An honest discussion about guns and gun safety requires facts confirmed and fears disclosed.
The likelihood of any gun now owned being used to harm innocent is remote. But minimal efforts are made to determine who might have guns who are at higher risk of harming people with them. Currently, gun background checks miss people who definitely are not supposed to obtain them. Only after the harm is done are the laws applied consistently.
We have a gun safety problem that needs to be addressed. Regulations including a national gun registry, local gun user licenses, very good background checks, the legal procedures to remove guns from people who pose a danger, and laws requiring the safe storage of guns are likely ways of addressing the problem while guns are owned legally as they now are.
But the fear towards guns and gun owners is very high among those who don’t own guns. For many of them no laws nor regulations can relieve their concerns, only the absence of the guns. Lacking trust in gun owners, they will not allow such regulations.
Gun owners can see that the pressure to eliminate gun ownership is behind gun safety efforts. They have respected their obligations to keep their guns secure and have used them lawfully and carefully. But now they are being thought of as dangers to all. They probably would support all efforts to sure that only trustworthy people have guns. But they are not willing to discard of their guns to stop being feared or disrespected.
1
The ban on assault weapons was not a good idea and it will not be now. The weapons are in abundance and have seldom been used criminally. The reason for banning automatic weapons just does not apply.
The danger from these guns is the rifle ammunition combined with the semi-automatic system which allows many trigger plus before reloading. Those are features that have been common in many fire arms used for hunting and target shooting and self defense for over a century. Anybody can repeatedly squeeze a trigger faster than once per second. With reloading that’s a lot of bullets discharged in a very short time.
Despite this, they are not often used in gun violence. Banning them just makes gun owners believe that gun control is not about reducing gun violence but about disarming gun owners.
1
I already commented this on another article but I think it bears repeating. Shootings
I have a suggestion on reducing the number of people killed and injured at these shootings. One thing we know for sure is that most of the shootings are done by teens or 20’s. How about we restrict purchases and possession of assault riffles to people 30 years old or above. By then the hate may have dissipated, mental illness identified and treated and common sense started. Keep your guns but be old enough to use them in a sensible way.
"Assault Weapon", a made up term by liberals to mean, "Anything that scares us". These so-called "military-style rifles" have nothing in common with ACTUAL military rifles except for looks. They DO NOT have a full-auto or burst-fire feature that true military rifles do. They are simply semi-auto rifles. One pull of the trigger, one shot. No different than the Ruger 10/22, Ruger Mini 14 Ranch rifle, Remington 597, Henry AR-7. Plus, it's a well known fact, except to liberals, that cars, alcohol, tobacco, doctors and knives kill more people than "assault" rifles do. In France several years ago, a man killed 87 using a truck. Evil will always find a way.
5
Democrats would do better to work to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines, rather than the so-called "military-style" assault weapons. It is the magazines that make such weapons so deadly, and banning them would be politically easier to accomplish than banning the rifles. Also, a buyback of magazines would be less costly than a buyback of guns.
There is also the question of how effective a ban of such weapons would be. The assault weapons ban in effect from 1994 to 2004 had little effect on gun deaths overall, and not much effect on mass shooting deaths.
The "military-style" weapons sold to civilians are not the same as the U.S. Army M-16 assault rifle. The M-16 is capable of fully automatic fire, but civilian rifles are limited to semi-automatic fire.
Such weapons were simply called semi-automatic rifles until Josh Sugarmann, founder of the Violence Policy Center, published "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America," which conflated semi-automatic rifles with military issue assault weapons. As Sugarmann explained, "The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." Public policy should not be based on a tactic of confusion.
1
From S.Ct.'s Syll., DIST. OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER:
"The [2d] Amend. protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes....
"The Amend.'s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
"The prefatory clause comports with the Ct.’s interpretation of the operative clause. The 'militia' comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Fed. Gov't would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congr. power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
"The Ct.’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the [2d] Amend.
The [2d] Amend.'s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state [2d] Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
"Interpretation of the [2d] Amend. by scholars, courts and legislators....also supports the Ct’.s conclusion."
1
If you ask the average rational person 'when you see a stranger with a gun, do you feel safer or less safe?', that person will answer 'less safe'. This question undercuts the entire logic of the NRA and its gun culture in its push for open or concealed carry laws.
And if you ask the same question about assault weapons, the answer is not only 'less safe' but 'alarmed'. More for the case of banning them entirely and requiring those who own them now to turn them over to the authorities that the Second Amendment would have deferred to for public security. New Zealand is a primary exemplar.
There is no longer any need or purpose in a culture of vigilantism in the US, not even in rural areas.
1
Trust. Do you trust a person who has proven to be trustworthy?
This should not be a political issue, it is a human one.
We are all humans aren’t we?
What humans outside of the military and those providing human defense need assault weapons?
1
@Robin Even were there no Second Amendent, "gun control" is a bad idea. In the 20th Century, "gun control" laws promoted eight major genocides in which some 50,000,000 were murdered.
An example: Germany enacted "gun control" on 13 April 1928, before the Nazis took power. The goal: to curb fights between Nazi Party and Communist Party thugs.
This law enabled the Nazis quickly to get an iron grip. When the Nazis lawfully took power in 1933, they found in police stations, lists of firearm-owners. Those, whom the Nazis hated, they quickly disarmed. The disarming of Jews - one percent of Germans - was not decisive: many other Germans hated the Nazis.
The Nazis won 43.9% of the vote in an election held on 5 March 1933, even with Nazi party thugs having terrorized other parties' candidates. The Nazis had to form a coalition. It had a slim majority in the Reichstag (parliament).
By at once disarming their foes, the Nazis stifled any resistance. By 1938, Nazi successes - e.g., the seizure of Austria and a revived economy - made the Nazis truly popular.
The Nazis murdered some 13,000,000 of whom some 6,000,000 were Jews (of whom 1,500,000 were children) and 750,000 Gypsies (Roma).
In short, "gun control" dazzles many with a false promise of "safe streets" . Behind "gun control's" shiny façade is a nasty reality: mountains of corpses.
Finally, military-type firearms are precisely those protected by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in US v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939).
@Robin
Ban abortions. NO ONE needs access to abortions on demand. Abortions kill 6,000 EVERY DAY!
1
Assault weapons are not sold nor owned by civilians in this country except by license from the Federal Government. Every politician and person who knows what are assault weapons understand this is the case. They want to remove legally owned guns which operate with semi-automatic actions by convincing the public that they are made and manufactured for the use of the military in war. The legal ones are not. It’s easier to convince the public to ban these arms by misrepresenting the purpose of the guns than to try to explain what makes them dangerous. That would bring the issues of actual risk and of the trustworthy of gun owners into the discussion.
Just what is the definition of an "assault weapon"? I have a .22 cal semiautomatic rifle that I use for paper target shooting. It is really no different from an AR15 in that they are both semiautomatic. I don't belong to the NRA and don't hunt. I am a liberal Democrat with 24 years Army service and am quite familiar with the fully automatic M16. So what do I have?
1
@Harry T Thank you for your efforts to keep all of us safe!
The term "assault rifel" is a literal translation of the Nazi name for a self-loading rifle they introduced in Autumn, 1943. The Sturmgewehr was chambered for the 7.92x33 cartridge. It was intended to replace the bolt-action Mauser rifle, with which German infantrymen carried, when the war began (1 September 1939).
The U.S. military has never used "assault" as any part of its designation for soldier-portable firearms. Thus, the SAW (M249) is designated the "Squad Automatic Weapon". The standard-issue rifle is "Rifle, M4, 5.56mm".
The Nazis commited genocide and murdered some 13,000,000 - including millions of children.
Nazi terms should not be used, except when quoting from documents of that era. I suspect those, who use Nazi terms, of embracing Nazi ideas. Those, who embrace Nazi ideas, are a great threat than any terrorist!
@Jay E. Simkin
On another topic. One of the first things Nazis did to Jewish people was to bar them from the physicians from beginning called doctors. They were called providers. That’s what insurance companies are calling them now. Interesting.
I'm sure President Trump will use any new ban and confiscation powers wisely.
Because well, he's a stable genius...
1
Once there was a town that had a steep and dangerous cliff. Cars frequently drove off of it injuring and killing many of the towns citizens. The majority of the townspeople called for a fence to be built to prevent these deaths. But the town council, in its wisdom, instead advocated for the budget to buy more ambulances to pick up the injured.
See what I’m getting at?
4
I felt a momentary sense of panic this summer after the Walmart Mass Murder. I was in the middle of a Costco and I suddenly realized that I didn't know where the exits were located. I never thought about this before. There is One Entrance. Where are the Exits?
Big Box Stores made it on the US Places to Avoid List. Add to
Concerts, Workplaces, Schools.
The only public place in America where you can feel comfortably safe is Airside at an Airport. You just have to get there first.
I am not looking to Congress for leadership.
I am looking directly at Walmart to stop selling the guns and the magazine clips, be a part of the solution, and take the lead in ending the madness. Military weapons do not belong on Civilian streets. You have leverage. In America, Money is Speech, and voters by comparison are mute.
Walmart! Even if your only focus has been on the profit you make on these product lines, shift it to the COST of the clean up.
2
If Congress is not going to update the Second Amendment to the present day, there is no reason to update "Arms" to the present day either. If you want the Second Amendment, it comes with a musket. There. Interpretation problem fixed.
2
Estimations of how many guns are publicly owned is not all that helpful. We walk around every day not knowing where these guns are located. Why aren't they automaticly tracked via GPS?
It would be helpful if a crowd-sourced website could pin down where these guns are located on a Google Map. The majority of voters want these weapons off the street. We need to fill in for Congress and do their job to keep us safe.
If Congress refuses to change the Second Amendment to accomodate all the changes made since the musket was introduced, there is no reason that we can not do an end run around Congress and use the changes to our advantage.
There is nothing in the Second Amendment that says that "Arms" can't be pinpointed on a Google Map.
If you want to keep your guns, you can keep your guns.
You or your friends, neighbors, coworkers, acquaintences and random strangers you met on the internet can help you out with your voluntary reporting duties.
Knowing where the guns are
located would be a good place to start.
@BBB Americans own some 402,000,000 firearms (US Department of Justice, "Firearms Commerce in the United States", 2000 and 2018). Tracking so many firearms - most of them highly concealable - is futile. GPS devices are easily defeated by, for example, wrapping them in metal foil.
Canada - surely not a "third world" country - tried to set up a registry for "long guns", some 28 million. After a decade and about C$1 billion, the effort failed.
By the way, at some point, Australia's aborigines will be murdered. Many will beat their breasts and wail. Those murders will have been facilitated by the "gun control" laws adopted after the Port Arthur massacre. But, few - if any - will connect the aborigines' being disarmed with their murder.
For those who don't know or who disbelieve it, there are those (like myself) who consider themselves thoughtful liberals and support *all* of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.
The Liberal Gun Owner organization's position on the Second Amendment:
https://randy-miyan.squarespace.com/secondamendment
The Liberal Gun Club's stance regarding regulation:
https://theliberalgunclub.com/about-us/stances-regarding-regulation/
1
@Diogenes
Sounds interesting, is the LGC in any way funded by Bloomberg, or his many astroturf orgs like Everytown?
1
Despite possible political repercussions, the House must pass a ban on Assault Weapons, which have no place in the hands of non-military persons. This will toss the issue into the Senate, which of course will do nothing; this will give Democrats another strong weapon, so to speak, in the Presidential election 2020.
1
@hlm I hope that includes taking them away from the police as well. Police are not soldiers and have no need for "assault weapons."
An assault weapons ban would be pure politics with the coastal elitists trying to ban the most popular rifles in the US. Rifles of all types are almost never used in crimes. Around 300 murders are committed with rifles out of the tens of thousands of murders each year by all methods. I see no reason to deprive the millions of people who legally own rifles like the AR15 for the actions of a tiny few. We don't need more laws or more restrictions. We do need to better train law enforcement. Just about every mass murderer gave plenty of warning signs ahead of time which were ignored or missed by authorities. That is the real problem.
3
@Jeff G
Tens of thousands is exaggerating a bit when the actual yearly number hasn't exceeded even 2 ten thousands in years now, 17,000 in 2017, which has been a typical year for about a decade.
And LE has limited ability to remove one's guns, which is why so-called "red flag" laws are being called for. LE cannot arrest people for "pre-crime," or for being angry. For an arrest, a person has to make a pretty specific threat and have the immediate means to carry it out.
1
@Jim Proposed "red flag" laws share two lethal defects. First, none provides that one accused of being a threat, should get prompt and full reimbursement from public funds, of his or her attorney's fees and costs. Otherwise, for almost all, a "red flag" order means permanent loss of firearms and the civil right to be armed.
Few have the tens of thousands to litigate with a State. To level the playing field, a "red flag" law must provide for reimbursement from public funds, of an accused person's legal expenses, at their attorney's usual hourly rate. Bills must be paid within 30 days of submission, or there's a 50% penalty.
Public defenders - however devoted and competent - do not have the time to handle "red flag" cases, most of which will require costly expert witnesses.
Second, "red flag" laws must contain a "right of private action". If someone lies to a Court, and so gets a "red flag" order, the person targeted must be empowered to pursue a perjury charge, if a prosecutor won't. Few perjurers are prosecuted. Prosecutors usually have too many other "higher priority" cases.
A "red flag" accusation can destroy a person's good name, so there needs to be sure recourse against those, who lie to Courts.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/world/asia/new-zealand-guns-jacinda-ardern.html
In less than a month after the April 2019 mass shooting in New Zealand, citizens spoke up to pass a law banning assault weapons. "More than 13,000 people submitted opinions to the government — 60 percent in support of the ban — and some were invited to speak to lawmakers in a single day of public hearings." Keep talking. Our legislators may be listening!!
1
115 U.S. mass shootings since 1982. All committed by boys and men, save for 2 workplace and 1 wife-of-Islamic terrorist shootings by women.
112 mass killings with guns is, of course, dwarfed by the tens of thousands of other killings that are not considered "mass", though those murderers are also @98% male.
Let's keep ignoring the obvious.
1
Are you suggesting that eliminating men from society is the best solution to this problem?
If the Democrats are victorious in securing the Presidency and both Houses of Congress in 2020, they must not only pass a broad-based assault weapons ban but implement an accompanying generously funded, MANDATORY national buyback program, with few exceptions permitted. Any of these military killing devices remaining in private hands should be subject to licensing and yearly fees, revenues primarily devoted to the victims of gun violence in America. This MANDATORY buyback program is a vital first step in reducing a core gun violence causative factor in the country, the absolutely staggering number of guns presently in private hands. While the very idea of such an aggressive federal program will infuriate a number of assault weapons owners, who will cry out "unconstitutional government confiscation", if this legislation is carefully crafted and backed by existing, voluminous supporting evidence, it will stand a good chance to be judicially upheld. There also needs to be a common and compelling narrative or "framing" for the program's urgency, that the Second Amendment never allowed, or should it, for citizens to own lethal instruments of war, entirely divorced from the rational, historical, and common sense purposes of the Amendment itself.
2
This is an issue that the Democrats can really run with. And they should, but will they?
1
It is important to ask - former and current Republican congress people: Do you own an AR 15?
The NRA has run a genius marketing campaign by encouraging Republican congress people - and - local state congress people to own an AR 15 - like a NRA Door Prize -
Once these federal and state congressional people own an AR 15 - they are very happy to have gun and ammunition manufacturers located in their states and districts to build revenue for their districts and states.
So - none of these federal and state officials are willing to ban assault weapsons - for they would have to give up their AR15 - NRA Door Prizes and the revenue coming in from gun and ammunition manufacturer in their districts and states -
The NRA has embedded themselves like a SYFY movie into these people -
But - we must push forward for the safety of our people's lives of all ages.
Weapons of war should be banned. Unless we continue to accept that war on civilians is approved by Americans against Americans. Of course, it might be argued that guns for sport must be protected and Americans shooting other Americans falls somehow within that definition of being a sport.
Tommy-guns were developed for the army in WWI and a favorite of the Prohibition era mobsters used to rob banks and kill police not on their payroll. Robbing banks is now done more from the inside than outside and police are well armed, but is it not as much a priority to protect citizens from mass murder weapons as it would be to protect banks and law enforcement? What ever happened to the "well regulated militia" protection of the Second Amendment? The NRA and the compliant justices agreed that such language was meaningless when it conflicted with profits of the manufacturers and the NRA shills.
Ban them. It is a first step and that is where all journeys begin. It is the right path. It is past the right time.
2
@Ed Marth I expect that you'll be willing to support taking them out of police hands as well, yes? If they are weapons of war, I don't see why they belong in the average American police cruiser.
@Ed Marth With respect, the US Supreme Court disagrees with you. In 1939, the Court held that military-type firearms were precisely those that the Second Amendment protected.
The firearm at issue in US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was a sawed-off shotgun. Miller, a career criminal and a fugitive, was not represented before the Court. So, no one told the Court that during World War I, US front-line fighters used sawed-off shotguns. The Court found that ownership of a sawed-off shotgun was not protected by the Second Amendment.
The Germans were outraged by the battlefield use of what they viewed as a "hunting" weapon. Via the Swiss - then as now, neutrals - the Imperial German Government protested. The US rejected the German view: shotguns had always been a combat weapon in the US. See: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp02/d912 .
Thus, what you believe - however fervently - is simply wrong. The civil right to be armed never had - and does not not have - any connection with hunting or recreation.
Our gun laws are an incomprehensible mosaic of laws which utterly fail in their mission to deter gun violence.
We need FEDERAL GUN CONTROL which requires that all guns be issued Certificates of Title like with cars, that they be Federally registered, and that gun owners be required to maintain liability insurance with high deductibles to indemnify people harmed by their guns. Limit the number of guns that people may own to some reasonable number.
Like with cars, require prospective gun owners to demonstrate proficiency and mental competence plus impose strict, vicarious liability upon gun owners for their direct or otherwise negligent conduct in connection with their guns. Leave a gun lying around unsecured and someone gets access to it, you're in trouble.
As far as bullets go, the eggs I buy are imprinted with a traceable code. Do that with bullets so we know who is buying them and in what quantity.
This will not eliminate all gun violence but it will cut it back and provide at least some compensation for victims. As far as I can see, none of this in any way conflicts with that pesky 2d Amendment which would, of course, stay in full force and effect.
Presently we have a patchwork of gun legislation in 50 states which is ineffectual. You can still get a gun in a state with lax firearms laws and take it anywhere you want. If states, to meet their own needs, want to impose laws that are more stringent than the Feds, like with booze and drugs, fine.
2
@MIKEinNYC You're not actually required to have a title or insurance to own a car -- only to drive it on public roads or park it on public streets.
That aside, who is paying for this liability insurance, training, and mental health checks? Do the poor not deserve the same right to self defense that the rich do?
@MIKEinNYC Learn to do math. Americans own billions - not millions, but billions - of cartridges. Cartridges, stored in cool, dry places, only very slowly lose their factory-new capacity.
Further, with some 402,000,000 firearms owned in the US (excluding military items), "gun control" is mathematical idiocy. Things so numerous and concealable cannot be controlled.
That's what foredoomed Prohibition, the nationwide ban on alcoholic drinks (1919-33).
Then, as now, the ingredients for home-brew could be bought in any grocery store. In some regions, distilling alcohol ("moonshine", "white lightning") was a tradition older than is this Republic. Prohibition made some "moonshiners" wealthy.
Those, who backed Prohibition, were impenetrably stupid. They bequeathed to us well-organized criminal cartels, still a plague on the land.
If congress doesn't have the "guts" to ban military style weapons, maybe a ban on banning them from congress and courts should ensue. Somehow I think they will gain some intestinal fortitude if the general public could waltz into the senate with an AR-15.
4
Here we go again
Of course nothing will ever change with Mitch McConnell things
Vote as though your life depends on it
This time your life really does depend on it
This is where we are still
1
Assault rifles are military weapons of mass destruction and were never intended for for private individual use. Anyone who disagrees with this is distorting the Second Amendment right to bear arms in an attempt to protect their penchant for highly destructive weapons. It is time to registered all firearms in this country with a 72 hour delay of purchase for a thorough background check before the the sale is completed.
3
Anyone with a brain knows that the ONLY people who should have access to military style weapons are individuals in the military and in law enforcement. Talk about the second amendment all you want, but the second amendment was written with a feather! People were shooting muskets back then. Nobody even thought of a weapon that could kill 600 people per minute! YES we need to make SURE the public does not have access to these weapons!
@Carl Center Jr Why should domestic law enforcement have access to "military style weapons?" Surely the police have no need to "kill 600 people per minute," as you say.
@David no they don't need to kill 600 people per minute. If you want to limit it to only people in the military, I am fine with that. And I got my figure of 600 people per minute by looking up the number of shots an AK-47 is capable of firing in a minute.
Ok. Ban assault weapons. No new assault weapons. If this can be pushed through Congress and signed by the President I'm all for it. That will only leave millions of assault weapons already made before the ban available at premium prices and will trigger a run on assault weapon purchases before the ban goes into effect. And I'm sure that small tweaks in design will allow banned guns to be made legal. That was an issue under the old assault weapons ban. There are currently 400 million plus guns in the US and more being made every day. I don't see how this is a solvable problem, except for working on the margins on mental health issues and limiting magazine capacities. No one's repealing or modifying the second amendment and no one is banning guns.
1
I think an assault weapons ban will be marginally useful. They will figure a way around it within weeks.
More useful would be to allow and fund the CDC to research all gun violence as a public health crisis. Just think what we may find out - just as an article mentioned a few days ago that most mass shooters were males with domestic violence issues.
Rather than just arguing opinions with the NRA, lets get some facts. For the Democratic candidates, I have only heard Elizabeth Warren mention anything close to this - you can stand out with this "original" proposal.
4
Only a small portion of the 12,ooo Americans killed by gun violence yearly (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics) are killed by “assault weapons”. Given that
an estimated 100 million of the 300 million civilian owned guns in America are owned illegally its further unlikely that an assault weapon ban would be either effective or material in reducing our appalling number of violent gun deaths. With an astonishing 300 million guns in circulation why be surprised America has by far far the highest gun violence in the western world.
@dk I agree that an assault weapons ban will be marginally useful. But we don't need to fund research on gun violence as a "public health crisis" - we already have the evidence from every other Western nation on earth: strict gun laws work. Mass shootings are rare or non-existent in other countries where civilians do not have easy access to firearms. America is the outlier here.
@Peter I Berman Can you show me a "gun violence". This term - "gun violence" - is used by those, who wish to shift attention from the evil-doers, by suggesting that their actions are akin to a force of Nature. I can show You a hurricane or a tornado. I defy you to show me a "gun violence"!!!
The claim to the right of all U.S. citizens to own assault weapons like the AR-15 is a claim to the right to the violent overthrow of a repressive government, if such would emerge in the U.S. Legal uses of such weapons designed to kill people are in the military and police where the users of such weapons have been vetted, are well-trained and operate under clear rules of engagement to prevent harm to innocent people.
In the increasingly polarizing environment of the U.S. that is leading to increased incidents of white nationalist extremism it is derelict on the part of Congress not to take action to prevent significant loss of life. Timothy McVeigh used explosives in his attempt to trigger overthrow of the government with the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. The groups (militias) that have vast amounts of military grade weapons. The 2nd Ammendment right to overthrow a repressive government provides cover to an emerging national security threat.
Semi drivers that transport hazardous cargo are licensed based on public safety arguments. Citizens are licensed to drive cars after passing an exam. A car license does not give the right to transport hazardous cargo that can kill many people. Guns demand comparable licensing.
The interpretation that the 2nd Amendment is a right to bear arms that may be needed in the violent overthrow of government must be rejected. In a republic people have the responsibility to vote, not the right to violent overthrow of the government.
1
We don't need to ban "assault weapons." We really don't, hear me out. We need to ban any firearm with a detachable magazine and limit magazine sizes to 7 - 10 rounds.
The Assault Weapons Ban passed during the Clinton administration was utterly useless. It banned cosmetic features that would not prevent massacres like the ones we see every day in the US. Bump stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, you can even ban all semi-automatic rifles and it won't matter. Remember, until 2016, the largest mass shooting in the US was committed with handguns. As long as the shooter can expend 30 rounds and reload 30 more in less than a second, they can still massacre dozens in under a minute. This is the ONLY feature that matters. Anything else is just feel good do nothing legislation, period.
Congress absolutely has the right to do this, under Article I, §8 of the Constitution. Congress has the power to dictate how the militia is armed and trained; if they pass a regulation saying the militia shall be armed with rifles and handguns of a set magazine size and a fixed magazine, then those are the only weapons legal to sell and possess in the United States. Justice Scalia may have thought he could rewrite the Constitution from the bench, but the 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right to bear arms applies to a "well regulated militia." Why else would the founders have qualified the Amendment like that? No other Amendment has such conditions or wording. This isn't difficult.
7
Biden is right. There should be a united front with all other candidates agreeing.
What justifies having military weapons of destruction on our streets?
3
"Still, an assault weapons ban has virtually no chance of being signed into law before 2021. Republicans, who hold the majority in the Senate, strongly oppose it, as does President Trump." Another reason never to vote GOP ever again.
4
Biden is proposing to ban the weapon responsible for the least murders. The FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that in the 2017—the year of Las Vegas mass shooting—
—7,025 people were murdered by handguns;
—1,591 people were stabbed to death,
—696 people were beaten, stomped or kicked to death;
—467 people were clubbed to death;
—403 were killed by rifle fire, including assault rifles;
—and 264 were killed by shotgun blast.
Most rifles used in murders are not assault rifles. If we banned all rifles, we would not save 403 lives a year; killers denied rifles would used other types of semiautomatic rifles, handguns, or shotguns
Banning assault rifles might achieve a slight reduction in the number who die in mass shootings. The El Paso shooter killed 22. He might have killed only 20 if he had used hand guns. But the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 using handguns. The number of those who die in mass shootings depends more on the nature of the target than on the nature of weapons used.
It would be far better to ban handguns.
3
It’s not a numbers game. The mass murders committed at Aurora, Sandy Hook, El Paso, Las Vegas and elsewhere are especially heinous and beyond the pale. Society cannot accept or tolerate these murders. And by the way, you actually just posed a great argument for banning all firearms. Thank you!
1
@Andrew Wohl
In deciding which weapons to ban, it's a numbers game. Handguns kills 7,000 a year. Assault rifles less than 200. Why not ban handgun instead of assault rifles. Handguns were used on the 2nd worst (Pulse Nightclub) and third worst (Virginia Tech) mss shootings.
@Andrew Wohl As "gun control" promotes genocides, are those murders somehow OK, because the murderers are government officials or those whom such officials direct?
The only thing about a ban on assault weapons is that it will only be taking the guns away from those who have them legally.The majority will still remain in the hands of those who are wanting commit a crime.Eventually this ban will most likely put into affect a ban on most of the legal weapons owners.Leaving only the criminals and people wishing to do harm to others with the weapons !!!
1
@lapazjim Absolutely false. We hear this over and over.
Limit guns...and you limit death by guns.
Criminals aren't masterminds. They will struggle to get guns if they are taken off the street. You'll still have exceptions, but so what? Look at MA. They've reduced gun deaths. Look at Constitutional Carry states...gun violence has skyrocketed.
The facts do NOT support the idea that bad guys will always have guns so let's do nothing.
But guess what? Over 50% of the guns used in violent crime in MA come from....neighboring states with WEAK gun laws. So yeah, there is a connection, and it isn't that creeps get their guns 'always'....they get them from places like the South and Midwest where it's easy to get a straw buyer.
Gun rights folks don't want to hear this...because it doesn't support their narrative. It is the truth however.
1
@Jack NOT SO! New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont - none of which requires any license for concealed (or open) carry - have the lowest incidences of violent crime in the entire USA.
It has been so at least since 2001, with a single-year exception. See FBI, "Crime in the United States", 2017 and earlier editions.
The murder rate in New Hampshire - about one per 100,000 - is about one-fifth the national average (2017 FBI data).
Murders in New Hampshire are so rare, that all are prosecuted by the Attorney General. County attorneys do not see enough homicides to be adept at such prosecutions.
MA has nasty and repressive firearms laws and has had such laws since 1906.
In MA, concealed carry licensure was instituted after a report from the head of the State Police's predecessor, the Massachusetts District Police.
Col. Joseph Shaw wrote, "Another element which has tended to increase the danger greatly is our very large and constantly increasing foreign immigration. Many of these immigrants bring with them all their native habits and vicious customs." See: "Report of the Chief of the Massachusetts District Police, for the Year ending December 31, 1905", Boston, 1906, pp. 20-21.
In short, what you wrote is not fact-based.
There I was, a true story. I had a gun pointed at me, less than 12 inches from me. By what is known as- a gang banger. To use street parlance. I did not have time to ask him if he passed a background check. He did not have time to wait for me to call the police and wait for their arrival. I did not have time to ask his thoughts on gun control. Perhaps a better economic system. A better medical system. A better corporate model. A better education system. Perhaps valuing people over money and possessions and status. Perhaps.
6
@Randall Brown
and.....
your individual experience is not backed up by statistics.
were you walking around with an assault rifle to quell this criminal?
we are not talking about handguns (which are the source of most gun violence)....
we are talking about assault weapons that allow wide spread carnage not muggins in the street.
I believe that Randall was just walking around. Period. Even more reason to get ALL guns off the streets.
Hurry Hurry Gun Obsessed! Buy your AR-15 which will propel a 22 bullet so fast down a barrel it will go through that imaginary intruder...through your wall...and into your neighbor's house.
Sure, you have a right to arms...but not any, and not all.
And if you think you need an assault rifle...yes that's what it was designed for, so it's NOT a misnomer....then you are delusional or dangerous.
And if you just want one, as most people who own them seem to fall into (they just enjoy taking it to the range)...it's time to put on your big boy pants and understand the risk to others for your hobby.
Despite the loud crowing of gun rights activists the SHEER numbers are against them. Americans are sick of a minority of gun owners holding the rest of us hostage.
1
@Jack
If what you write is true then nullify the 2A. The process is clear, get to it.
3
Right to bea arms? It is also every citizens right to live freely without risk of being killed or maimed by some idiot with a military weapon. It’s time for citizens to unite. Citizens must insist senators ban military weapons for the safety of themselves, their family and their communities. What could be more patriotic?
13
There used to be a ban on “cop killer” ammunition that could blast through body armour. (Just what a hunter needs, right?)
It was not renewed by our politicians when the ban expired.
Any news on where a renewal of this ban stands today?
7
@Teddy
It wasn't renewed because:
A. It didn't do anything
B. "Cop Killer" ammunition was a fabrication. "Cop Killer" ammo is otherwise known as "Ammo."
But it sure felt good to pass another ineffective law didn't it. "Do Something" the low-bar protest signs say, and then legislators do just that.
4
@Teddy The ban is still in force. It may be found in 18 USC § 922(a)(7) and (8).
Rumors that the ban "expired" have frequently grown from misunderstandings surrounding *regulatory* actions by the ATF regarding what constitutes "armor-piercing ammunition."
The ban addresses pistol bullets that are constructed using certain materials; it is not supposed to ban rifle bullets. However, any bullet designed for a rifle can theoretically also be fired from a specially built pistol, so this creates somewhat of a legal grey area. The ATF addresses this conflict by examining the original intended use of such bullets, but this is difficult to determine in some cases, which leads to periodic changes in the scope of the regulations and/or proposed changes that go nowhere. These changes should not be confused with the law having "expired."
How about addressing the causes for the trend? Americans had free access to guns for many decades without mass shootings, then starting with the Texas tower, mass shootings became "a thing". Why is the NYTs not asking the proper questions instead of abetting the "knee jerk" "low hanging fruit" response of "its guns"?
4
The NYTimes is not asking any questions. The Times is simply reporting what Democrats are planning. That’s the job of the paper.
You have to admire the corporate dems who put their congressional seats above the lives of all American citizens.
1
@Rick
You got to love it when without any facts to back them up claims are made of supposed corporate dems putting power ahead of their constituents. My impression is that it all republicnas who are putting their fear of the NRA and corporate interests above the lives of American citizens
1
Hint, you want this ban to pass?
Don't call it a ban. Bans never work. While it will lessen usage since most people obey the law, many do not and will gear up the black market and the resulting carnage that will come like with prohibition.
Pass a law that states to own an assault rifle as a citizen you must have the most strident training like a SWAT member with a clean record.
Not only does this effectively almost ban the weapon it will win over moderate gun owners needed to pass it, even maybe to override a veto by the erratic Trump if it comes.
Even though a majority of Americans favor a ban, it is much more guaranteed to get a virtual ban is you do it the way history has taught us imo.
10
My interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it requires military training. Rarely are former soldiers caught commiting mass murders on US soil. Reconnect gun ownership with military service.
@BBB Charles Whitman, Texas Tower shooter and grandfather of mass shooters, former Marine, Timothy McVeigh-Oklahoma City bomber and former Soldier.
And those are just two off the top of my head.
Absolutely, let’s bring back the Federal Assault Rifle Ban and limits on high capacity magazines. And while we’re at it, it’s seriously time for everyone to take stock of what the true purpose of this class of firearms is. They were designed and manufactured for the world’s militaries to fight battles and kill people. Not target practice and not hunting. To kill people. Let that sink in. There are plenty of other firearms that can be used for target practice, hunting, skeet, sporting clays and trap (shooting) and personal protection (if one so chooses). Assault-style rifles and high capacity magazines were not designed with any of these things in mind. They are for fighting battles and killing people. We need to restrict them as much as possible.
17
M-16s were designed for military use. AR-15s were designed for target shooting and recreational use. Get it right.
1
@John Smith
I think it is YOU that needs to get it right. AR15's are pattern weapons designed on the original M16 platform...and used overwhelmingly by our recent spat of mass killers.
those individuals bought their firearms (in the majority of cases) LEGALLY. They were 'good guys with guns'.
they also could have used those for target and rec...but low and behold...they didn't.
so no, you don't get to own whatever you want.
2
@John Smith The ArmaLite AR-15 is a select-fire, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed assault rifle manufactured in the United States between 1959 and 1964, and adopted by the United States Armed Forces as the M16 rifle. Which was then civilianized to the current AR-15.
Don't even try to confuse the issue, particularly with someone who knows the subject matter.
1
This common sense idea will activate the President's base and go nowhere. Overreaching on gun control will be a self-inflicted wound... it will give the GOP a chance to roll out the "slippery slope" argument and assert that the Democrats REALLY want to take ALL guns away from law abiding citizens. Better to argue over the bill sitting in the Senate...
All raising this issue will do is get Trump and GOP Congress candidates a million more votes come November 2020.
Nothing like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
3
@RM
If the MAJORITY of citizens including members of the NRA of in favor of stricter gun laws is this really true?
@FerCry'nTears
While many support stronger background checks and even licensing, I know of none who supports prohibiting any style of gun.
@RM
I parsed my response to say the majority which is true. We are talking about regulating or banning assault weapons but not all guns. So To be clear I’m not taking about a blanket ban and most people aren’t. Being a military brat from Texas I know of plenty radical people who do not support a ban of any kind of gun. Are you referring to the radical fringe here?
I support the right of Americans to have as many muskets as they want. No to semiautomatic rifles, mortars, and claymore mines.
7
@Frank Travaline I support the right of Americans to have as many hand operated printing presses and soapboxes as they want. No TV, communications satellites, digital printing, or computers.
why now, and not 12 or 18 months ago?
2
It would be a perfect irony if people became concerned as to how our media's infatuation with violence held the enormity of responsibility for mass shootings, and outlets like this were held liable for the blood money they milk from the weeks of clickbait, breaking news, and idle debating.
Joe Biden and gun control... Do the Democrats know that they won't be reimbursed with a draft slot for throwing another season?
3
Hello Arthur,
Are you seriously suggesting that the media reporting on random senseless mass firearm carnage is the reason for random senseless mass firearm carnage?
If that is the case, mate, you're a bit off the mark.
Maybe, just maybe, if the US didn't possess so many guns, or didn't have a weird mishmash of laws surrounding them, there might be less be less shootings and therefore less to report.
5
@Arthur
The media is responsible?
Draft number?
Throwing another season?
Bizarre!
@FerCry'nTears There's a First Amendment right to pubish a dead or arrested mass murderer's name and likeness. But there's no reason to do so, unless the intent is to encourage others equally evil.
It is one thing if a mass murder suspect is a fugitive: then, there's a reason to publish the name and photo.
But once a mass murderer is dead or arrested, there is NO reason to publish his name or photo.
Those, who do this, encourage others, who seek their "15 minutes of fame".
1
First of all more about 95% of all gun deaths are due to handguns, non-auto rifles and shot guns.
When the assault rifles are gone, what will be next?
Second, if banning assault rifles will restore sanity to politics in the USA, then let’s do it . . . as long as you assure me that assault rifles will be taken away from bad guys and from local police . . . so that the playing field is level.
On battlefields, used by military, o.k.
4
@Steve B
You write.
"First of all more about 95% of all gun deaths are due to handguns, non-auto rifles and shot guns.
When the assault rifles are gone, what will be next?"
The rest of the guns. Thanks for asking.
"Second, if banning assault rifles will restore sanity to politics in the USA, then let’s do it . . . as long as you assure me that assault rifles will be taken away from bad guys and from local police . . . so that the playing field is level."
You wrote "... so that the playing field is level." This is the most insane thing I have ever seen written in the NYT.
2
@Steve B The U.S. Supreme Court - in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - opined that the Second Amendment pertained to military-issue firearms. Miller, a career criminal, was a fugitive: no one represented him. So no one told the Court that US front-line fighters in World War I widely used sawed-off shotguns, the item at issue in the case at bar.
The Germans, outraged by battlefield use of what they viewed as a "hunting" firearms, protested via the Swiss. The US rejected that protest, see: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp02/d912 .
Modern, military-type firearms are designed to wound, NOT to kill. These weapons are designed to use full-metal-jacket ammunition. The bullet's lead (or steel) core is wrapped in a copper "jacket".
This is required by the 1899 Hague Convention, which barred use of "dum dum" (all-lead or "soft point") bullets, which expand on contact and do great damage. The US never signed the Hague Convention, but follows its guidelines.
A wounded soldier ties-up lots of resources: battlefield medics and other soldiers, who may have to carry a wounded comrade, etc. A dead soldier needs only burial.
Finally, the term "assasult rifle" - never used by the US military - is a direct translation of the name for a Nazi self-loading rifle (das Sturmgewehr) introduced in the Autumn of 1943. The Nazis commited genocide, murdering some 13,000,000. Nazi terms should not be
1
The AR-15 with a double-barrel clip was legal by Ohio gun laws. I find that absolutely astounding that a military weapon is defined as being legal in the state of Ohio. Of the 17 proposed laws by Republican Governor DeWine, not a single one deals with weapons of war. Someone has to explain to me how this weapon is used for hunting or self-protection. This AAR-15 weighs over 11 pounds fully loaded. It was designed for one thing, and one thing only - to inflict as much damage and death as possible in a very short time. Connor Betts used the AR-15 exactly for what it was designed for. Does that make anyone feel comfortable about civilians having legal access to assault weapons?
26
@Michael Grove
Well said, Mr. Grove. An AR-15 was designed as a weapon of war not as a hunting rifle to shoot animals (or 'undesirable' humans). Support for this weapon by the NRA is a disgraceful stance. The NRA was originally conceived as an organization to train gun owners in firearm safety. Pierre LaPlante and his organization have seriously lost their way. The ironic thing about this whole issue is the 2nd amendment statement "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" now means protecting citizens from other well-armed citizens.
14
@Michael Grove
The single shot muzzle loading flintlock was once a military weapon.
The lever action repeater rifle started out as a military weapon.
The bolt action rifle started out as a military weapon.
By World War 2, a standard military weapon was the M1 carbine with a removable "large capacity" box magazine.
By Vietnam, the standard weapon was an M16, that could fire both single shots and full automatic. The AR-15 is based on the M16, but has no full automatic capability.
The point is, almost every rifle on the market today originated from a weapon that initially had a military use. So, they are all "military weapons" by your use of the term.
4
@Michael Grove The AR-15 - with a fully-loaded standard-issue, 30-round magazine - weighs about 7.5 pounds. Do some homework!
The U.S. Supreme Court - in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - opined that the Second Amendment pertained to military-issue firearms. Miller, a career criminal, was a fugitive. No one represented him. So no one told the Court that US front-line fighters in World War I widely used sawed-off shotguns. The Germans, outraged by this, protested via the Swiss. The US rejected that protest, see: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp02/d912 .
Modern, military-type firearms are designed to wound, NOT to kill. These weapons are designed to use full-metal-jacket ammunition. The bullet's lead (or steel) core is wrapped in a copper "jacket". This is required by the 1899 Hague Convention, which barred use of "dum dum" (all-lead) bullets, which expand on contact and do great damage. The US never signed the Hague Convention, but follows its guidelines.
A wounded soldier ties-up lots of resources: battlefield medics and other soldiers, who may have to carry a wounded comrade, etc. A dead soldier needs only burial.
Finally, the term "assasult rifle" - never used by the US military - is a direct translation of the name for a Nazi self-loading rifle (das Sturmgewehr) introduced in the Autumn of 1943. The Nazis commited genocide, murdering some 13,000,000. Nazi terms should not be used, except when quoting from historical documents.
3