Do you think the federal assault weapons ban should be reinstated?
Related Stories
Vice President Joe Biden is “absolutely committed” to fighting gun violence, he said Thursday as he hosted his first meeting responding to the Newtown shooting.
“We have to have a comprehensive way in which to respond to the mass murder of our children that we saw in Connecticut,” Biden told law enforcement officials and members of the Cabinet at the start of the meeting. He and President Obama agree that “even if we can only save one life, we have to take action.”
There’s “no reason” why Congress shouldn’t be able to pass a ban on assault weapons, he said. Referring to the bill he authored in 1994, he added: “Quite frankly, you guys helped me write it,” referring to the leaders of major law enforcement groups at the meeting — including Jon Adler of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Jim Pasco of the Fraternal Order of Police and Walt McNeil of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Obama launched Biden’s group on Wednesday, instructing the vice president and members of the Cabinet to generate “concrete proposals” by January to respond to Friday’s school shooting. Obama said the panel will consult with outside “stakeholders,” but has not specified whether that will include pro-gun groups like the National Rifle Association.
The last federal assault weapons ban was enacted from 1994 to 2004. It outlawed manufacturing, transferring and possessing semi-automatic assault rifles, listing several guns by name including AK-47s, Uzis, and Colt AR-15s. The ban had a provision that allowed it to expire eight years ago.
Do you think the assault weapons ban should be reinstated?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
“Assault weapon”. The term is contrived and useless as a means to communicate ideas.
Connecticut, in fact, has an assault weapons ban, similar to the old federal law. But law enforcement officials have said that they believe the guns that Adam Lanza used in the Newtown shooting — including a .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic carbine, which is often described as a military-style assault weapon — were legally acquired and registered.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/us/lessons-in-politics-and-fine-print-in-assault-weapons-ban-of-90s-667203/#ixzz2FhTlOS2f
So exactly what will this law do? Not save lives. Current history is clear that as gun ownership goes up. Crime goes down.A study released in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694)
“Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.
Security is an individual responsibility, The federal govt can only offer symbolic measures.Federalism is the solution, not a govt that tramples rights of its citizens.
No less than 21 children and teenagers were killed in China at school premises by adult intruders using knives and hammers over the past three years, and about one hundred were injured. The latest reported case happened exactly the same day — Friday, December 14 — as the Newtown multiple killing: a man randomly stabbed 22 children at an elementary school in Chenpeng, a village in the Henan province. None of the victims died. But it was more a matter of good luck than anything else.
You failed in your post to make a distinction between guns in general and assault weapons. You may be right when you say that, “as gun ownership goes up. Crime goes down.” but that statement provides no defense of assault weapons and large magazines.
The subject up for debate is a ban on assault weapons – not guns in general. Your defense of guns is not a defense of assault weapons.
Because there is no distinction. I repeat, ‘assault weapon’ as a term of communication is meaningless. It serves only to sustain the discussion on an emotional and not factual basis. But some have no desire to examine facts.
I know the difference between an assault weapon and a conventional firearm. I think most people do. Why don’t you? Most assault weapons fire with a initial velocity of about 3 times the velocity of a conventional rifle and most assault weapons have a magazine of 30 rounds or more.
OH Rich, you poor guy. An assault rifle has the capability to fire more than one bullet per pull of the trigger. You can have a Remington 700 .308 and a fully automatic M60 which also fires a .308. They’re the same bullet, which will produce the same velocity. Only difference would be the length of the barrel.
ROTFLMAO! That’s some fine world-class ignorance you’re spouting there Rich, because it’s obvious you don’t know the first thing about what you’re talking about.
First of all, assault rifles have not been sold in the USA in years. So the way the Gazette’s question referred to the old law is inaccurate.
As for your assertions, assault rifles don’t fire with an “initial velocity of about 3 times the velocity of a conventional rifle”. Also, most don’t “have a magazine of 30 rounds or more”.
But I guess I shouldn’t be so hard on your; Diane Feinstein, no doubt your hero, who participated in drafting the original law allegedly went through gun catalogs and circled the weaposn that looked “scariest” to her.
The most important reason you (and her) don’t deserve to be taken seriously when you spout off on fireams, is that when you are pushed to define what characteristics make an assault weapon, you demonize weapons that work similarly to weapons you think aren’t assault weapons and therefore set the precedent for banning them all.
Revolvers, after all are techincally semi-automatics.
None of that is close to an informed response. (IOW you dont know what you’re talking about)., Muzzle velocity is mainly a function of load (gunpowder), and barrel length. But you illustrate nicely exactly why ‘assault weapon’ means nothing, because the uninformed invent their own, usually wrong criteria.
http://www.loadammo.com/Topics/October05.htm
Rich Greer will never “get it”…….but Mike in the following video does.
“The Colorado Massacre vs Violence In Chicago”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEV8jUlAKI8
The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy is a student run “forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship.” The article is harley a “study” in the sense of a scientific analysis and doesn’t portend to be. Rather, it presents selected evidence to support a proposition, i.e. that gun control doesn’t stop crime. It’s biased (admittedly so) and doesn’t present all the evidence or contain any scientific study of any kind.
Absolutely! Make it permenant, if you can do it with tax cuts for the rich, you can do it for assault rifles. There is no need for things like 50 caliber sniper rifles, or AK-47′s and M-16′s for anything other than shooting people at long range. Everytime we ban these things and later take the ban off, another flood of armament hits the streets. There is plenty already out there and enough is enough.
I’m still waiting for someone to provide a logical, reasonable and intelligent explanation as to why any civilian needs an assault type weapon with a 30 round (or bigger) magazine. When asked, pro-gun people always change the subject to some worn out cliche like, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.
I’m serious – Please provide an explanation as to why these types of weapons are needed by civilians. While you are at it, please cite one situation in which an assault weapon was an effective defensive device that actually saved lives where a more conventional firearm would not have sufficed.
I’m still waiting on a logical explanation of how an “Assault Weapon” ban would save lives. The ban didn’t stop Columbine did it? If you ban semi-auto rifles, crazies will use shotguns. Ban shotguns, crazies will use pistols. Ban pistols, crazies will use rifles.
The point is banning one type of gun will do nothing to stop this from happening again. Either all guns must be banned (which would take a constitutional amendment) or we must consider defending schools.
Brad Fisher,
Turns out that Columbine High School did have an armed security guard who did exchange fire with the shooters but failed to stop them.
The security guard was Deputy Neil Gardner, a 15 year veteran of the Jefferson County, Colorado, Sheriff’s Office. A second officer, Deputy Paul Smoker, was near the school and entered the school within minutes.
That’s two well trained, armed police officers on site. Not retired rent a cops, but real sheriff’s deputies. They failed to stop the shooters but did manage to call for backup.
Do a google “armed security at Columbine High School” and you’ll get at least a dozen hits right at the top
Thank you for proving my point. You have failed to provide why any civilian needs an assault weapon and, once again, resorted to meaningless cliches about guns. Please try again. Please try to provide a reasonable, logical and intelligent explanation as to why civilians need an assault weapon.
Speaking of failure, you’ve failed to define what an “assault weapon” actually is.
As for your demand for an explanation, it’s because it’s called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs, and it was passed so that free Americans don’t have to justify themselves to neither a monarch nor an imperial government, nor mindless busybodies like yourself.
The entire premise of your question is un-American.
Rich, you were provided many reasons in a couple of editorials a few months ago before the Gazette suspended posting on those opinion pages. Aren’t all guns potentially assault weapons, from a black powder rifle to AR-15? Anyone could use any type of firearm to assail another person. Like Bill said its not an accurate term.
I have no problem with getting rid of large capacity magazines. The question remains where do you draw the line, 10, 15, 20? I mentioned before in other editorial pieces that a person who has any proficiency with their firearms, can load and unload magazines VERY quickly, which would negate the need for a larger capacity magazine. So by eliminating large magazines you are still not dealing with the problem. Its a feel good measure that politicians can use to exploit a horrible tragedy by saying they are tough on crime and specifically gun control without actually accomplishing anything but garnering the votes of people who take these measures by face value.
“any civilian needs an assault type weapon with a 30 round (or bigger) magazine”
Rich, The simple answer is economics. None of the firearms producers or firearms accessories makers would be able to stay in business if it weren’t for the private market buying their products. The military just doesn’t spend enough to keep their doors open.
I suspect that people have large capacity magazines because it is more fun to shoot this rifle with a large capacity magazine. I do own a black rifle made by an Iowa company that is specifically designed for hunting. I personally much prefer smaller magazines as the large capacity flavor are unwieldy for my purposes. There are many competitive shooting sports events that necessitate the use of high capacity magazines. Would the same logic mandate that unless you live in Texas, no motor vehicle should be able to travel faster than 75 miles per hour?
Obama is the biggest, most successful, gun salesman in the history of the United States. Records have been broken four years straight. Maybe it’s because he is a die hard socialist. Maybe it’s because he appoints thirty czars who are openly socialist and marxists. Maybe it’s because he has proven he wants to destroy our econonmy with intent and will shove down our throats any and all legislation he wants. Maybe Americans want more guns because of his “Fast and Furious” failure to make gun shops appear to be the “bad guys” or perhaps Benghazi. You won’t find the likes of Obama, Jessie Jackson, or Al Sharpton addressing black on black crime the number one killer of black teen age (kids). Not a word, not a peep, regarding the 200 blacks shot in Chicago this year or the 150 in our Nation’s Capital. Where have they been?? Why they have been chasing a Spanish man “made white” in Florida and 20 white kids in Conneticut! All to push the Liberal agenda. It’s all about “political points” nothing more. All about the agenda. More people have died in Liberal created ghettos the last 50 years than all American wars combined post Civil War. We don’t have a gun problem. We have a liberal problem.
The violence has just begun. If people are willing to kill each other over a few deals on Black Friday what do you think is going to happen when 85% of American employers cut the work week to 29 hours because of Obamacare? Ban liberalism and guns will follow.
Here’s what factcheck.org has to say on the subject. ( The title refers to “handguns” but seems to apply to firearms in general. )
http://factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/
Australia is not the US (however having been acquainted with a number of Australians I haven’t seen a lot of difference) but here is the Australian experience:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
Please in 91′ the rate murder rate was 9.8 per 100K, 20 years later 2010 the rate is 4.8 or half what it was. People just don’t remember history, just get their feathers rumpled as a initial reaction to an event.
As far as Australia. They’ve had an upswing in crime since they banned their guns.
http://tinyurl.com/csntk7c
No they haven’t. Your link is just to a blog. Here is a more credible source.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
Look, the fact is there still is gun crime in Australia after the law abiding citizens were dis-armed. Isn’t the whole point to stop crime? Maybe we can make places “gun free”? That’ll help stop the attacks.
“. . . whole point to stop crime?” Where did you come up with that idea? The point was to stop deaths from guns. Yes there is still gun crime in Australia. For US and Australia for the years 2009 and 2008 respectively the US fatality rate versus Australian / 100K population was almost 10:1.
Then enjoy your trip, Cedric!
Short of a full confiscation from law abiding citizens, it’s not going to work. We need to take the same approach to preventing shootings as we did with fire prevention in schools. I’m sure a school district can come up with the $$$ to reinforce entryways and hire a guard. Columbine took place during the first ban, so that should be proof positive a ban won’t accomplish anything other than grabbing guns. As a side note, the first school mass murder was in the late 1700′s with I think 9 students being killed.
A full confiscation of assault weapons and large magazines is not out of the question. New York Governor Cuomo is already considering it. Of course, to be effective, it really needs to be a federal program.
Please realize we are not talking about confiscating guns in general (including hunting rifles). We are only talking about confiscating assault weapons.
http://www.infowars.com/new-york-gov-mandatory-gun-sale-to-state-and-confiscation-are-options/
John’s point is that an Assault weapon ban is useless. Another type of gun will be used, such in Columbine. It will not stop this from happening again. If preventing this is the goal, we need to look at other options.
Its totally out of the question Rich. How is Cuomo proposing to accomplish this task? Go door to door and search every home for these weapons and magazines? I guarantee you that the magazines alone will be impossible to recover because they aren’t tracked in any form that I’m currently aware of, essentially making them ghosts.
Cuomo is going to have a very difficult with any proposed measures given recent Federal rulings siding with gun ownership, Chicago and Washington DC(Supreme Court here).
Who is “we”? Certainly not the same we as “We the People”.
” We are only talking about confiscating assault weapons.”
Good luck with that.
The Liberal Democrat goal is to confiscate “ALL GUNS” so don’t fool yourself or try to fool anyone else while you’re at it. Let New York Governor Cuomo have a complete gun ban. Do the same in Chicago, Washington D.C. and Iowa City. Do it for a period of five years. Put the sign out “NO GUNS HERE” and see what happens. Leave the rest of us alone.
While I agree with most of what you’ve been saying here about this issue David, I wish you would stop volunteering Iowa City for this “experiment”.
It is completely unneccesary to “see what happens” because Chicago, D.C. and NYC have had nearly total gun bans for years, and have experienced higher rates of violent crime. It just doesn’t matter to those in power in those cities.
Don’t you get that facts or results don’t matter to so-called liberal Democrats? They are not actually in favor of liberty, they are totalitarian utopian statists.
Yeah Galt…….I lived in D.C. Better to educate the totalitarian statists with a dose of there own medicine than the whole nation suffer from their mental illness.
The frequently uttered argument that “if we outlaw (certain types) of guns only criminals will have such guns” may be true to an extent. However, in 1934 laws were passed strictly regulating the manufacture and ownership of machine guns (fully automatic — commonly “Tommy Guns” ). It’s true that some criminals may possess them but they are not common nor remotely as available as assault weapons and have not been used by deranged individuals in incidents such as the Newtown shooting, to my knowledge.
You do realize that an assault weapon is a selective fire weapon, right?
Continue to allow the legal sale and possession of “assault rifles” as they are presently defined, but make the possession of 10+ round removable magazines for them (and handguns) intensely illegal- i.e., make such possession on a par with the current penalties for possessing an unlicensed/unregistered full-automatic weapon (aka “machine gun”). That will contract the big-magazine owner pool down to a small core of anti-government survivalists and “illegal collectors” and would make it much more difficult for random headcases to acquire their support appliances for mass murder.
That sounds reasonable to me (but then I’m not a politician). The “assault rifle”, unless you define “assault rifle” as any any rifle that uses a detached magazine, is essentially a type of design — a certain “look”. A semi-auto rifle that looks like a typical hunting rifle can be designed such that it uses a detachable high-capacity magazine and hence has the mass killing ability of an “assault rifle”. The quickly replaceable high-capacity magazine is the real issue.
To clarify – Assault rifle has a selector switch that has the capability to fire fully auto (already illegal for general public). “Assault Weapon” is a political term that has a murky definition, but is usually described as an semi-auto rifle that looks like a assault rifle.
A ban on 30 round magazines will not prevent this from happening. If the intent is prevention, let’s work on a way to prevent and defend.
True on all counts but since the issue is “assault” rifles available the American public mention of the selector switch option is moot. And though the ban on 30 round magazines would not prevent mass slaughters it would make them more difficult.
Regardless, the “prevent and defend” proposal by the NRA is simply a clear and transparent ploy, an attempt to steer legislative efforts away from any new restrictions on guns. I doubt it will work.
Or you could just make murder against the law, that’ll fix them.
Here is a response from the NRA. While I’m not a member the NRA gives many points regarding this debate primarily “Americas Culture Of Killing” promoted by liberal Hollywooders who refuse to discuss the “primary” issues that lead to violence in America.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/21/16068647-defiant-nra-leader-rejects-gun-controls-asks-to-put-police-in-schools?lite
For those whose favorite word is “ban”, first learn the differance between semi-automatic and automatic. Many, such as the recent letter writers to the Gazette apparently don’t.
I use a semi-automatic 12 gauge for deer hunting. Being able to quickly fire a second shot allows a greater chance of quickly dispensing animals wounded on the first shot.
Also, consider those who need a handgun for self-defense – should those people be limited to reloading a single shot gun if their first shot doesn’t fatally wound an armed attacker?
While certain guns should be reviewed, wholesale gun bans would result in suicide/killers resorting to bombs, knives, any weapon imagineable. We have to consider mental health and society’s embelishment of violence.
I have no objection to a semi-automatic shotgun or rifle with a reasonably sized magazine. If you need 30 rounds to get your deer I would suggest taking up another hobby.
No one on this blog has demonstrated that they are ignorant of the difference between a full-auto and semi-auto weapon. Also, no one appears to be advocating the return to firearms that are capable of firing only one shot without reloading, There is a middle ground on regulation- mag capacity limits- that will not impact present sporting/gun hobby applications but which is likely to provide a real degree of prevention safety for the real world.
We could open rifle ranges where owners of automatic and assault like weapons would be required to keep their weapons and target practice when they feel like it. That way the public would be safer and people could pursue their hobbies. It may even create a few more jobs.
Yes. There is no reason for anyone outside of law enforcement or military to possess an “assault type rifle” or a magazine that holds more than the one that came with the weapon.
Tim, many if not all black rifles (a more descriptive term than assault rifle for the modern sporting rifle) come with usually two or three 20-30 round magazines. All too many with too little knowledge and understanding are oh so willing to issue opinions and advice in this matter. Please know your subject matter.
30 round magazines is the standard for the AR-15 and come with the rifle. 10 round mags are rare and hard to find.
10 round mags would become plentiful if that were the only type that could be legally owned.
What is an assault type rifle? I know people who hunt with AR-15/AK-47 platform rifles and only use 10 round magazines. If you have no idea what I’m referring to please look into semi-auto ‘varmint” rifles.
Yes MJ, you mean the rifles with the skulls engraved on them like a gun shop in Marion sells. The term “black rifles” has only been around for a short time. They are nothing but .223 with a lot of add ons like grips, magazines, dot sights and rails and skull laser engravings. As far as “subject matter”, I would put up 32 years of working with firearms against your …..
Rich I did not make the distinction….yet no one has offered evidence that the proposed laws will have any affect, at all.
Jim the Harvard paper presents statistics that disprove the tenuous correlation that more guns and crime. While you try to claim the statistic are ‘chosen’ to support their postion, I have not seen any statistics that support the Idea that restricting gun ownership will save any lives. Please do present your supporting data.
Cedric what has not been done with guns and crime statistics is adjust them for drugs and gangs. Criminals killing criminals. And if I had to guess, more children die in drive by shootings in the last 5 years than the type of thing we experienced in CT
But there is no political gain to be made addressing the loss of those lives.The truth being that restricting law abiding citizens from the number and types of weapons does nothing to improve safety.
For anyone interested in the history of mass killing incidents in the US and around the World (note: according to the article the earliest recorded school killings was by American Indians in 1764): http://news.discovery.com/history/mass-shootings-history-121220.html
Regarding the hiring of armed guards considering the extremely rare instances of such occurrences, not to mention the guard might be the first target and hence safeguard nothing, is it wise and justified ? Again, about 100 times the number killed per year in motor vehicle accidents as killed at Newtown. If you want to spend money to safeguard the lives of children there’s probably many more productive ways to spend it.
I’m in favor of banning any weapon that would allow individuals or groups to outgun the police. And, gee whiz, turns out the police are also iin favor of such bans. Maybe they, like most of the rest of us, would like to return home at the end of the day still alive.
“Law abiding” citizens do not need assault or even quasi assault weapons. They do not need muti-round clips or cop killer ammunition or weapons more suitable for killing tanks than deer.
The Second Amendment does not give anyone the right to commit mass murder or overthrow the government or terrorize their neighbors or family members or set up heavily armed private militias.
The Second Amendment refers to “well regulated Militia”. “Militia”and “well regulated” is defined in Article I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16. There’s also the bit about “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general Welfare”
It would be really nice if people who waved around the Constitution would actually read it.
Also, good information on gun related injuries and deaths is not really available. So quoting stats is problematic. According to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (12/19/12), “CDC: Politics affected gun violence research”:
“In 1995, Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: “The problem that I see with what the CDC is doing is that they are not doing medicine, they’re doing politics. And they shouldn’t be doing politics.”
He added, “There is no medical evidence that if you go and buy a gun, you’re going to get hurt. In fact, you can make a pretty good case if you go out and buy a gun, you may be able to save your life.”
Lawmakers who agreed first tried unsuccessfully to shut down the CDC’s injury center, then stripped the agency of $2.6 million used for firearms-related research”
What is it the NRA is so afraid we are going to find out that it should be so eager to shut down research
There is no reason to have an assault rifle unless your intent is to kill a large number of people in a short period of time. If you are only going to protect yourself against someone having a gun and threatening you, an assault weapon is nearly useless because a hand gun can be employed much more quickly than a large assault weapon. Having an assault weapon is like having a diesel locomotive in your back yard just to use the generator (3000+ HP) just for an emergency generator
Breaking news,
Frankstown Township, Pennsylvania
For dead in what appears to have a random drive-by
Friday morning 12/21/2012
This makes eight of these in 2012
Writting new gun laws banning “assault rifles” or high capacity mags will have the same results as the laws we have on making illegal to sell or use drugs. The bad guys will still find a way to complete their mission. All the talk now is just a feel good for the people and the political Washington group. Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws in the country–how is that working? We need to focus on the treatment of mental health in this country. The people that are responsible for these shootings are in need of help. More restrictions on law abiding citizens is not the answer.
It didn’t work the last time, and there is no reason to believe that doing it again would have different results.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/?page=all
Why are they not talking about banning violent video games or violent movies? No one “needs” a violent video game or a violent movie. If we are going to trample on the rights of gun owners, why not trample on the rights of people who play violent video games and watch violent movies. Lets do this fairly and equally.
The anti gun fanatics are using the tragedy in CT to ignore the simple fact that gun crime has gone down 20% in the past ten years and 20% in the ten years before that. The weapon makes no difference. It takes half a second to replace one ten round magazine with another. The CT killer had to change out at least 7 or more magazines as it was. The number of rounds make no difference. He also could have stuck 6 guns in his waistband and got off the same amount of rounds.
Abortions kill many more children than guns but the POTUS proudly supports that and the VP proclaims that is a right of women in this country.
I don’t find any mention of abortion in the Constitution.
The Brady Ban was ineffective and so will be the new feel good ban.
When the bad guys wear body armor the only thing to stop them is a ballistic bullet. Should citizens have the right to protect themselves from all attackers EXCEPT the ones wearing body armor? As technology advances so does the need for advances in protection. Without body armor being easy to purchase and abundant we might not need the ballistic rounds for self defense, I’ll admit that, but it is too late.
The Columbine cops were out gunned and out armored. They didn’t carry ballistic weapons into the school. They might as well have “lunged” at the killers. The CT killer shot himself as cops were heard to enter the building. A 20 minute response time is not acceptable.
Give our kids the same protection our money gets, our mayor and city council get, our legislators get and the capital gets.
When a man surrounded by two tiers of protection tells me I do not have the same right to protect my family, I object.
We already have a law to stop all killings. Murder is illegal. Laws work great, don’t they?
Small nit regarding Columbine. The police were not outgunned(unless you’re referring to one officer vs two bad guys) or out body armored. Those suspects didn’t have body armor. The failure of the police to have further engaged those threats partly stems from the use of the propane tanks the suspects left in the hallways to set off as bombs. The police were held up going through those hallways and rooms because they feared getting taken out by those IED’s. School massacres were also a relatively unheard of ordeal at that time and little training went into a police response to them. Conventional wisdom suggested that officers call for back-up before engaging the suspects directly by themselves. Many things changed as a result of Columbine in active shooter training, and it continually evolves to deal with those threats.
I suspect you may be thinking more along the lines of the police being outgunned and out armored during the LA bank robbery, in which the suspects were using fully automatic AK-47′s etc and had layers of full body armor.
to Cedric Smith:
“Tommy Guns” are being sold today with 30 round stick magazines and also 50-75 and 100 round drums available in 45 cal.
You can get a rifle or pistol version. You can purchase a violin case instead of a hard or soft case for such, just as back in the day BUT it is semi-automatic and not full auto. They shoot like a dream but won’t penetrate body armor.
I read through these posts and I don’t see any indication that those who are pro-gun are willing to deviate from the standard NRA line
We have more guns per person in this nation than in any other country in the world.. Even including places that are genuine war zones, our rate of death and injury is astonishingly high.
Just to put things in perspective:
The number of American military killed in Iraq (3/03 — 12/12) was 4488 (3532 combat) and 33,184 wounded
in Afganistan (same time period) killed was 2041 (1701 combat) and 17,204 wounded
In Vietnam (1965 — 1975) was 58,282 KIA and 303,644 WIA
source: standard google search, stats consistent from all sources found
Gun related deaths and injuries in the US
In 2010 it was
31,513 dead (19,308 suicide, 11,015 homicide, 600 accident)
non-fatal injuries over 200,000 a year (sorry, no breakdown with regard to type of injury, how serious, or what type of firearm caused it from source cited)
source: Firearms tutorial Library.med.utah.edu
In other words, the standard 3 year death toll from firearms in the United States exceeds that of US military deaths in three different wars over a combined period of twenty years.
Pro-gun response?
The Second Amendment (1787) is absolute. Private citizens have an absolute right to own all types of weapons and as many as they want. Restrictions are a trampling of our god-given rights
The solution to the problem of gun violence is more guns because bad guys have guns
Guns don’t kill people. Video games kill people
It’s the culture
It’s liberals
It’s crazy people (as in only crazy people kill people therefore . . .)
It’s criminals (as in only criminals kill people therefore . . .)
Laws prohibting criminal and/or harmful behavior are not 100% effective therefore . . .
Deflect to arguing over what makes an M-16 an assault weapon but an AK-47 or an AR-15 not an assault weapon.
Advocate that in order to protect ourselves, everybody must carry guns and armed volunteer security guards should be stationed on every street corner.
In the meantime, the AFT has not had a director in years and the CDC is not allowed to do research on gun related deaths and injuries largely due to NRA lobbying.
Question. Who benefits from all this carnage?
Ms Bell, thats a very wordy post that says nothing. War casualties? Protect school children? Conection? Nope, nobody but you
What you or anyone else has not presented is evidence that the measures you advocate will make even one person safer.
Read the link from my other post and point out the flaws in his reasoning and logic. I doubt you will, but we can all hope.
Some sensible intellectual, non-emotional observations on allowing willing teachers and others that work in schools the ability to carry guns.
This, as are most partisan debates, divided by those that understand the founding principles of individual freedom and responsibility. And those that seek power over others by increasing laws, regulations, rules, and taxes.
This continent did not have a central govt for over four generations, but as the world grew smaller is became evident the a central govt of very specific and very limited powers was a necessary evil.
The CT killings are not a federal problem. The federal govt is not capable, nor is it within its design to address the problem.
Security is an individual responsibility. That is why meeting random violence with more and immediate violence is the solution. Pretend for a second that there is no federal govt, (there wasn’t for more that 4 generations) and then fashion a solution. That solution would be individuals accepting, no, welcoming the opportunity to be an even larger part of the community they are a part of. Please…….why would we deny those that have a desire to protect our children, the means to do so?
“The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.”
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
From the New York Post, Late City Final 12/21/12
“Gun Nut. NRA Loon in Bizarre Rant over Newtown”
From the Daily News New York’s Home Town Newspaper 12/21/12
“Just 90 Minutes After moment of Silence for Newtown Victims, Vile NRA Nut Blames Everyone and Everything Except the Guns. Craziest Man on Earth”,
Mr Williamson, we are past the point of no return on this. Further discussion is not possible.
Not a single one of the rampage shooters of the 63 incidents since 1982 was stopped by an armed civilian. Not a single one.
Now if you could provide a list of rampage shootings that were stopped by armed civilians, you might have a point. But I don’t think you can produce such a list
You are right about only one thing further discussion is not possible. Not with you, because you are spreading easily disprovable lies.
Pearl Mississippi High School Shooting[wikipedia]:
“The school’s assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 pistol from his truck and, spotting him near the parking lot, shouted for Woodham to stop. Woodham instead got into a his mother’s car and tried to escape. Myrick, a US Army Reserve commander, detained Woodham until authorities arrived.[8][9]”
Stop spewing your left wing anti-American talking points, wherever you get them from. They don’t make you sound well reasoned or intelligent, they make you sound like an uniformed, brainwashed old fool.
Ms Bell you did not read the link I provided earlier. In fact lots of shooters were stopped by good people carrying guns. The instances did not escalate into the artificial criteria invented by you. Isn’t that the point?
But its good to know the you and by example all of the left is not interested in discussion. I have always known that to be the case and predicted exactly that the day of the CT murders. The left says its time for a discussion, but your .”example is the truth. “Shut up and get out of our way”
You have said you don’t care………….but I will still wait for somebody to provide evidence that the restrictions being proposed will make anyone safer. You take a lot of time smearing anyone in sight, but still no evidence.
Oh and to put a stop to another lie. The left does intend to confiscate our guns Gov Cumo has promised so.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/heres-the-audio-of-ny-gov-talking-gun-control-confiscation-could-be-an-option/
Your smears also deflect from the discussion about why allowing those that desire, the means to protect children in their care. It will work, it will save lives, it can happen immediately and will cost next to nothing. Schools in several states already have the program in place, Not a single issue. So the question is, why are you standing in the way of children safety?
Interventions;
1) New Life Church, Colorado Springs 2007
Shooter killed two people, wounded three and was taken out by a former police officer hired by the church as a security officer after a similar shooting nearby a few days earlier
2) Bar shooting Winnemucca Nevada 2008
Shooter killed 2, wounded 2 before being killed by a marine with a concealed handgun
3) Tacoma Washington 2005.
Six injured including Brendon McKown who confronted a rampage shooter and was shot and nearly died
4) Tyler, Texas 2005
Mark Wilson confronted a rampage shooter and was shot dead
5) Appalachian School of Law, Grundy VA 2002
Students, who happened to be law enforcement officers, subdued a rampage shooter after he had run out of ammunition
6) Middle School Dance Sooting, Edinboro PA 1998
14 year old shooter held at gunpoint until police arrived. This was after he had left the building
7) High School, Pearl Mississippi 1997
Same deal. The assistant principle who subdued the shooter was an army reserve officer
Seven recorded interventions in 15 years.
Four interventions were done by people who were either military or police officers
Three were done after the shooter had left the building or had run out of ammunition
Two involved shooters who were children
In two cases, armed bystanders who attempted to intervene were either killed or seriously injured.
Throw in Tucson Arizona 2011 where an armed bystander attempting to intervene was nearly shot and killed by the SWAT team who for a split second thought he was the shooter. The shooter was brought down by a little old lady armed with a lawn chair as he was attempting to reload.
Which means we have 8 interventions by armed bystanders.
In only two of these was the shooter actually stopped mid rampage. In both cases the intervening person was either law enforcement or military.
In three cases the intervening person was shot or nearly shot. One of these three died.
Not a good track record Mr Williamson. In fact i think I’m going to follow the standard advice given by police which is get out of the way as fast as possible and let the police do their job.
Gee look at that Mother Jones is wrong!?
What you don’t have is the cases where a gun was shown but never used. Stopping an escalation of violence and not making a data base. Its called a deterrent affect
The argument goes something like…people don’t become teachers to be a para military force. answer. they didn’t become teachers to become para medics either. But they have to be.
The Idea is to ALLOW those that wish to protect the children in their charge. Right now the govt is refusing citizens the opportunity to use all their talents.
Mr Williamson,
Perhaps the reason I don’t have examples of instances where a gun was shown, never used, but none the less stopped a rampage shooter is that such a thing has never happened.
Do you have any examples? Because you’re the one who is claiming they exist, not me.
In the last 15 years there have been exactly two mass murders in American grade schools. In neither case would an armed teacher have been able to stop the shooter
Using some New York paper to prove who is crazy or a lunatic is like asking Obama who is to blame. Your name calling and personal attacks on educated and dedicated American Citizens is unconscienable. I understand we have spent the past two years watching the better qualified men and women in America get libelled and slandered with exactly the result desired by the name callers. Destroying anyone to further your cause is now the norm. It is how our elected one has won every election he has ever been in. Of course he uses his flunkies to do the real dirty character obliterations and then proclaims to be above it all and want to bring us together for the good of us all. Unless you work, pay taxes, are pro life, own a business or have experience in running anything. Shame on him or anyone who belives it is right to treat others this way. Guess I am crazy stupid for believing in respect. Disagree with the ideas but stop these personal attacks. They are transparent.
Mr Reece,
New York City’s gun laws are about as restrictive as the Supreme Court will allow. NYC’s murder rate has been dropping to levels not seen since the mid 1960s. They must be doing something right.
Also, the New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is very very very conservative. In the wake of the Newtown murders, Murdoch proposed the same restricitons on guns as were implemented in Australia after the 1996 Port Arthur shootings. Australia has had zero, repeat zero rampage shootings since then and the murder rate has dropped by 40%.
Like I said, the people you regard as lunatics must be doing something right
New York? Well Jay…….. “Nuts of a feather flock together”.