After Shootings, Are Stricter Gun Laws Needed?
The deaths of 19 in Colorado and Wisconsin have sparked a national firearm debate that has reemerged several times in recent years. We want to know which side you're on and why.
Photos
Two recent mass shootings have again sparked the national debate on what type of guns and ammunition should be legal for civilians, and what steps they must follow to obtain such weapons.
The 12 dead and 58 injured in the July 20 Colorado movie theater massacre, and the seven dead and three injured in Sunday’s Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin, have drawn responses from both sides of the conversation.
Authorities said the alleged Colorado shooter, 24-year-old James Holmes, purchased his arsenal legally. The Springfield 9mm semi-automatic handgun bought by alleged Wisconsin shooter Wade Michael Page, 40, was also a legal purchase, Reuters reports.
Proponents argue guns are defensive tools and it’s the people, not the weapons, that kill. They also point to the Second Amendment, which by its number shows the importance the U.S. founders placed on it.
But the law was written before semi- and fully automatic firearms, advocates of gun control say. And, as proven by recent mass shootings, the weapons are falling into the wrong hands, they argue.
Larry Bodine, editor in chief of Lawyers.com, called the Colorado and Wisconsin shootings “the latest in a long history of bloodbaths.”
“There have been 50 U.S. rampage killings involving firearms in the last 25 years, and 82 percent involved legally obtained firearms,” he wrote on the Huffington Post. "It's easy to buy a gun today, and 43 states have some form of open carry law, thanks to legislation and the recent Supreme Court decisions."
After the Colorado shooting, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called on President Obama and his presumed GOP opponent, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, to propose stricter gun control laws on CBS's Face the Nation.
“This really is an enormous problem for the country, and it's up to these two presidential candidates," Bloomberg said. "They want to lead this country, and they've said things before that they're in favor of banning things like assault weapons. Where are they now and why don't they stand up?"
Obama spokesman Jay Carney told the New York Times that the president’s focus is to “protect Second Amendment rights.”
But, he added, steps must be taken to "ensure that we are not allowing weapons into the hands of individuals who should not, by existing law, obtain those weapons."
Following the Colorado shooting, Romney told CNBC that “the Second Amendment is the right course to preserve and defend and don’t believe that new laws are going to make a difference in this type of tragedy.”
Even if some in Congress wanted legislation that would further gun control, there wouldn’t be enough support from Republicans and some Democrats, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said.
"The votes aren't there for gun control," she told the Huffington Post. "We certainly aren't going to be able to do it in this Congress, and I don't know that we would be able to do it in a Democratic Congress because it takes a lot of votes to go down that path."
Other mass shootings in recent years that have brought about similar debates over gun ownership include:
- Two teenagers—Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold—killed 12 schoolmates, one teacher and themselves in 1999 in Columbine, Colorado.
- Virginia Tech University student Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 and wounded 15 on the campus in 2007 before taking his own life. It’s the deadliest mass shooting of its kind in the country.
- An Army psychologist, Maj. Nidal Hasan, opened fire in 2009 at Fort Hood in Texas, killing 13 soldiers and wounding more than 40.
- U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was seriously hurt in 2011 by a gunshot wound to the head as Jared Lee Loughner opened fired outside a grocery store in Tucson, Arizona. Six were killed and 13 total were hurt.
Melinda Paris
9:12 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
You can put all the restrictions in place that you want, however if a THUG or a "sicko" person gets a gun with intent to kill, then it will happen, regardless. We have restrictions on drugs, and we're in epidemic perportions here in Georgia, no law will make a person do right, if a person is good, they are good, if they are evil, they will be evil. These horrible mass killings were inflicted by evil people, so what does restrictions mean to that type of person? I say no more restrictions, as some of us that are good enjoy shooting and carrying weapons with the proper paperwork and follow safety guidelines, why do I need more restrictions, I have no intent to kill anyone UNLESS they try to harm my family or myself? We have had ONE home invasion and if we have another one and they have a weapon, I will be prepared to take action for my family and property this time, and I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE.
C.J.
10:08 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
"...if a person is good, they are good, if they are evil, they will be evil..."
Yes, we need more restrictions. Specifically, we need to close the gun show loophole so that those who are ineligible to purchase a weapon from a retailer are also ineligible to purchase a weapon from a private dealer. In addition, we need to reinstate the assault weapon ban that went into effect under Clinton and expired under Obama.
There's a lot more that we can do without restricting Melinda's ability to "enjoy shooting" or protect her family. We can and must limit the amount of carnage that "evil people" have the ability to create.
Observer
11:28 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Chris, do you even know what an "assault weapon" is? Even under the so called assault ban that you cite semi-automatic and indeed fully automatic rifles and handguns were not banned. Instead whether a gun was banned did not relate to it's ability to rapidly shoot, but to the aesthetic of the rifle itself.
I believe what you are suggesting is a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and handguns, which would be new and over-reaching legislation which would does not stand the proverbial snowball's chance in Hades of passing.
C.J.
2:00 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
"...a gun was banned did not relate to it's ability to rapidly shoot, but to the aesthetic of the rifle itself."
Which gun? Which aesthetic characteristics of the rifle? Because it was painted red, white and blue instead of black?
There's nothing "aesthetic" about a grenade launcher, a telescoping stock, or a rifle pistol grip. Such features have specific purposes other than making the increasing the "aesthetic" appeal of the gun.
You believe that I am suggesting a ban on all handguns? Based on what? Voices in your head? Okay, two can play at that game. I believe that you're suggesting that all individuals should all have the right to keep and bear anti-aircraft missile launchers and nuclear warheads because, you know, we have the right to keep and bear arms.
Observer
3:44 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Chris, you do not seem to be familiar with rifles or handguns or the mechanics of what makes them work. Just because a rifle or handgun is semi-automatic does not make it an "assault weapon". Under the previous so called assault ban of two rifles employing the same size cartridge and semi-automatic action one would be deemed an assault weapon only because it resembled (aesthetics) a military style weapon, not because it employed a true assault weapon (fully automatic) action.
You need to educate yourself on what makes a rifle an assault weapon before you can make a cogent argument for re-instating the lapsed assault weapons ban. merely adding a carrying handle to a rifle does no endow it with magical properties, neither does a pistol grip. The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) was initially produced in 1918 and does not have a pistol grip nor did many of the fully automatic rifles produced in that era, but it indeed is an assault weapons due to it being fully automatic. As such in order to possess a BAR you need to have a Type 3 Federal Firearms License (FFL) issued by the ATF after an extensive background check.
FYI, there have been no fully automatic rifles produced in the United States since 1986 except for those available under contract o the military and law enforcement agencies.
C.J.
4:29 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
RE: "You need to educate yourself on what makes a rifle an assault weapon..."
Observer, you're trying to split hairs on the definition of an assault weapon--a phrase for which no technical definition exists when it comes to civilian firearms. It's generally an umbrella term used in the legal (and political) sense to describe specified semi-automatic weapons or weapons with specified features. Whether a particular civilian firearm is an "assault weapon" is subjective. Therefore, it's folly to argue about whether firearm A is, by definition, an assault weapon. Would it make you feel better if we changed the name of the law to "Super Dangerous Weapons Ban" or "Semi-Automatic+ Weapons Ban?"
I've been unable to find any evidence that the AWB banned carrying handles. Nor was any weapon banned simply because it looked like (aesthetics) a fully automatic weapon.
Observer
5:25 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Chris,
The assault weapons ban covered semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine that had to have two of the following additional features (a folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor or a grenade launcher). None of those features significantly enhance the lethality of the basic of operation of the AK-47.
Which means that even under the assault weapons ban if I had an AK-47 (semi-automatic) with a pistol grip, but without a folding or telescoping stock or a bayonet mount or flash suppressor or grenade launcher that it would still have been legal.
If you want to argue that semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines ought to be outlawed then make that assertion. Reinstatement of the AWB will not achieve that end.
Once you have educated yourself on what actually makes an assault weapon an assault weapon and not some arbitrary definition dreamed up by a government bureaucrat, then perhaps we can start to have a meaningful discussion.
C.J.
6:07 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
RE: "Once you have educated yourself on what actually makes an assault weapon an assault weapon and not some arbitrary definition..."
The AWB banned AK-47s by name, regardless of whether they included the features you listed.
Despite your arrogance on the matter, when is comes to non-military firearms, there is no technical definition of assault weapons. It's just a name for the law. For the purposes of the ban, an assault weapon was whatever Congress defined as an assault weapon in the legislation. Educate yourself on that!
Observer
6:47 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Varient AK-47's and AR-15s were not banned under the AWB.
Again, reinstating it would have zero effect.
The AWB was a sop to gun control advocates by jaded politicians who knew that it had no real teeth, but would result in it's supporters being able to feel morally superior to gun rights proponents.
In 1999 the National Institute for Justice, a part of the Justice Department and hardly a bastion of gun rights concluded - "The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated. This suggests that existing regulations should be complemented by further tests of enforcement tactics that focus on the tiny minorities of gun dealers and owners who are linked to gun violence."
Allen
8:43 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Ah yes, the old “we need more restrictions.” The problem with this argument is that the government is so good at restricting things. Case in point – drugs. How many tons of that are estimated to work its way into this country now?
C.J.
1:41 am on Thursday, August 9, 2012
RE: "The AWB would result in it's supporters being able to feel morally superior to gun rights proponents..."
AWB proponents aren't really interested in reducing the frequency and severity of mass murders...only feeling morally superior to gun rights proponents? Did you run out of facts, Observer, so that you had no choice but to turn to a pop psychological assessment of any and all who disagree with you on the subject?
For the record, I hear that "morally superior" nonsense nearly every time I turn on AM radio. Are you so-called conservatives totally incapable of thinking for yourselves? Do you take everything that you hear on talk radio directly into the blood stream...no matter how asinine? A person can't have a discussion on any issue these days without having Neil Boortz and Sean Hannity channeled through their devoted listeners.
Try thinking for yourself, Observer. It won't hurt a bit.
Chuck Baird
10:46 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
We have more than ample gun laws in the United States. How liberal thinking idiots can even think that we need our elitist leaders to impose more or their moronic horse-manure on us is totally beyond me. Melinda, you are right on and Chris, perhaps you should consider politics - at least until someone personally threatens you and your family...
C.J.
11:46 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Liberal thinking idiots? Moronic horse manure? That's you're argument? No facts? No evidence? No logic? C'mon.
You mentioned needing a gun for when someone personally threatens me and my family. I know that a lot of gun owners fantasize about the day when they'll have an opportunity to be a hero and shoot the bad guys--just like on TV--but in all probability, that day will never come. In fact, "research shows that access to guns greatly increases the risk of death and firearm-related violence. A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder."
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100204/Guns-in-homes-can-increase-risk-of-death-and-firearm-related-violence.aspx
Chuck, perhaps you should consider politics - at least until a loved one gets killed by the gun that you purchased to protect him or her with.
Allen
9:31 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Okay Chris, you want logic. Try this one. I say that I can produce a study that will prove that a gun in the home is twenty times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder. Sounds great right? So how will I do it?
I would do it by basing my statistical sample on only the most violent inter-city neighborhoods. If you do that, I'm guessing you'll get the results you want.
Max
9:22 am on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Chris, not only what Allen said, but add this to the "studies" experimental design: base the statistics on door-to-door interviews, add a large % of refusal to answer the interviewer, pool together legal and illegal weapon ownership (if you own a gun illegally you are obviously more prone to crime in general), add to the mix the confusion in the public at large (and physicians as well!) between "odd ratios" and "relative risk" and there you get your "statistics". The article you cited is a review of the literature. Read the actual literature and the debate surrounding it. You will see for yourself how much is hype and deception (e.g. you can call a "child" a 17 year old gang member, but it ain't) and how much is facts. I happen to know personally one of these "researchers" at Harvard University School of Public Health. They don't even try to hide their desire for guns just to disappear. The UK is their model. Well, the UK is a country still without a constitution, how about that? Statistics -or lack-there-of-, aside, your fundamental problem is that you must apply a strict scrutiny to a fundamental, enumerated right, not rational basis. That pretty much closes the case for a ban, no matter what numbers or rationale you come up with.
Debbie Farley
11:21 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
All I can say is watch this story from Australia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8RDWltHxRc&feature=youtu.be
They forced citizens to give up all weapons and now the crime rates are soaring and home invasions are on the increase because they know the residents can't shoot them.
C.J.
12:11 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
I watched the YouTube video, and they didn't source their statistics. What is the source of their statistics? This is a pro-gun video made by a pro-gun group, and they didn't source their statistics, I suspect, because they manufactured them.
Here's a link for you to read in which all statistics and information are backed up with sources-- http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
Max
11:22 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Norway 2011. Social democratic, progressive country. Very tough gun laws. The Brady Campaign paradise. All sort of tough limits on all kind of firearms, size of magazines number and ammunitions, storage and mode of carry. Last year they got 77 dead people at the hands of a single gunman..... There is no law on earth that can protect from a psychopath. All the proposals I have heard recently from the gun-control vultures have no bearing or logical connection whatsoever on the facts at hands: limiting the sales of ammo online would not have prevented any of the recent shooting, prohibiting semiautomatic firearms (a common type of action in handguns and hunting rifles) is running against the DC v Heller decision; assault weapon rifles were never banned even during the ban, because with cosmetic changes they were always legally sold; magazine size is a fetish of the antigunners who have no firearms handling experience and miss the fact that a change of a smaller magazine requires one second, and no effect on actual shooting efficiency (see Norway example again). Gun control people have as an end-game a total prohibition of firearms. They say so pretty explicitly in their position papers and commentary. They will never be happy until then. So whatever they say cannot be taken seriously. Until you disarm everybody in the US, including the police and the US army, leave the second amendment alone. and I'm a moderate independent.
C.J.
12:28 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
RE: "Last year [Norway] got 77 dead people at the hands of a single gunman"
The murder rate in the United States is somewhere in the neighborhood of seven times that of Norway's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#cite_note-6
(Note: click on the footnote to see the spreadsheet with the UNODC study results.)
By the way, I don't know a single gun control advocate or organization whose has "as an end-game a total prohibition of firearms." The largest, most influential, and most well-respected gun control organization that I'm aware of is the Brady campaign, and they explicitly state, "Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns."
This debate is frustrating. We should be debating opinions, not facts.
C.J.
12:29 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/
Max
3:04 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Chris: the statements are there and plenty: what they want is a ban. you know that if you talk to them individually or if you take time to actually read the facts instead of selecting them.
Fact1:
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_to_Stop_Gun_Violence
Fact: 2
now, VPC budget is 3 million dollar, Brady is a bit more, 3. something. you cannot call VPC a minor player....
fact3
my point is about random shootings. and you have not disproved my statement by citing cross country homicide rates. one does not have any bearing on the other, it's simple logic. take the guns away from the psychopaths and they will use fertilizer and gasoline...
FACT4.
comparing homicide rates or other social science variable between countries and over time is a messy job. it quickly becomes a matter of comparing apples and carrots...
comparing homicide rates inside the US alone is very difficult task: one can easily show you that states with very strict gun laws like California don't fare well when it comes to murder rate, while gun control relaxed states like VT do very well. if you plot that info you will find very weak correlations in the aggregate. we have a diverse and violent society in general, with most violence concentrated in gang wars.
Max
3:07 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
fact 5:
check the FBI crime statistics and the CDC injury database and put things in perspective:
there were 8600 firearms homicides in 2010, of which ~300 with rifles, ~300 with shotguns, and the remaining nonID or handguns. if we take into account that about 15% of the rifles sold in the US are assault weapon like rifles, we could expect perhaps 45 homicides every year due to AW. At the same time there were a total of 600 accidental deaths and 19000 suicides. Of the accidental deaths, 306 had less than 20 years of age and 20 less than 5 years of age.
For comparison, each year about the same number of kids below age 5 (~15 on average) die in playgrounds due to accidental falls, and 706 kids age less than 14 die of drowning. and 34485 people die in car accidents, about 10000 due to DUIs.
so, let's follow your logic to it's conclusions. let's ban public swimming pools, playgrounds, cars and booze, right? well you could actually, they are not protected by the Bill of Right....
C.J.
3:46 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Interesting post, Max. Let's talk about facts.
First, a link is not a fact. I have no idea why you posted those links, but if they contain facts that you wish to share, then feel free to highlight.
Second, an opinion is not a fact, even if you preface your opinion with the word, "fact." For example, "...take the guns away from the psychopaths and they will use fertilizer and gasoline" is an opinion, and an odd one at that.
Finally, I don't advocate banning swimming pools, playgrounds, cars, and booze, nor does banning such things logically follow from banning weapons deliberately intended to kill lots of people as quickly as possible. However, for the record, they are not protected by the U.S. Constitution. We don't have a constitutional right to cars and swimming pools. We do have a constitutional right to vote. Therefore, I believe that we should elect representatives who will not pass laws banning pools, cars, playgrounds or booze. On that issue, we've found common ground.
Allen
9:02 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
LOL, so Chris you have links to the Southern Medical Journal and the UNODC and calling them facts. No bias there!
This happens all the time. Get some group with an agenda to make a report as if its fact and then go around stating that the agreement is over because this groups has stated something as a fact.
Norman
11:23 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
We already have strict gun laws. Let's stop and think about this for a second in terms of percentages.
According to a 2007 "Small Arms Survey" there are approximately 88 guns per 100 people in the U.S. There are approximately 312 million people in the us, so that means roughly 274 million guns are owned. That's a HUGE number, and happens to be roughly close to the number of people that are licensed to drive cars.
In 2009 there were 36 thousand people that died from vehicle accidents, of which more than 30%, or over 10 thousand, were alcohol related...i.e. negligence due to someone active decision to drink alcohol and then go drive their car. So about 0.004% of drivers out there didn't follow the law and a death resulted. We have testing for all drivers, but somehow, with total driver numbers this huge, a failure is bound to happen. There is no way to prevent this from happening 100% of the time.
In 2010 there were approximately 32 thousand people that died from firearms, of which 11 thousand were due to homicide...i.e. negligence due to someones active decision to get a gun (legally or illegally) and use it for violence. So about 0.004% of guns out there were used to commit a violent crime resulting in a death. We have FBI background checks, and state laws in place to screen out people that shouldn't have guns, but somehow, with total gun ownership numbers this huge, a failure is bound to happen. There is no way to prevent this from happening 100% of the time.
Melinda Paris
11:57 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
If someone wants to purchase a gun, then they will even if they are a criminal, its not that hard I'm told, or they will break into a innocent person's house and steal a gun, happens every few minutes in this country. Guns don't kill, no more than cars kill, its all human decisions, we have enough BIG GOV'T in our lives, they day they come to get our guns is the day I will die with one in my hand. I've never killed a human, I don't plan to kill a human--I actually own some beautiful hand carved guns that are over 100 years old, they are beautiful pieces of craftsmanship. My husband grew up hunting for squirrels, deer, wild boar, and etc..his mom cooked every bit of it, He also fished, and went frog gigging. Everyone that owns a gun is not a bad person, everyone that owns a car is not a bad person. I don't need ANYONE telling ME as a law-abiding citizen that was born HERE legally, that pays our taxes, and causes law-officials no problems telling me what I can or cannot own. I don't want BIG GOV'T telling me what I can eat or drive, and/or telling me I need to give to those that have less. I'm sick of BIG GOV'T. I give to charities and I help family that can't help themselves, I eat what I want, I drive what I want, and I should be able to own guns for our pleasure, we have land and lots of it, and we go target shoot, ITS FUN! For us, its a sport. We RESPECT our guns, we use gun safety, just like driving our car, RESPECT others that's the answer.
Melinda Paris
12:21 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
what about buying a car for a loved one and they wreck it and get killed? Is that the car's fault? I don't think owning a gun is any different than owning a car, they both can kill at instructor's hands, or someone making a bad decision. There is rules about NOT driving while under the influence, people make terrible decisions and do it anyway, so should we make good people go through background checks and etc to own a car? Absurd? really? and why? YOU can put restriction after restriction, but what most of you don't seem to understand is this: You can go downtown Atlanta or any city in America and if you are a evil person and You want to purchase a gun, even if you are a felon, or have killed in the past, you can purchase a gun...so for those of us that are not a bad person or a murderer, we don't think we should keep going through hoops, the thugs will get guns irregardless, we are not the killers or sicko's. Do you think the guys that PLANNED to kill those innocent folks in the theater and/or the Temple would have NOT got a gun, whether they went through back ground checks or not, There INTENT was to kill innocent people, what restriction in this land would have kept them from doing so?? NONE. I'm sick of innocent people dying needlessly, I'm sick of so many of my son's friends dying in car wrecks from speed and drugs/alcohol, we can't ban everything for people who make bad decisions. More Gov't Restrictions is not the answer.
Oldtimer
12:35 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
The city of Chicago has the very strictest gun laws in the US...but the highest murder rate. Out west where laws are less intrusive murder rates are lower. Maybe if these thugs believed a person might be armed they would back off.
JACQUE
12:35 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
If you want to see what having a gun in every household would do to your crime statitics just look up the statistics for Kennesaw, Georgia. Ask a burglar if he wants to break into a home there. I think not because its the law in Kennesaw that everyone own a gun. Our crime stats are some of the lowest in the nation. When will people wake up and realize that when you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns!
Larry King
2:04 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Second Amendment
Who is this well regulated militia I need to have an AK 47 to be protected from, and where are they?
Schools, Shopping Centers, Theaters, Parks?
Just A Grunt
2:33 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Drugs are illegal too yet for some reason there is a pervasive drug problem in this country. More gun laws is not the answer. Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet they manage to kill more people every weekend then this one incident in Wisconsin. Gun show loophole? Show me where any of the guns used in these recent shootings were bought at a gun show. It's the opposite in fact. They were bought from licensed dealers, legally. Even the Ft Hood shooter got his guns from a dealer. Let's see what's the next scary boogey man argument. Oh yeah assault weapons. Those advocating this type of legislation often can't tell the difference between an assault weapon and a Louisville slugger. Seems every rifle used is first reported in the press as an AK 47. BTW there are not reported cases of mass shootings using an assault weapon in this country. You can go all the way back to the Luby's massacre in TX in '91 and you will find in almost cases the weapon of choice was handguns. Did the Aurora, CO have an AR15? Yes. And it had a big scary magazine which promptly jammed rendering it useless. Instead of preying on people's fears get the facts. Been around guns all my life and like millions of other gun owners I have never shot or killed anyone. Finally, almost all of these mass shootings occurred in what are called "Gun Free Zones" like the Virginia Tech shooting.
C.J.
3:03 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
RE: "Oh yeah assault weapons. Those advocating this type of legislation often can't tell the difference between an assault weapon and a Louisville slugger...here are not reported cases of mass shootings using an assault weapon in this country...Did the Aurora, CO have an AR15? Yes...get the facts"
First he says that there are not reported cases of mass shootings using an assault weapon, and then he says that an assault weapon was used in Aurora. Both statements can't be true.
The assault weapons legislation that went into effect under Clinton and expired under Bush had banned the AR-15 used in Aurora and the high-capacity clip used by the shooter. In addition, the high capacity clip used by the shooter in Tuscon had also been banned by the assault weapons law that expired in 2004.
Splitting hairs over the definition of an "assault" weapon is a red herring. The point of the law was to limit the ability to easily kill lots of people in a short amount of time.
Just A Grunt
4:08 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Chris, just reading your comments I can tell you are not very familiar with firearms. Your use of the word clip for instance. The proper term is magazine. I admitted that the shooter had an AR15 which I also pointed out jammed rendering it useless, so unless he was bludgeoning people with it, it played a minimal role in the shooting. The damage was done with the handguns. For close in conditions a shotgun or a pistol would be preferred anyway. Now what makes a weapon an assault weapon? Magazine capacity? Color? Appearance? Military snipers use bolt action rifles. Do you now consider them assault weapons because the military has them?
Blame the person wielding the weapon, not the weapon. The Aurora, CO shooter was working on a PhD. Maybe we ought to outlaw PhD's.
C.J.
4:58 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
RE: "Blame the person wielding the weapon, not the weapon. The Aurora, CO shooter was working on a PhD. Maybe we ought to outlaw PhD's."
Outlaw PhDs? The mass murderers that this discussion responds to used, well, guns and ammo. Were they all carried out by PhDs too? Do you know something that I don't?
By the way? Clip v. magazine is relevant to this discussion? If I had written "magazine," would you have been persuaded to support renewing the assault weapons ban? Okay. My mistake. Magazine! Are we good?
Just A Grunt
8:14 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Chris,
The point I was trying to make with the clip versus magazine usage is that is one of the quickest ways to distinguish someone who is familiar with firearms and someone who merely reacting out of some sort of knee jerk emotional reaction. As far as the PhD comment, it seems in the wake of each of these shootings there seems to be a need to assign blame to some sort of external influencer whether it be video games, movies, music or not getting enough hugs from mommy instead of pinning the blame squarely where it belongs, on the individual. The decision on whether or not to use a gun in the commission of a crime or to go on a shooting spree begins and ends with the individual who is wielding the weapon.
C.J.
1:54 am on Thursday, August 9, 2012
RE: "The point I was trying to make with the clip versus magazine usage is that is one of the quickest ways to distinguish someone who is familiar with firearms and someone who merely reacting out of some sort of knee jerk emotional reaction."
Do you want to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, Grunt? If so, then your statement leads me to believe that you are a nuclear physicist who is familiar with nuclear weapons. Otherwise, applying your logic, you are merely reacting to some sort of knee jerk emotional reaction.
Besides, the decision on whether or not to nuke Israel begins and ends with the Supreme Leader who is wielding the weapon. Nukes don't kill people. People kill people.
S Bailey
3:03 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Why are Criminals...Criminals???
Rhetorical question... but to help those less informed, it's because Criminals don't Obey the Law.....any Law they choose to ignore.
If one thinks that limiting the availability of guns & ammunition will protect the public, you've completely swallowed a faulty argument that has no basis in FACT.
Even in the countries with the most restrictive of gun laws, criminals get guns & use them.
The Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment to not just protect Families & Individuals from others committing violence against them, but also to prevent an Oppressive & Out of Control Government from making its Citizens Slaves.
The weapons at that time were single fire, flint types, but they were the 'status quo' of every standing army on the planet. Given that today's armies have auto & semi-automatic weapons, it stands to logic that individuals should have access to the same weaponry.
Keep in mind that Criminals have access to AK-47's, automatic & semi-automatic weapons & frequently use them. WHY prevent Legal, Upright & Moral Citizens the ability to defend themselves from punks?
Given the argument about guns killing people....how many Massacres have occurred at Gun Shows around this country ???
I'm waiting for you intelligent response.....
S Bailey
3:04 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
.....youR intelligent response...... (sorry)
Melinda Paris
4:43 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
"oldtimer" and "Jacque"--right on to both of you! Yes, Kennesaw's law is YOU MUST own a gun to live in the city limits, and guess what, no crime. I'm so sick of these thugs who kill the innocent, and then the cowards will hide behind some law that declares them sick-which is crap, if they would start sending some of these thugs to the electric chair, I say ONE EVERY DAY, all these people that are sick would become well. They are evil, they thrive on the attention and hype of it all and at any cost. If someone gets a gun, loads it up with the intent to kill, then they go out and kill, isn't that pre-meditation? and that's not sick? I have NEVER thrive on being a hero or have wanted to shoot or had the urge to shoot, but since my 16 year old son was home when a person decided to break down two sets of doors to enter our home, I was a PROUD mom, after He shouted for the intruder to leave numerous times, but yet He kept coming with a crowbar or something similiar, He only turned to leave when He saw the gun, THANK GOD, my son had been through gun safety in order to deer hunt with his dad, and Thank God we had a gun, or the end result could have been much worse. The officers that come out, told my son, He should have left them a blood trail to follow, which surprised me, you know there is truth there, but at 16 yrs old, I'm glad He doesn't have anyone's blood on his hands, but if this happens again, this mama ain't playing.
Melinda Paris
4:58 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
For the record, there is a group called "The Freedom Group" buying up alot of American gun manufacturer's, you know who is over the Freedom Group? A scary individual named George Soros-(sorry if that's not the right spelling) He is one of the most liberal people in America and He is ONE SCARY individual, He wants nothing more than to try take our rights away and one of them would be our gun rights. While we're on scary things..I also believe if an idiot wants to ride his motorcycle without a helmet, then He should be allowed, this is a true example of how I'm fed up. I wouldn't ride without one, cause the first thing going to hit the pavement is your head, just common sense. However, if there is goofball's that want to do this, why not let them? Why should the Gov't tell people you "HAVE" to wear a helmet? My point is this: We ALREADY have TOO MUCH GOV'T in our lives, let's see in NYC now they serve drinks with no sugar or some bolgna, its like everytime you turn on the TV, there is some Gov't official barking out what people can/cannot do. We need to make some choices without any interference, and that's the way it is w/guns. I have friends who are scared of them and act all silly, on the other hand, they can't see "good" to drive at night, but guess what, they'll run to the store and etc at night, now that's scary. All these Gov't Laws are out of bounds for us "THE PEOPLE"
C.J.
5:50 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
RE: "For the record, there is a group called "The Freedom Group" buying up alot of American gun manufacturer's, you know who is over the Freedom Group? A scary individual named George Soros..."
For the record, that's not true. http://freedom-group.com/2011_10-K.pdf (scroll to page 113)
Don't believe everything you read in an e-mail chain.
BStein
11:20 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Sounds like you already fell off of a bike without a helmet Melinda....Get out and see the world. Instead of watching it on tv....
David Lancaster
5:11 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Has everyone overlooked the fact that three of the events coverd in the original article occurred so called "gun free zones". The Columbine shootings, the VT rampage, and the most recent Colorado.theater murders. Imagine how just one armed citizen may have ended the carnage long before police could respond.
Norman
7:02 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Excellent point David. Gun free zones are an invitation to criminals to do what they want without fear of someone standing up to them. Liberals just don't understand the irony.
Jerry
5:33 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Do you wont just the crooks, and law breakers to have guns ?
Dr. Lou Hilliard
8:39 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Ban Spoons they make people fat, ban SUV's they kill people, ban Television because it makes people stupid, ban Mc Donald's because its food causes cancer and heart disease. ban illegals because they take our jobs. lol People have the right to make choices. Some people make good one and bad ones. but if you look at the statistics you will see that the majority of crimes committed by gun toting criminals, are using illegal guns.
These recent mass shooting are clearly set up to sway voters in thinking there is a problem and there is, the Government. The government is the problem with there hidden agenda to control the people. Loose the guns, loose you freedom!
Chris Long
8:48 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
I do believe that all gun owners should be trained, but I struggle w/how to implement that w/o infringing on privacy rights. & I really don't think there's any way to defend the gun show loophole. There can & should be some reform to regulate these sales so that we are doing everything reasonably possible to prevent the sale of guns to people who should not have them. That said, this is largely a "feel good" measure that does nothing about gun theft & the black market, etc.
If someone's bent on getting/using a gun, they'll find a way to make it happen. & as the saying goes, "when seconds matter, the police are minutes away." No disrespect to police, but they cannot be omnipresent, & thus can do little to prevent these crimes. Unfortunately they usually can only clean up afterward. The only hope for situations like that is a responsible gun owner. For every Aurora/Columbine (perhaps we should just outlaw Colorado?), there are countless other stories of responsible gun owners preventing crimes, or stopping them before they get worse.
Chris Long
8:49 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
So, yes, there could be some reform, but the problem is that it always starts w/something "small" or "common sense", but it's never enough. It's the same w/any other hot-button issue. Gun control zealots will always have a never-ending stream of "small" or "common sense" reforms w/the ultimate goal of outlawing all guns, or restricting them so much that it's next to impossible to own them (e.g., allowing ownership, but requiring permits & making it impossibly hard to get/pay for/renew permits or renewals...etc). ICE T has the best take on this issue that I've heard in a while (http://goo.gl/uU5V1). I agree on all points. I'll give my guns up when everyone else does. Don't like it? Molon labe. & the funny thing about this whole discussion is that the more gun control zealots squawk, the more people buy guns.
R. Anderson
11:23 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
A friend of mine was a fire fighter. One day a cop comes in the station house and says "I'm going through a divorce and need to sell this AK-47. Anyone interested in it?". My friend a gun collector said "I am." He became the proud owner of an assault rifle.
Chris Long
2:59 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
& therein lies the problem. There will likely never be a problem w/that gun (as there is little to worry about from responsible gun owners), but if the 2 people you mentioned were criminals or otherwise deemed unfit for gun ownership, that exchange still would have happened regardless of any ban or regulation. At best all bans & regulations do is restrict honest people. They do little or nothing to restrict those intent on bending or breaking the law.
S Bailey
10:44 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Someone missed the whole point of the 2nd Amendment in regards to the Well Regulated Militia. The intent was for Citizens to have local formations in order to respond to needs of violence whether foreign or domestic. The term well regulated was bastardized into what is now the state National Guard & State Defense Forces. The structure of the National Guard does not allow every Citizen to be a part of it and the Georgia State Defense Force is under Mandate to be Unarmed.
Max
10:24 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Chris, drop the AWB baloney.... it's just a make you feel good piece of legislation. I live in Massachusetts, we have an AWB still active: this is what I can buy from my local FFL down route 2:
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_772661_-1_772659_757784_image
same make and model as the Aurora shooter (semi auto, pistol grip, 5.56 cal, detach. mag...)....yes, minor cosmetic changes (do you think lacking a flash hider, a bayonet lug or a gas connector for a granade launcher or having a fixed stock makes this weapon any different?) and a smaller magazine (incidentally, those 100 rnd mags are useless, the military does quite well with 20-rnd ones....if all your grief is about those, they can go as far as I'm concerned).
also, you like citing international statistics (but I suggest you read the papers, not the summaries of the Brady people): there is almost a million AR-15 like rifles, (FULLY auto/select fire! non the neutered civilian semi auto found in the US) in swiss homes, out of 7 million people. do you see them killing each other like psychopaths? AR are fully compatible with an ordered democracy. also, your understanding of the 2A flies in the face of current constitutional law. Heller protects firearms in common use. semi auto pistols and rifles are in common use. get over it. you don't like it? amend the constitution.
the sad issue here is that people like you want to talk about topics they know nothing about.
Gatewood2002
9:59 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
I just wish that there were drug laws in affect so that the drug problem in America would go away. Even devote a Federal Agency to help local and state agencies enforce such laws. I worry more about my children and grandchildren killing themselves by drug abuse more than wounds from gunshots. POINT MADE!
S Bailey
11:57 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Guess the Gubmint should ban all motor vehicles....cause so many more people are killed by automobile, truck & motorcycle accidents than any gun violence in this country. BTW, why is the Democrat Party against the 2nd Amendment, when they endorsed the Iraq Constitution allowing every household to have an AK-47 for protection ???
Melinda Paris
12:41 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
BStein. I've probably seen more of the world than you even know about-your cynical remark wasn't warranted or needed, telling me I have fallen off a bike without a helmet? So, Mr. jokester why so rude, who took your candy away today to make you write something so hateful and personal to me? Did you have razor blades for breakfast is that why you were so rude? OR is it the fact that maybe YOU like big Gov't running your life and I don't? What is it that would make YOU talk to me so rudely, I had not attacked you, so what is up with your very rude and personal remark to me? Maybe you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer either, buster. SO go ahead and gouge at me some more, I can take it, I have my big girl drawers on! Give your best shot...come one, I've been around your kind before, you can "TRY" to intimidate, belittle or whatever else you can throw at me, it will bounce off me like Turtle wax on a old car. Have a good weekend, maybe something good will come your way to make you nice.
Melinda Paris
12:45 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
AND...btw. I didn't get my information off the TV, I don't watch the idiot box, someone I know mentioned that about George Soros, and even though that remark "may" be incorrect, HE DOES have some interest in some of our gun companies in this country, irregardless of what you say and think, and another word for liberals is "progressive" and I believe He owns that insurance company too...Progressive, Liberals, whatever you want to call the tree huggers, and for your information, I have been at the hospital for the last five of six weeks with a very ill and sweet Father, and He passed away last week, and the last thing I need this week is some STRANGER passing judgement on me for no reason and I watched basically no TV at the hospital, as He struggled to live and got on his nerves, so there you go Mr. Know it all, as you can see you don't know much about nothing and absolutely NOTHING about me, try being nice you might like it. If you don't agree with someone that's fine, but no reason to be a jerk!
S Bailey
1:23 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
George Soros has said that the United States of America is the main problem & impediment against One World Government. He is anti-gun, anti-Constitution, anti-Freedom, anti-Capitalist....yet he's here in America & made part of his fortune on the backs of the American People. Yes, he was a founder of the Progressive Ins. Co. (think Flo)....but it is alleged he sold his shares in the company a few years ago. I'm not quite sure how true that is. I'm sorry that some folks can't control their misanthropic judgements on others.