The mass, random shooting in Colorado Thursday night that has claimed 12 lives and injured more than 50 has opened the door for a discussion on gun control.
While the second amendment protects Americans’ rights to possess firearms, exactly how and what types can be procured, where, and who can purchase a gun typically varies by state. Gun control advocates, such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, believe the country’s laws are too lax in this arena.
Dan Gross, president at the Brady Campaign, said he doubted this incident would be enough to spark substantial reform.
“I don’t think there’s going to be any one moment that’s going to change the national dialogue. I think the national dialogue is going to change when the American people get involved and demand change,” he said during an appearance on MSNBC’s NOW with Alex Wagner Friday. “Otherwise it’s just going to be business as usual. The gun lobby is going to wield far too much power over our politicians.”
That fear of the gun lobby, as well as Americans who enjoy recreational firearms, has thwarted the will of politicians to push for more restrictive gun control measures, said Patricia Murphy, a guest on NOW who covers Congress for The Daily Beast.
“I think the Democratic Party has decided it’s not a fight they want to have. The NRA is so strong. There are so many moderate Democrats elected from states where the NRA is very popular, where guns are used recreationally—Utah, North Carolina, Virginia,” she said. “As somebody who covers Congress, gun control measures don’t move. Legislation is rarely introduced. It certainly rarely passes. Even when a member of Congress was shot at her own congressional event—nothing.”
Chris Hayes, host of MSNBC's Up with Chris Hayes (pictured above), also cited a lack of political will to address gun control.
"All evidence of previous mass shootings suggest they haven’t been inflection points," he said during NOW. "Since 2000, the Democratic Party at the national level has almost wholely retreated from the issue. They don’t talk about it; they don’t try to move legislation; they have decided it’s not an issue.
Five other mass, random shootings have taken place so far this year, not including those related to domestic violence or where the victim and shooter knew each other. A Huffington Post analysis of FBI crime data showed that while single-victim shootings have declined 40% over the last three decades, mass shootings have ticked upward slightly in recent years.
Earlier Friday, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called on President Obama and Republican candidate for president Mitt Romney to take a stand on the issue. Both politicians spoke on the tragedy earlier today, offering their condolences.
"Soothing words are nice, but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States to stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it," he said in an interview with a local New York radio station. "Because this is obviously a problem across the country."
Gross applauded Bloomberg’s comment. “It is the role of the person who wants to be president of United States to do more…to talk about the things that we can do to prevent these tragedies,” he said.
In April, on the anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting spree that left 32 people dead, the Brady Campaign began a petition to “Stop Arming Dangerous People,” by removing the right of convicted felons, domestic abusers, terrorists, and the dangerously mentally ill to buy, own or carry a gun.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, whose husband and son were killed during a 1993 shooting in New York, also called for stricter gun control on Friday, saying "We as a nation should also not continue to ignore avenues to prevent tragedies like this from happening in the future."
Leave a Comment:
1. Our leaders have been malfeasant in not more properly establishing control to the extent of being "well regulated" and limiting possession of firearms to those. IOW, I think District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) is flawed, the founders words are very clear, "well regulated militia." This decision should be revisited.
2. Clearly, the founders no more anticipated our modern assault weapons than they did a government that possesses 9,000 nuclear weapons. If we as a nation are to survive the second amendment in the day of industrial strength killing machines, the amendment should be constrained to apply to the weapons available at the time the founders wrote. Specifically, we should be able to own black powder muskets, black powder Kentucky long rifles, and black powder, flint-lock pistols. Not AR-15s, not Glocks, no large capacity replaceable magazine weapons with high-energy propellents. Single shot flint lock black powder.
Sounds great. So long as our government, and that of any state that should wish to attack us, limit themselves to black powder cannons and always march in formation through clearings in the woods, wearing brightly colored uniformsa. Combat evolves. Weapons evolve. Society evolves. The founding fathers could not have foreseen the internet either, so do you propose that our First Amendment should not apply to it?
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)
You are doing exactly what Jefferson warned against. You are trying to interpret the 2A by manipulating the text. The preface in the 2A was not a declaration that only the government should have firearms (whether state or federal). On the contrary, the whole purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent that. The SCOTUS made the correct decision. In fact even the dissenting opinion agreed that the 2A was an individual right
The type of firearm is completely irrelevant. The First Amendment was written before groups like the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church started spewing their hate speech, and before Muslims started blowing up buildings. That doesn't mean we start constraining freedom of speech and religion. The primary purpose of the Second Amendment remains the same, to protect the people from their own government. Using black powder weapons against a government armed with machine guns would entirely defeat the purpose. If the weapons of the government improve and become more deadly then so must the weapons of the people.
Do you hunt? Have you ever handled a firearm? Before you run your mouth maybe you should try some "tolerance" for those of us own and use firearms for hunting, recreation and yes, self-defense. Too many home invasions even in the quiet State of Vermont not to own a firearm.
Does everyone have the smarts or skills to own a gun? Where is the "tolerance" for those who do not want guns killing people?
"Where is the "tolerance" for those who do not want guns killing people?"
Who is not tolerant of that? I know I certainly don't want people to die. However that does not mean I want my rights taken away either. No one likes the Westboro Baptist Churches hateful protests or the KKK's racist speeches, but we're not going to start restricting free speech now are we?
The People of this country need to reflect and find there own clarity and answer to this vexing problem but our leaders cannot adequate lead on this issue is the country is essentially evenly divided on this topic The NRA owns Congress and their objective is little gun regulation and to increase the sale of weapons in America. If we as a country allow them to control the conversation then we will continue to see incidents that we have seen in Colorado. IT is just a fact of life. There are those who have been brainwashed to believe that President Obama has already begun to "take their guns." when in reality he simply hasn't. When enough of US get ENOUGH of the KILLING then WE will compel a response or MONEY will continue to solute our democracy leaving us to fend for ourselves.
Who is not tolerant of that?
Seriously? Why do I have to be surrounded by guns just simply by going out in public?
BTW if more guns means less gun deaths why is the USA so far out in front in the gun deaths category?
Ok I am sick and saddened that MSNBC jumping on this so soon. OK folks answer me this why is the crime rate specifically crimes committed with gun lower in Arizona vs Chicago? Chicago has tough gun control. Arizona doesn't. I agree with Steve that the types of weapons should be restricted but remember this guy allegedly used only semi-auto weapons with conventional bullets. Banning automatic weapons sure. Ban armor piercing bullets sure. But if I am living in the South side of Chicago right now I might want a gun for protection. Because, the city and its Obama friend mayor can't protect met. By the way Chris Hayes has no creditably with me after his disgusting and disrespectful comments about those who died in our wars. Remember his "I don't think they are heroes crap" Think Chris should sign up for tour of Afghanistan before he has any right to comment about any thing to do with the military.
What you should be sick and saddened by is the carnage that killed 12 people and got a 3 month old baby shot. It seems like macho jerks that ride motorcycles are always obsessed with weapons. You just had to throw in your Nazi Racist Obama hate line which shows me all I need to know about you. Too bad you are so jealous that a black man rose so high in society while you could never match his accomplishments if you lived 50 lifetimes. Also Chris Hayes is another very wise, intelligent reporter of the truth unlike one dimensional bigots that can't see past their noses. Our soldiers are just being used to support the Military Industrial Complex, they are not defending our freedom over there, just being used. If we minded our business instead of running over to those countries indiscriminately bombing and maiming innocent people, killing women and children, wedding parties, etc. those people wouldn't hate us so much that they are willing to strap a suicide vest on. All we needed to do was beef up our own internal security here in America to prevent 9-11s not run over there and start a killing spree. One mans hero is another man's terrorist and if someone killed your family what would you do? One reason why the South side of Chicago is a hell hole is because of gun lovers and the disgusting NRA, and its' even more disgusting ignorant members, that make it possible for hoodlums to possess firearms of all kinds.
Nice try Frank. Chicago had a ban on handguns for years. Didn't make any dfference. You're the classic colostomy bag with ears.
So will the Left now deal honestly with "Fast & Furious" where guns were sold to Mexican Drug Cartels.
Read the article in Forbes, none of what you think ever took place Mr. Fox News Watcher!
The ATF agents called in to their controlling legal agents at their local JD offices. The agents were seeking authorization to make the arrests as the straw buyers were about to turn over the F&F guns to Mexican cartel members at the border. The ATF agents were told to stand down and not make the arrest because the JD lawyers said they did not have enough evidence that the straw buyers were doing anything illegal in possessing mass numbers of firearms. The NRA had lobbied to weaken the laws against the possible criminality of individuals possessing and transferring ownership of mass numbers of weapons to others; regardless of the intent of the end buyers. The ATF agents on the scene have attested to this several times before congress that they were there to make the arrest in a timely fashion and were told to stand down by local JD agents (not Holder). But Issa and rightwingers like yourself don't care about the lobbied weakening of the laws to arrest straw buyers of gun packages. You just want to blame and get Holder in order to hurt Obama. Case in point: The NRA lobbied and had the restrictions on 100 round mags removed so that recreational shooters and hunters could have more shots; despite the leftwing argument that supermax mags in semiauto weapons would present a deadly habit to society, thus Aurora. The only time that a rightwinger admits that they are wrong about lax gun laws is when they themselves are being blown away by some maniac with an automatic gun. Then its oops, shouldn't have voted to loosen those gun laws.
Steve Piper may be surprised to know the definition of the phrase "well-regulated" in the time frame of the 2nd amendment:
This crap is why Fox News is beating the pants of MSNBC in the ratings.
Fox News is watched by mean spirited ignorant racist redneck bigots.
Actually according to demographic statistics, Fox New's viewers are both more highly educated and more diverse than MSNBC's.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/yet-another-survey-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed-npr-listeners-best-informed/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9288158/Fox-News-viewers-worst-informed-study-finds.html
Three comments/questions:
1. One report I heard on MSNBC today was that a witness said the shooter in Aurora, Colorado claimed he "was the Joker". The crowd who believe that the media create monsters like this probably think it is a good idea to censor the media so that it cannot glorify crime and violence. I wonder how many who are so quick to suggest gun control in the aftermath of this tragedy would be willing to advocate throwing out the First Amendment as easily as they advocate throwing out the Second? Would there be no negative consequences in either case?
2. I also watched a criminal profile specialist being interviewed on MSNBC today. In her opinion, the shooter was clearly a psychopath, not a deranged person. I wonder how many in the gun control crowd would be willing to restrict access to guns not just to the mentally ill, but to anyone deemed a psychopath. Keep in mind that psychopaths are not considered to be "mentally ill" by the psychiatric profession, but they are characterized by a calloused and unemotional attitude toward others and not all tend toward violence. And, there are just as many people of this type in the Government, military, and police as there are everywhere else in society.
3. While the gun ownership rate has been going up for twenty years, the violent crime rate has been going down, but mass shooting cases like Aurora, Colorado have seen a slick uptick in frequency. Whatever is the cause, it isn't simply related to access to guns. So, what is the real problem?
We all are responsible for this tragedy. We sit by and allow special interest groups dictate gun laws. We espose hate everyday via social media. Hate pulled the trigger. We don't demand stricter gun laws and hold our elected officials accountable if they don't vote for them. We allow our public officials to disrespect us and others in office with their hate speach and gives a license for others to follow suit. First amendment aside, we need to start practicing respect for one another and stop the hate mongoring. Their is a segment of society that we will never reach but we can stop them from getting guns and don't say it can't be done. Come up with ideas where we can start. It is doable. Cut all the rhetoric and asanine bipartisanship and come together. You or one of your loved ones could be next. Extra security is not the answer. Get these guns now!
Military weapons are meant for killing people in mass numbers...
All military type weapons should be banned from the streets and homes in America...Military weapons are meant to kill people in large numbers...There is no other reason for them...
1. They are not made for the citizen to protect their family with. These guns will kill across the street and in the next apartment or your neighbors house.
2. These military pistols have the power to not just kill the person that is the intended victim, but also to pass through one person and to kill other innocent victims...
3..Military weapons soul purpose is to kill people in mass numbers...
Clearly you are misinformed, as is the case with many gun control advocates. For example, most don't know some very basic facts about firearms, such as the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic, mistakenly referring to a semi-automatic rifle such as the AR-15 as a "machine gun." Larry King did this just today.
And I must disagree with your opinion regarding valid uses for what you call "military weapons." They most certainly ARE fully capable of protecting your family. It depends on the situation. And by the way, most any round can "kill across the street," including a .22.
Same with point number 2. The "military pistols" to which you refer, just like with most any other firearm, can send a projectile through its intended target into an unintended innocent bystander. This has happened during police shootings as well. That's why we carry ammunition with hollow point bullets, which are much less apt to pass through and strike those behind the intended recipient. That's why we, as NRA certified instructors, teach the rule that says, "Know your target and what's behind it." This is as true for target shooting and plinking as for self-defense and law enforcement.
And more gun control laws are not going to help. All sensible and responsible gun owners want to make sure certain classes of people are not allowed to get their hands on a gun, including violent felons, those with restraining orders, and those with mental illness.
There is no gun law on earth that can completely eliminate the possibility of someone like the Aurora shooter or the Virginia Tech shooter from doing what they did. It's impossible to detect all of these people who are intent on killing. Therefore, the rest of us must have the freedom to protect ourselves and our loved ones, should we choose to do so, with a firearm.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a world where there was no violence, no need for weapons of any kind, where we all loved one another and got along? I, as a concealed carry permit holder, gun owner, forearms instructor, and former law enforcement officer, would take that alternative in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, that's not the real world and it never will be.
My prayers are with the families that have lost loved ones and with those who are now recovering from their wounds. Instead of the knee-jerk reactions of "more gun control" let's be sensible as we discuss how we might reduce the possibility of similar tragedies in the future.
Every group of people that has ever given up their guns to a government has been killed by that government. I will not ever submit to a government that trys to disarm me
Knowing how to handle a gun does not mean that you should have one in your home..
Let's remember the Vet. who had just returned home from overseas and left his loaded gun laying on the night stand beside his bed...Result one dead 4-year old.
Why would anyone just returning from a war zone to America feel like they needed a loaded gun laying beside their bed ???? With a 4-year -old in the house?????
I fear the criminals they will be the only ones with weapons..The possibility of a person having a gun is the only deterrent that most of us have to ward off criminals..
Without the criminals fearing the possibility of a gun in the home there would be lots more victims of in home crimes...Criminals do not fear the police they know that they have at least 30 minutes before the police arrive.
.There is a big difference between a gun for your personal protection or hunting and a military weapon.
Sorry but if someone is hell bent on entering your home to kill your gun will not protect you. He has the element of surprise and unfortunately you will be caught off guard and dispatched in a heartbeat. Criminal burglars are more afraid of dogs and alarm systems and don't hang around when they encounter one or the other , they are there to steal and not to kill. As you fumble around, half asleep looking for your gun or start going down the stairs with your gun drawn, the criminal is there first, sees you and bang you are dead. If the alarm goes off he runs like hell. Which do you prefer?
Besides who says you can't own a hunting rifle, its' the other guns that cause all the killing.
Ok, enough is enough.
From now on, WE HAVE TO INSIST our politicians, law enforcement, judges, the courts, the NRA, the lot of 'em, etc. legislate and implement licensing rules, laws, regulations, statutes, etc. for ALL gun owners (past, present and future) NATION WIDE. If you have to get a license to drive a car, for your dog/cat or to cut someone's hair, EVERYONE should be REQUIRED to do the same for ANY device that shoots a bullet. Period.
I live in Denver, CO, have been in a holdup with gun pointed in my face, have been shot at, knew the daughter of Mr. Sanders (teacher that died saving students at Columbine High School), own a firearm and have had friends (PLURAL) die from gunfire within a 5 mile radius of my house.
"Hand guns are made for killin'
They ain't no good for nothin' else." - Lynyrd Skynyrd
Enough is ENOUGH.
Michael:
I'm very sorry that you've been exposed to so much violence. It is unfortunately part of the world in which we live.
I'm afraid there is no gun law on earth that can completely eliminate the possibility of someone like the Aurora shooter or the Virginia Tech shooter from doing what they did. It's impossible to detect all of these people who are intent on killing. Therefore, the rest of us must have the freedom to protect ourselves and our loved ones, should we choose to do so, with a firearm. You have apparently made that choice and are to be applauded for taking that responsibility.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a world where there was no violence, no need for weapons of any kind, where we all loved one another and got along? I, as a concealed carry permit holder, gun owner, firearms instructor, and former law enforcement officer, would take that alternative in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, that's not the real world and it never will be.
My prayers are with the families that have lost loved ones and with those who are now recovering from their wounds. Instead of the knee-jerk reactions of "more gun control" let's be sensible as we discuss how we might reduce the possibility of similar tragedies in the future.
@sheilanwp
I'm sorry but you don't know what you are talking about.
1. A semi-automatic rifle (a modified, legal, semi-automatic AK-47) differs little in function from any other semi-automatic rifle, including many semi-automatic hunting rifles, and is not meant for killing in mass numbers. In military terms, an "assault rifle" is meant for close quarters skirmishes. An automatic rifle, aka a machine gun, with the right kind of mount is meant for killing large numbers of combatants. That is why a semi-automatic rifle is appropriate and legal for home defense, while a machine gun is not.
2. A .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol and a 9mm semi-automatic pistol are both military weapons. They are among the most common handguns used for home defense.
3. Handgun ammunition that does not at least come close to passing through a person is not very effective at neutralizing an attacker. A few types of handgun ammunition will pass through a person, and a wall, and kill across the street, such as .357 magnum and similar, but they are not recommended for home defense.
4. Police departments nationwide have gradually adopted assault rifles and higher powered handguns in order to do their jobs effectively. Knowledgeable civilians are aware of the reasons for the changes and make the same changes for the same reasons as the police. There is NOT a big difference between a gun for personal protection and a military rifle or handgun. In many cases, they serve practically the same purpose.
I find it funny that many Americans champion the 1st Amendment, and then turn around and try to destroy the 2nd. The first two amendments are by far our most important rights, for without them you won't have the rest. I think that many forget the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. If you want to find the true purpose of the 2A you merely have to look back to 1776 when a bunch of patriots took up arms against the British Empire and fought for our independence. The fact that most of the firearms used to win us our independence were personally owned was not lost on our founding fathers and they sought to make sure that the ability of the people to overthrow an oppressive government would never be lost. THAT was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Think that this an antiquated idea? Just look at Lebanon to see the continued importance of the people's ability to stand up to their government.
Agreed, people have forgotten that the 2A has the words "well regulated" which means control.
MY 1A is threatened when someone pulls a gun on me and tell me to shut up, they feel it is OK b/c their 2A was in tact.
"Well regulated" referred to the militia not the right to bear arms. The 2A specifically says that the right shall not be infringed.
Infringed: act so as to limit or undermine (something)- Oxford English Dictionary.
So everyone is allowed? Guess you forgot to tell the convicts that, as well as those in mental hospitals, as you see their 2A right has indeed been infringed and by law are not supposed to own guns.
@sheilanwp
Re: the vet who left a loaded gun unattended with a 4 year old in the house...
1. Anecdotes make a poor basis for writing new laws.
2. There are any number of ways an irresponsible adult can put a child at risk: poisons and drugs not locked up, electrical devices not grounded, drunk driving, unsafe driving, unattended swimming pool, forgetting to pick a child up after school, etc. The solution is not to eliminate poisons, drugs, electrical devices, cars, swimming pools, forgetfulness, etc.
The solution lies in the area of education and culture. Our culture is one of ignorance, inattentiveness, meanness, and monetary success at any cost. Except for rich (always rich) idols, everyone is assumed to be a pathetic loser. Is it any wonder that our society produces so many violent psychopaths?
Sheilanwp:
Clearly you are misinformed, as is the case with many gun control advocates. For example, most don't know some very basic facts about firearms, such as the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic, mistakenly referring to a semi-automatic rifle such as the AR-15 as a "machine gun." Larry King did this just today.
And I must disagree with your opinion regarding valid uses for what you call "military weapons." They most certainly ARE fully capable of protecting your family. It depends on the situation. And by the way, most any round can "kill across the street," including a .22.
Same with point number 2. The "military pistols" to which you refer, just like with most any other firearm, can send a projectile through its intended target into an unintended innocent bystander. This has happened during police shootings as well. That's why we carry ammunition with hollow point bullets, which are much less apt to pass through and strike those behind the intended recipient. That's why we, as NRA certified instructors, teach the rule that says, "Know your target and what's behind it." This is as true for target shooting and plinking as for self-defense and law enforcement.
And more gun control laws are not going to help. All sensible and responsible gun owners want to make sure certain classes of people are not allowed to get their hands on a gun, including violent felons, those with restraining orders, and those with mental illness.
There is no gun law on earth that can completely eliminate the possibility of someone like the Aurora shooter or the Virginia Tech shooter from doing what they did. It's impossible to detect all of these people who are intent on killing. Therefore, the rest of us must have the freedom to protect ourselves and our loved ones, should we choose to do so, with a firearm.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a world where there was no violence, no need for weapons of any kind, where we all loved one another and got along? I, as a concealed carry permit holder, gun owner, firearms instructor, and former law enforcement officer, would take that alternative in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, that's not the real world and it never will be.
My prayers are with the families that have lost loved ones and with those who are now recovering from their wounds. Instead of the knee-jerk reactions of "more gun control" let's be sensible as we discuss how we might reduce the possibility of similar tragedies in the future.
The fact is that there are very few instances where people have ended up in a gunfight defending their home against an attack so this crap of needing guns for home defense is baseless and it is not worth having all the rest of America in danger just so some jerk can sit on his front porch with all his guns waiting to be confronted. All firearms should be registered and licenced and those that own them tested. Also, a data base should be set up to record purchases of gunpowder and ammunition with a red flag going up when some nut starts to arm himself . The American public has a right to be protected from idiot gun lovers.
No normal person could disagree with you. Those databases will come in very handy when a regime (ours or someone elses) needs to take control (because it's the right thing to do), and don't want any unnecessary deaths. They're the only ones qualified to determine which are necessary and which are not.
We owe everything to our government. It was only with their largess that our parents were even permitted to create us. Without a strong government, none of us would even exist. Whatever they want, they should get.
What are the gun laws in Aurora? Makes me wonder if the death count wouldn't have been lower had someone been armed in the theater. Of course the left would consider that just plain crazy. Odd that the places with the least restrictive gun control laws have the lowest amt of gun crime.
Liberals think that if you make something illegal it will go away, won't be a problem, in this case outlaw guns and no one will be killed with a gun.
Let me see here, cocaine is illegal, yet I can buy it in any city in the country.
Marijuana is illegal, yet I can buy it in any city in the country.
Prostitution is illegal, yet I can get one in any city in the country.
New York City has guns laws, yet every year 100's of people are shoot to death.
Conservative think if you make something illegal it will go away. They also believe if you bury your head in the sand no one can see them.
Why didn't someone in the crowed drawn their concealed weapon and shoot back at the killer?
Oh. That's right. Cinemark has BANNED GUNS from their theaters! It's sort of hard to defend yourself when the movie theater insists that only the bad guys have guns! I'm sure Cinemark is stunned that the killer didn't follow the rules. Imagine that! I guess they'll have to ban him from the theater for failing to obey that rule!
For those with minds who can think: The world is a dangeorus place, made more so by companies like Cinemark who insist that any advantage in weaponry goes to the bad guy.
Boycott Cinemark until they change their policies on the lawfult carry of firearms!
The cesspool of liberalism known as MSNBC again attacks the gun when it was the man, an educated man, that caused this tragedy. The issue is mental illness, not gun laws. And ho-lee-cow hit the nail on the head. Government can not stop a man or woman intent on killing.
So this crazy guy can kill 14 with his 2X4 or his knife? Mental illness (something conservatives do not believe in, much less helping those inflicted) can cause a person to want to kill, but the gun allowed him to kill 14.
The attacks on 9/11 (3000 dead), the Oklahoma City bombing (168 dead), the Happy Land arson (87 dead) and the Bath, Michigan bombing (45 dead).
You don't need a gun to kill a lot of people.
55 EVERYDAY dead from guns, since you want to do math, try those numbers.
Yes that is a terrible figure, but time and time again statistics show that when you increase gun control that number gets worse.
LOL, right as in the total number of gun deaths is much lower than anywhere with gun laws. Look at how many gun deaths are in the USA every day, 55, increasing guns would make that number go up. There are no stats showing that more gun laws means more gun deaths, in fact it is more gun means more gun deaths, as in nobody kills each other more than the USA.
First of all your using a sensationalist statistic. Rather than look at the number of deaths per capita, you are listing the total number gun deaths in the third most populous country in the world. But rather than look at overall crime rates which have many different factors, lets look at how they have changed with gun control. Look at Britain as an example. In the last 15 years since they stepped up gun control, crime rates have been climbing, including gun violence. Now let's look at the US. In the past 20 years rate of firearm ownership has continually been on the rise. According to you, with more guns there should be more crimes. WRONG. In the same 20 year period violent crime including gun related crimes have been on the decline. What about Australia? In 1997, just 12 months after strict new gun laws went into effect in Australia, homicides jumped 3.2 percent, armed robberies 44 percent, and assaults 8.6 percent. In the province of Victoria, homicides shot up 300 percent. Before the law was passed, statistics showed a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms. In 1998, in the province of South Australia, robbery with a firearm increased nearly 60 percent. In 1999, the assault rate in New South Wales rose almost 20 percent. I'm sorry but statistics just do not back up your claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Hands down the USA leads no matter how you slice it. Look at our company we share the list with, notice almost all are just south of the USA.
Yes and countries like Mexico and Brazil have stricter gun control than the US. There is no doubt that the US has a high level of gun crimes, but stricter gun control is obviously not the answer. Just think about some of the US cities with the highest gun violence. Oakland, Los Angeles, Washington DC, Chicago. All have some of the strictest gun control in the country. Until recently DC, Oakland, and Chicago had full handgun bans. I have yet to see any proof that gun control works. In all the countries I have studied, there was no noticeable decrease in gun crimes after gun control was increased, and as mentioned before, several countries have actually seen gun crimes get worse.
Well you just keep repeating the NRA line.
For me I will go with facts and say the more guns the more gun deaths there are. So I am not so sure what is so obvious about it, except that you have been shown that more guns means more gun deaths. Not only does the USA have by far a higher rate of deaths but all the other countries even close to the USA are the USA's neighbours, so yes we are worse than a 3rd world country.
And you just keep repeating the Brady Campaign line. So what?
You say you'll go with the facts, but the facts contradict what you are saying. More guns does not mean more gun deaths. As I mentioned earlier firearm ownership in the US has been rising for the last 20 years, and yet gun crimes rates have fallen in that same period. That is a FACT.
I don't understand the point of restricting or taking away people's rights, when all evidence to date shows us that gun control does not work.
So in the country with the most guns there are the fewest gun deaths?
You see the difference is nobody not even the Brady group wants to take your gun, they want to make sure that those who own guns are people who should be allowed to own guns. I feel that murderers should not be allowed to own guns, have I infringed upon their 2 Amendment?
I did not say that. You keep trying to make a connection that isn't there. As I said more guns does not equal more gun deaths, and more gun control does not mean less gun deaths. No one, not even the NRA, is suggesting that criminals and the mentally ill should possess firearms. If that is your argument then I wholeheartedly agree. But that is not the only position of the Brady Campaign. They believe in controlling where and how I keep my guns, preventing me from using them for self defense. They believe in restricting what guns I can own, trying to ban or restrict handguns (until the SCOTUS ruled that unconstitutional) and "assault weapons" which is a term to describe scary looking guns, made up by gun control advocates because it sounds like the real term "assault rifle" which are fully automatic weapons that are already illegal. They believe in "licensing" gun owners, even though licensing a right means it's no longer a right. In fact they believe in doing anything in their power to make exercising our right to "keep and bear arms" as difficult as possible. I have no doubt in my mind that they would ban gun ownership if the constitution allowed it. These are the things that gun rights activists fight against.
Well mate, we are just going in circles, you want all to have guns and let the chips fall where they may. I do not favor that approach.
Your paranoia of the Brady Campaign is humorous. You act as if they have any power at all, they do not.
Going by your words, you feel anyone should have a gun and as many as they desire. If licencing guns is infringing upon your rights then that is your stance.
The NRA feels those on the terror watch list should be able to buy guns freely and without oversight.
I stand on the facts, the more guns there are the more gun deaths there are.
I want all healthy law abiding citizens to have the option to keep and bear arms if they choose.
I am not paranoid of the Brady Campaign. I use them as an example because they are one of the most well known and most extreme gun control groups. You are right. They are not very powerful, because they do not have the support of the American people. That's what people don't seem to understand about the NRA. They are so powerful and so influential because millions of Americans support them, and donate money to help them protect are right.
Yes I feel that any healthy, law abiding American should be able to own a gun. Why? Because the constitution says we can. The act of licensing means to give permission, and if permission must be given then it is no longer a right. So by it's very nature licensing is infringement.
The terror watch list is a controversial topic. No one believes that terrorists should be able to purchase gun, but that list is filled with people who have no terrorist ties. Until there is a way to defend against your placement on the list, then we can't take away people rights.
I'm sorry but simply stating you "stand on facts" does not make it so. The facts stand AGAINST you. The US crime rates in the past 20 years has proven that an increase in guns does not mean an increase in gun crime. Furthermore if you compare any of the other countries with high gun crimes you will find that there is no correlation between the number of guns in the country and number of gun crimes. You have countries like South Africa which is first in the world in reported gun deaths and 50th in guns per capita. Or Serbia which is second in guns per capita but 36th in reported gun crimes.
We are obviously never going to come close agreement and this debate is starting to become stale. Let's just agree to disagree.
If Americans really wanted to be 'safe' and 'secure' they would back gun control laws. But they obviously are secretly thrilled at the thought of going out into the world where something so dangerous and exciting might happen. Not on any particular occasion, like going to a movie or a mall or to work or to school. But really they must deeply love the idea that they might be a victim -- or a perpetrator of mass violence.
Nothing else explains it but a collective death wish. Forget about trying to legislate that.
1. One of the fundamentally ignorant stances apparent in hoplophiliac rhetoric is speaking of "the government" as though it is an external threat to the United States. Having myself honorably served 10 years in the US Army, this is ridiculously specious to me. The "government" is comprised of your neighbors. It is not a "they," and "they" are NOT coming for you, unless you are a criminal or a dangerous crackpot. Considering the selfish lengths hoplophiles go to to justify their dangerous addictions, many of you neocons fit this category, which explains your extreme protestations over our non-existent "gun control."
2. If the "government" [police, military, child support collectors, revenuers] ever actually comes to your house, no number of guns will save you.
3. There are more than 300 MILLION Americans. We don't need weapons of any kind to keep our government in check. There is this document called The Constitution which provides for something called free and open elections. If the entire Army were somehow magically brainwashed into attacking fellow Americans, we could take them with sticks and bricks. But the hoarding of weapons against the paranoia of a "government attack" is ridiculously simpleminded, in that the US government possesses more than 9,000 nuclear weapons. Do you think that specific reality and the second amendment combine to give you the right to own nuclear weapons?
3. The so-called "inalienable right" hoplophiles claim to own militarized weaponry is more important to them than all the blood of all the dead children. Any mature person with a conscious toward others would easily see their fetish is not worth the blood of a single innocent child. That blood is on their souls, and at the hands of the NRA. That lack of conscience alone proves hoplophiles incapable of comprehending the responsibility of owning a device whose sole purpose is to kill human beings, and should thereby disqualify them. If you are a civilian who owns militarized firearms, you are a blood-thirsty wanna-be killer just waiting and hoping for your day. This will never be resolved until you admit that--or until your gun is taken from your cold, dead hand.
Why can't we get rid of guns that are people killers ?
Guns for hunting, okay, but what else do you need a gun for ?
Time to grow up America, this is all too crazy !
I am fine with rifles used for hunting, but I say it is a damn poor hunter that needs a hundred rounds of ammo to get his deer or rabbit or whatever.