be little or no debate about the 2nd amendment.
Responsible gun owners are not responsible for the irresponsible ones which is why much better regulations and controls have become necessary. On the one side are those who refuse to trust in the good faith of gun owners and on the others those who refuse in the good faith of a democratic system to enact fair laws that keep guns from irresponsible people. Not a good situation.
I currently own 11 firearms & 10000 rounds of ammo. I was a federally licensed gun dealer for six years, as well as a licensed dealer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I have been licensed to carry for 50 years. I've never owned an assault weapon nor would I sell them when I was a dealer. Bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, side by side, & over & under shotguns, revolvers, & pistols with small capacity magazines is all any American needs to hunt or protect life & property. Military style weaponry should not be deemed judicially protected by the 2nd Amendment. The reason the NRA has evolved from a gun safety & target & outdoor enthusiast organization to a politically rabid enabler of mass shootings by heavily armed perpetrators is because of one thing alone, namely a strong (and justified?) belief that if assault weapons with high capacity magazines are outlawed, the "gun grabbers" will be energized to go for all guns. If you are anti-gun ownership, ask yourself "is this a truism?" "Will I want to go after ALL gun ownership?" If the answer is yes-you know why that although I resigned from the NRA 35 years ago, and am opposed to high capacity assault weapons, I can understand their logic. In all honesty can't you?
13
Tony
I cannot tell the functional difference between a Ruger Mini-14 and an AR-15. They both are semi-auto with the same capacity, and the same caliber, but one is considered an assault weapon while the other is not because it has a wood stock. What difference does a pistol grip or a flash suppressor make? So the only logic I see to the Assault Weapons Ban is to slowly add new weapons to the ban list until there is nothing left. If you allow a ban on the AR-15, your PC Remington 7400 or Ruger Mini-14 is next. That is the NRA's logic to fighting tooth and nail against laws like this.
1
So you’d only sell the kinds of guns that are used in 10,000 of the 11,000 gun homicides each year?
Well thank you sincerely from the non gun owning majority in this country that are having to fund militarized schools, malls, offices and pay higher health premiums to fund the epidemic of injuries requiring expensive medical intervention. All so you can continue to fetishize your lethal toys, and make this country an endless punchline for a world that looks on in horror at our folly.
I don't think any sane person would want just anybody regardless of age and mental health to be able to obtain a military style weapon. It is a few insane among all our gun owners who have managed to make sensible gun control a political hot potato. It is up to all of us, including sensible gun owners, to turn that around and make an NRA rating of A a political liability.
25
“I honestly believe that God-fearing, gun-owning Americans should be leading the debate on gun laws,” They have been for decades. I honestly believe when you put fear of an imaginary God, and love for a inanimate objects over your responsibility as an American citizen, no one should take you advice on anything, ever, for the rest of time, under any circumstances.
8
Strange kind of deity that refuses to protect his followers. Why do xtians need to go armed? Are they completely lacking in faith? Have they read the commandment about not killing?
I am so not interested in the opinions of the people responsible for thousands of deaths of innocent people. end the manufacture of automatic weapons now,
3
My brother killed himself with an old WWII pistol. I am not a gun-lover. But guns that can kill many people quickly and are designed for that purpose should not be owned by anyone who wants them. Keep your gun for target shooting or hunting or killing vermin on the farm, as you have since this country began. The debate is really not about taking away all of your guns. Just the ones designed to kill many as quickly as possible.
29
If that is the case, why are features like barrel shrouds, pistol grips, and flash suppressors features that make a gun kill as many people as possible? None of these things do that, they just are associated with "military-style"...emphasis on the STYLE. These are cosmetic features not something that makes them deadlier. And yes I am ok with a bump stock ban, in case you are wondering.
When this Nation began ,citizens loyal to the Crown did keep their weapons ,while Patriots were hung and shot for their beliefs. The patriots and our first President George Washington are why your comments are shown and read today. Firearms confiscation is a much publicly stated policy by Democrats today and the eventual goal.
1
Repeal the second amendment.
2
The enemy is not guns or gun owners. The enemy is the N.R.A.
22
As infiltrated by Putin's Russia: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/russian-campaign-to-infil...
We should have Canadian-style gun laws. Their murder rate is a lot lower and it's all around safer than the US. Look at how the police officer in Canada handled the driver of the van that hit people. He was patient because a lot fewer people in Canada own handguns compared to the US.
When it comes to guns and healthcare, the solution is right to the north of us. Canada isn't some kind of hellhole.
12
I've owned and hunted with guns for 70 years, and damned right I support gun control. I also support that the traditional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment: it is an anachronism about state militias.
23
We agree with Mr. Galinate and have posted much the same multiple times. We are gun owners, hunters, hunter safety instructors, and support universal background checks, mandatory universal safety training, red flag removal of firearms, fixing the background check system, and mandatory live fire training for every gun owner. We abandoned the NRA in the late 70's and dropped our membership. We understand this will not stop all firearm violence or criminals obtaining guns (although the penalty should be much more severe).
14
Any law-abiding, responsible, mentally healthy gun owner should support keeping guns out of the hands of anyone who is not a law-abiding, responsible or mentally healthy person. You can be pro Second Amendment and pro gun safety at the same time.
11
We already have such laws. Look them up.
I am a gun owner and very much favor strict gun controls. For example, hunters of migratory birds are prohibited from having more than three shells in their guns. Why not the same law for all guns.
31
I'm happy to see the NYT recognize that there is a large pool of gun owning Americans who agree with requiring expanded background and mental health checks before purchasing a firearm. These are the folks who are not heard over the din of a very vocal minority in the NRA. I don't believe another assault weapon ban is the answer. Rigorous background checks is a good place to start, with a training requirement for any pistol or military style weapon purchase to follow.
6
As a native Tennessean, I am saddened by these recent tragedies. I remember that when I was growing up there (in the 50s), from time to time the local newspaper would carry a news item about someone being arrested for "carrying a gun for the purpose of going armed". Yes, there was a law like that back then, somewhat similar to what Wyatt Earp enforced in Dodge City. Otherwise, it was common sense. The rule was that if you carried a firearm, you had better be going hunting or have some legal justification for doing so. I suppose that law was repealed with the coming of the NRA as a political power. I own guns and am in no way in favor of outlawing gun ownership. After carrying an assault rifle as a regular part of my wardrobe for a year, I have no appetite for having to do that again. I think its long past time we regained our common sense.
38
One of my earliest memories is of my Father helping me to fire a .22 rifle at a target. I've owned guns all my life, which is one reason I believe that guns should be much more closely regulated. Among other things:
- all gun sales should be subject to background checks
- all guns should be registered with local authorities
- classes in safety and proper handling should be mandatory for gun owners
- assault-style weapons should not be sold to the general public
- large capacity magazines, bump stocks, silencers, and other accessories that make guns more efficient killers of people should be banned
I live in an a district where the local congressman actually says the 2nd amendment was written so that "citizens of this country could maintain an armed rebellion against their government". This is the insanity that is causing so much trouble right now.
52
I am a gun owner and have been since I was in a shooting club as a child. I am also a VietNam veteran and understand first hand the lethal capabilities of assault weapons. I DO support gun control. I have never seen any reason why a civilian needs to own any type of assault weapon. My reasoning is the same for large capacity magazines. I will and do speak out in favor of gun control whenever confronted with the issue.
I DO NOT support the NRA and I am appalled at the mass shootings in our society. I believe that the NRA's reasoning and money are contributing greatly to the gun problems we are currently confronting. I DO believe that gun control will reduce the killings and help bring some sanity to our society.
27
i do not agree with gun control i believe if people would control what their kids do and disciplined them we would be safer. my household has 30+ guns and i don't ever feel the urge to take one out and harm somebody cause i know what they can do and realise the reprecausion. if our schools could educate students on the effects of bullying these things wouldnt happen.
1
you are so misguided and wrong that it is sad. If people did this or that those mass shootings would not have happened. If teenagers did not have sex before marriage then they would not have unwanted pregnancies. Your argument is just an empty but hurtful to those that die and hurt in those mass shootings.
Just think, when you buy a car what things you need to have?
Driver Licence, 16 or older, insurance, registration and tag every year.
When you buy a gun that can kill so many people in 5-10 minutes, what is it that is required? Nothing. Just pay and start to shoot innocent people.
It is troubling that anyone would even consider owning "30 " guns. Who would want or need that? I fear that it is just a matter of time before someone suffers a "repercaution".
1
Ban all semiautomatic firearms in this country. Failing that, tax firearms. Annual Federal licensing tax on each firearm owned: $10,000 for each automatic or semi-automatic, $10 for each of any other kind of firearm.
That will help cover some of the annual, national expenses of unnecessary emergency room visits, prosthetics, wheel chairs, life-long medication and therapy, and, of course, coroners’ inquests, grief counseling, and unplanned funerals.
7
Keep dreaming. Since most firearms are semi-automatic your suggestion is nothing but a poll tax and not legal.
It's encouraging to see gun owners taking a stance against the radicalized positions of the NRA. It's past time for that organization to change its leadership and change its positions to something more reasonable and sensible.
4
The 2nd Amendment is not absolute anymore than the 1st Amendment.
The Supreme Court has consistently put limitations on the rights of firearm owners. ( like no one can walk down the street with a bazooka strapped to their thigh or back )
So, on that glaring and simple premise, the American electorate simply needs to vote out all ( regardless of party ) that are roadblocks to common sense firearm safety measures and background checks.
Time to end the carnage.
13
I own two guns and have a concealed carry permit, after passing coursework and a stringent background check. And like many other gun owners, have wanted stronger control and enforcement long before the latest atrocity. I've disliked the way in which politicians, media, and certainly the NRA have pretended that gun owners are a monolithic group; we are not. And that's not new, although it may be news to many. There is zero reason for assault weapons or ammunition to be legal for self-defense or hunting. There is no sense in making it easy for criminals to get guns. It's not a religion for most gun owners, and many want, and have wanted gun control. It's the only sane thing to do.
28
As a long time gun owner and member of the NRA I believe that there needs to be gun control laws. The 2nd Amendment and the NRA survived when fully automatic guns (Tommy Guns) where removed from the general public and they will continue to survive if assault weapons are removed.
5
I am a gun owner, and I do support smart gun control. I don't worry about the 2nd Amendment being taken out of the constitution, its not going anywhere. I don't own an assault rifle, never will, just don't see the need for one. If I want to hunt I am covered, as I am for protecting my home and property. While its true a person has to pull the trigger on any weapon to take a life, to me its also true we as a country know there are unstable people among us. Guns are not toys (we all agree), and any gun can and has wounded or taken a life. But for me I don't get why we need to have bigger style weapons with magazines that hold many rounds. I realize we can't stop all shootings, but shouldn't those who maybe involved in one have at least a fighting chance. Sure most of us who own guns are respectful about them, but after 24 years in law enforcement and dealing with lots of people in various situations again I know there are unstable people. I would prefer not to arm them to the maximum.
77
We need more people with your thinking to stand up and be heard.
You have great power if all of you will only speak up loud and clear.
1
How about - "I was a gun owner but decided that human life was more important."
1
I have been wondering for the last several years if anyone has challenged the NRA’s membership numbers? My husband (a lifetime member) died in 2010. I continue to get magazines, mail addressed to him despite sending notes he his dead. The organization has also changed dramatically since he joined about 60 years ago. Not sure some of the “lifetime” members support the current politics.
I am sure the lobbyists for the NRA do not want the numbers of dead current members revealed
3