E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFulfilling a promise made in Newtown one month ago, President Obama is set to reveal proposals to curb gun violence. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.
With assault weapons firmly in the crosshairs of state and federal lawmakers, gun-rights groups say they are not willing to give an inch when it comes to restricting access to the weapon of choice in recent mass shootings.
From arguments over what exactly defines an assault weapon to enthusiasts who say the guns are just plain fun to shoot, defenders of assault weapons say the White House and others are misguided in their focus on banning them.
“I can’t possibly imagine what logic people are following that somehow another law, just one more law, will solve these issues,” said Keith Morgan, president of the West Virginia Citizens Defense League, a pro-gun group.
“People are killed in greater number by cars, bats, hammers, hands, and feet,” he added. “Examining the tool and attempting to ban the tool will have absolutely no effect. We’re dealing with a people problem. We’ve got to find a people solution.”
President Obama on Wednesday called for a renewed ban on "military-style" assault weapons, among the most popular guns in America. They were used by both accused Aurora movie theater shooter James Holmes and Connecticut gunman Adam Lanza. But gun-rights advocates like Morgan argue that despite the guns’ roles in high-profile mass killings, they are used in a relatively small number of homicides.
First Read: Obama set to go big on guns
According to the FBI’s Unified Crime Report for 2011, handguns were used 6,220 of the 12,664 homicides reported. Rifles accounted for 323 homicides, with knives and other unnamed firearms making up most of the rest.
Julie Jacobson / AP
Sig Sauer representative Adam Painchaud explains one of the company's newest products, the MPX 9mm pistol caliber submachine gun, at the 35th annual SHOT Show, Jan. 15, in Las Vegas.
Other gun-rights advocates are willing to entertain a conversation about assault weapons, but they remain dubious.
“If someone can show me how it can save lives, we’ll look at anything,” said Jim Irvine, chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association. He remains unconvinced, however, that an assault weapons ban would have done anything to prevent mass shootings like that in Newtown, Conn.
“I don’t like a bunch of dead kids, so I don’t see why we waste time on stale policies,” Irvine said.
The debate about what works will play out in the halls of Congress as well as state capitals, but also in American living rooms.
A survey released this week by the Pew Research Center found generous support among most Americans for at least some new controls on guns. The poll found that a majority of the public – 55 percent – would favor a ban on assault weapons. That support broke somewhat along party lines, with 69 percent of Democrats and 44 percent of Republicans favoring a legislation restricting assault weapons.
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York already place some prohibitions on assault weapons.
Support soars for tougher gun laws, surveys show
In California, which has some of the nation’s toughest regulations on assault weapons, the law lists 75 assault weapon types by name, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. California is also one of three states that employ a “one-feature” test to identify assault weapons, banning all weapons that have one military-style feature, such as a pistol grip or telescoping stock.
Some pro-gun activists, like Paul Valone of Grass Roots North Carolina, dismiss the category of assault weapons entirely.
Joe Raedle / Getty Images
A Rock River Arms AR-15 rifle.
“It’s relatively easy to circumvent a firearms ban based on cosmetic features. A pistol grip does not change the function of the firearm,” Valone said. “None of these things make any difference whatsoever.”
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a law on Tuesday that tightened the state’s existing ban on assault weapons by applying the one-feature test.
The last federal ban on assault weapons lapsed in 2004. It was criticized by gun control proponents for allowing gun makers to easily circumvent restrictions may making small changes to existing models of rifles. That law required guns to have two military-style features to be considered assault weapons.
Ross Meyer, a manager at Gun World and Archery, a Nevada gun store, said some of his customers buy AR-style weapons for defense – but many also simply enjoy shooting the guns.
Gun-rights groups: Our 'backs are against the wall'
“A lot of them, it’s just kind of fun to go out and shoot,” said Meyer. His store sold out of the 150 AR-style weapons it had in stock within three days of the shooting in Newtown. “And then also the high-capacity magazine, that’s fun to have.”
“Semi-autos are just one of the most fun to go out and shoot when it comes to the recreation of it,” Meyer said.
Activists contend that there’s no political gain for them in sitting down at the table to discuss restrictions on assault weapons.
“As a strategic measure, it would be a horrific mistake for Republicans to play this game again,” said Michael Hammond, legislative consultant for Gun Owners of America, a national pro-gun rights group that claims 300,000 members.
Longtime conservative activist Larry Hunter is a co-organizer of Gun Appreciation Day. The day, which Hunter said is intended to promote Second Amendment rights, is scheduled for January 19. Hunter sees any ban on assault weapons as an encroachment on American’s constitutional rights.
“I hope it’s a non-starter,” Hunter said of any new ban on assault weapons. “But I think the world has changed so dramatically since it was first enacted and then allowed to expire, we have to take very seriously the possibility that they will do something.”
Leave a Comment:
You buy a car to drive from A to B.
You play plane ticket to get somewhere fast.
You buy a hammer to put a nail into a board.
You buy a gun to shoot and kill.
That's got to be the most IDIOTIC statement I've read, from any liberal, even here on the Vine.
I don't even know how to respond to that statement.
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the SHOOTING SPORTS...like clay pigeons, 3-gun, long range target...
It's IGNORANT people like you, that make us gun owners, irate...
Idiotic?! Please Tom, tell us what is not factual about Nick's statement.
I buy a gun for recreational purposes - mostly for target practice. I also have one in order to defend myself from the liberal who wants to break into my house and killl me.
In the overwhelming majority of killings it the liberal big cities and liberal states with liberals doing the shooting. Maybe you are right that liberals get guns to kill only - and conservatives get them to protect ourselves from liberals?
And then there is this great ad!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKLA3BODXr0
Uh, Rick, if you read his post, he can you 3 examples then and there...
I'd actually clip Nick's 2nd comment, about the plane ticket, doesn't really fit in with the rest. Hard to buy a ticket and get somewhere with just a ticket, but i can see paper cutting someone to death with it!
Remaining three all have multiple purposes, all can be used for enjoyment, work, sports (hammer throws), or killing.
Deaths from Autos - 33,808
Deaths from Airplanes - 1,103
Deaths by blount objects - 611
Deaths by rifles - 348
Stats from 2009
Watermoon; the fact that you approve of this ad shows what a low life cretin you are. Those girls walk around every minute of their lives with a huge target on their back. That you cannot seem to realize this tells that world how totally stupid & disgusting you are!
And genius; the most gun deaths in the Nation are DC, Alaska, Louisiana, Wyoming, Nevada & Mississippi. Most violent crime state is TN. So the reds win it.
I've got a leak in the pipe coming into my hot water heater. It is in the foundation so it is hard to fix. So, I've turned down the temperature in my hot water heater. It doesn't fix the problem, it wouldn't have stopped the water that has already leaked, and I know my foundation will continue to decay from the water that is still leaking, but hey, I've done 'something' and it makes me feel better about the problem. I don't even want to think or talk about what really needs done because it is hard to fix.
We've got young people going on rampages and massacring children. I'm going to make it harder to buy guns. It doesn't fix the problem, I acknowledge that it wouldn't have stopped the killing that has already happened, so I know it won't stop any more killing, but it makes me 'feel better' that I've done 'something.' I won't even talk about the real problem because it is too hard to fix - and it might mean I have to admit I have some culpability in the problem.
The real problem isn't guns. The real problem isn't games or movies. The real problem is a decay in our culture that we've allowed to permiate the thinking of our children. And you are all responsible in some way.
I see kids walking around with their pants hanging off their bottoms like they got them as hand-me-downs from a short chubby cousin, shoe laces missing like they just got out of county lockup, and gang sign tatoos showing like they have 'street cred.' Very few of these are poor kids from 'the hood.' They are middle and even upper class children whose parents can afford to dress them better. Parents who could demand better behavior, but 'enable' their children to worship poverty and crime. Who let their kids listen to rap music performed by celebrities who's claim to fame is their 'street cred' - their criminal activity and 'gangsta' associations. Our culture is one that worships poverty and crime. We worship drug using, wife beating, immoral celebrities. And even if we don't personally, we tolerate it and 'enabled' our children to emulate that behavior. (The President has even entertained these 'celebrities' at the White House.)
But nobody wants to talk about that. We want to blame the guns. We want to blame the games. We do not want to blame ourselves for allowing our children to grow up thinking poverty is good and crime is the way to succeed. It is OUR fault. We are responsible for raising a generation of unmotivated, uncaring, insensitive young adults. But we don't want to address the real problem because we would have to acknowledge our responsibility for it. No legislation by the government can fix the problem of irresponsible parenting.
So, we won't fix the problem - but we'll 'feel better' that we've done 'something.'
At what point, will you look at FACTS and statistics, instead of your knee-jerk talking points?
AR-15's and the like, of civilian semi-automatic rifles have NEVER BEEN the main weapons used in shooting deaths in this country.
Don't YOU know that the "AWB" has already been tried- FOR TEN YEARS- and had NO EFFECT?
Protect the schools and our children.. Common sense people. Let's ban everything, I bet it still happens again.
Parents stop teaching your kids to be politically correct whiny little crybabies every time something doesn't go their way. Then maybe we'll have a few more people willing to take responsibility for their OWN actions.
Excellent comment.
Everyone needs to go to YouTube and search for Bob Munden, the "fastest shooter in the world". This guy can fire a revolver faster than most assault rifles. Are we going to ban skill next?
Lawn Darts used to be fun too. But they're banned because a couple of people got killed - I don't think it was 30 a day though.
A pistol is not a weapon of mass destruction.
A knife is not a weapon of mass destruction.
Shotguns? Rifles? Nope.
Assault and automated weaponry with extended magazines? Pretty sure those are weapons intended for mass killing, and can be labeled as weapons of mass destruction.
There is no other use for them. They have no other benefit.
Good call. Let's take them away from our soldiers, police, and especially security forces. There is no need for them.
I think the entirety of the Secret Service should be armed with nice little .22 Derringers.
Liquid Wolf:
The Second Amendment guarantees me the right to defend myself against a tyrannical government.
Should that day ever arise, I want 30 round magazines in my rifle.
That's why, that's the use.
UNDERSTAND, now?
Wrong, tobnpr, the 2nd amendment makes no reference to protecting oneself against government.
Tob, you're an absolute fool. None of your arsenal will matter one whit should that "tyrannical government" ever come after you. They will deal with you by way of precision guided munitions from a drone you can't see, or by using you as target practice with a Paladin battery. The kind of government that your paranoid mind feverishly conjures up wouldn't bother to come in with armed officers to take you into custody. They'd evaluate the situation, decide that arresting you isn't worth the price in lives, and blow you away. The collateral damage would be a benefit, by way of intimidating others.
There is no defense against such a government and you know it. The fact that a situation such as outlined above hasn't happened is proof that the government isn't tyrannical, since it ALREADY possesses ample means to do just that. What it doesn't have is the morally bankrupt mindset to do so, which at least makes the government slightly higher on that scale than the NRA and it's paranoid acolytes.
Second Amendment:
As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I don't want to take away your right to bear arms.
Pistols, Rifles, Shotguns and other light weaponry used for self defence and recreation are perfectly fine.
Assault weapons? No.
Yes... some "revolutionists" claim assault weapons would help them fight against the government, but that is a lie.
If you got into a fight with the national military, you are fighting against tanks, planes, drones, and weapons capable of debilitating or killing large numbers of people with a single strike. Toxins, radioative materials, and electronic weaponry that an assault weapon can not protect against or even stop.
This is the year 2013.
Your weapon may be able to kill a few soldiers, but theirs will level mountains.
At this point, your assault weapons have little effect except against unarmed civilians.
The Battle of Athens TN, 1946 is an excellent example of an armed citizenry stopping a tyrannical government.
http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-Athens.html
Todd - That is a great video.
How many assault weapons... heavy weaponry used for mass killing... were in that video?
Also... if you note the end of the video - all the weapons borrowed from the local armory were cleaned and returned to the armory.
... So they didn't even own them. Which I find to be a bit of a stretch to do to ourselves, but still worth noting.
Liquid wolf how do we explain the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents defeating us? How do we explain the Syrian rebels?
A six shot revolver can fire 12 shots in just under 3 seconds or 3 seconds flat, that gives it a fire rate of 240 rounds per minute.
Pump action shotguns with 00 buck show contain about 6-8 rounds in each slug, that means a 5 shot shotgun will put down 30-40 projecticles down range in one second(you can fire pump action firearms at a rate of rounds per second).
Shotguns are much more lethal than those so called "assault weapons" in close combat.
The idea that banning semi-automatic rifles is going to make any dent in gun crimes or massacres is laughable at best.
Trying to split hairs and divide firearms into acceptable/unacceptable categories is just so much posing by the gun control lobby.
Any bolt/lever action rifle or a revolver style handgun can kill just as many people as a so called assault rifle can. The difference lies in the skill with which the weapon is wielded, the degree of resistance faced and the amount of time available to the criminal.
I have no doubt that when these lunatics choose schools for their murderous rampages they have carefully considered the last two factors to allow for their deficiencies in the first. Its plain as day that anyone familiar with guns could kill a few dozen people with a couple of revolvers if they had five minutes and faced no armed resistance.
The weapons used in the Battle of Athens TN were military issue rifles and carbines (the assault rifles of the day). An M-1 Garande fires a 30-06 caliber bullet, much more powerful than the 5.56mm (223 calibler) that the AR-15 fires. The energy transfer from a 30-06 is far more lethal than the 5.56mm.
The Taliban and Iraqi insurgents are not beating us... and we are not beating them. We kill their leaders, but essentially they sit around waiting for some moment to strike and do some damage.
They do have older assault weaponry from previous wars and times... as well as the ammunition to keep using them.
Which is a military issue. Locally... what would an assault weapon do on a hijacked airplane, or bomb-strapped individual? Those people already want to die. They'd see it as no different than a pistol.
In regards to shotguns being more lethal, I've seen the damage shotguns do at the right range, and it is devastating... but it has more use as a hunting tool than an assault rifle. It has a use outside of killing people.
Remember... I'm not even concerned with gun crime... I'm concerned with heavy weaponry amongst the civilians. Not pistols, rifles or shotguns.
I'm tired of twiddling our thumbs and waiting for the perfect answer that everyone will like.
Heavy military weaponry has no business in the streets or in the home. I can try to convince everyone of that, but every year that goes by just seems to add more people to my belief.
This is a world society... heading towards Worlds. I believe each citizen needs personal self defence, and the knowledge to properly use those weapons... but that does not include Automated assault weapons whose sole purpose is to kill many other human beings.
But under proposed changes, my Ruger 10/22 would be considered an assault rifle, what you are calling "Heavy Military Weaponry". That's the whole problem with this mess, nobody can define what an assault weapon really is.
When Wayne LaPierre suggested armed security to protect our children,
The liberal media LAMBASTED him as an idiot...
Yet, the next day, there were armed police at schools in my area.
There is armed security at TENS OF THOUSANDS of schools already. Guess they were all nuts, right?
No whack job has tried to commit mass murder in any of those schools...
This is nothing but the biggest "grab for guns" and restrictions to the Second Amendment in our history.
WE WILL FIGHT BACK.
Tobnpr:
Who are you declaring war on today? The US Govt? Are they invading your neighborhood now? Good luck with that. I love it when idiots like you say your going to fire your gun, but when someone fires back at you you nuts just wet yourselves and run. It's real easy to talk; not so easy to be in the target zone.
It's easy to see you are a troll for the NRA and I hope they are paying you enough to be on this vine.
There may come a day when I will be at war with the US Government.
I am a successful business owner, well educated with B.S. in Commerce, and not a "troll" for the NRA.
What I AM, is a citizen that believes in the Second Amendment.
I am descended from people that were slaughtered in Germany after the government confiscated their weapons.
My Second Amendment rights guarantee me that I will have the right to fight back should my government ever decide to do the same.
NOW, do you GET it?
Yeah TOBNPR, I get it. I was a Marine Corps company commander. Take on your own country's troops and it really won't go well for you, I promise. I suggest you knock off the silly empty threats and work within the law. Jeezum - the NVA would look like total pro pros compared to a bunch of old fat rednecks with Walmart weapons.
Yep, you're correct.
I wouldn't stand a chance. I'm not a "fat old redneck", I'm a college-educated, successful business owner for the past thirty years. I shoot monthly- long range precision rifles with my sons at 1000 yards. I train with my self defense handguns, twice monthly.
If you're going to have weapons, you should train with them, right, Sir?
But I will die fighting, before I will allow the government to confiscate my weapons. There was no "threat" in my post.
You say you understand the intent of the Second Amendment, yet you say that- if it ever came to it- I would not be working "withing the law"..
I do not understand, please elaborate on your position.
Thank you for your service.
Seriously, TOBNPR, I've read some of your previous posts and kinda like you, but one of the kids you'd be shooting at is my Marine grandson. Now granted, he sits behind a .50 cal and you'd live a few more seconds because he'd be laughing so hard. Then you have this old relic redneck (me) kinda pissed that you shot at my grandson. Seriously, laws come and go. What Obama wants banned has already been banned, and became legal again. I suspect the same thing will happen again. I'm a hunter and gun owner, but I do oppose the ownership of weapons with no sensible use other than to shoot innocent people and cops. They're not worth dieing over. They'll never stop hunting and home protection in this country, so relax.
2liberal- If your grandson is a Marine, he will not be allowed (or should not allow himself) to engage US Citizens on American soil. There are laws against this very thing, and for good reason. Your grandson took the same oath as I did, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic. That is the primary oath, obeying the orders of the President and the officers appointed over me is secondary. As long as the 2nd Amendment stands, US troops WILL NOT participate in any gun "collection" activity the government might try. As a matter of fact, most of us would actively try to stop it.
The ATF, DHS, FBI, and local law enforcement are the ones who would try to collect, and they would be outgunned in a big way.
"With assault weapons firmly in the cross hairs of state and federal lawmakers"
More accurately:
"With assault weapons firmly in the cross hairs of the minority of state and federal lawmakers"
The majority of Americans say they are not willing to give an inch when it comes to restricting access to weapons.
FYI MSNBC THAT is honest and accurate reporting.
We have foreign nationals attacking and penetrating our southern borders with organized gangs armed with assault rifles that the federal government is selling them. Yet the federal government wants to ban assault rifles in the hands of our citizenry. While we yet follow a constitution that specifically describes the purpose of the right to bear arms as for the defense of "a free state" (meaning the states); not for the purpose of (as this administration has stated) "supporting the rights and traditions of sportsmen". As Alexander Hamilton (a framer of the constitution and one of the nations first constitutional lawyer) states in 1788:
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."... and that
"little more can be reasonably aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed..."
I understand that the world is a very different place now, but the basic equation remains the same. Power corrupts etc... Our country seems to me to be going from a playground of freedom and opportunity to a rather expensive carnival ride of illusion and restriction. I'm not ready to trust the world with my freedom. It's a mean place. I would rather have the recourse of self defense. Different is not the same. There are yet slavers amongst us and some are very close indeed.
We just simply need to get used to the fact that since mass-murder massacres by large-killing-capacity firearms are inevitable and unavoidable, they are acceptable deaths, the acceptable price that we pay for the Second Amendment.
They are sacrifices on the altar of the Second Amendment.
Get used to it and get over it.
SADLY, AMEN. ^^^^
And God bless the men and women that have sacrificed THEIR lives to protect that right.
Shelama! You don't get it! Its all so a bunch of aging, fat, uneducated redneck guys can have some fun! We can't sacrifice a few kids for them???
Your screen name, says it all...
You don't even need to post.
When people give up traveling via airplane for their mere convenience of getting someplace faster when there are other methods of transportation then that argument will work. The 9/11 sacrifices were sacrificed on the alter of mere traveling convenience, not even a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Trying to split hairs and divide firearms into acceptable/unacceptable categories is just so much posing by the gun control lobby.
Any bolt/lever action rifle or a revolver style handgun can kill just as many people as a so called assault rifle can. The difference lies in the skill with which the weapon is wielded, the degree of resistance faced and the amount of time available to the criminal.
I have no doubt that when these lunatics choose schools for their murderous rampages they have carefully considered the last two factors to allow for their deficiencies in the first. Its plain as day that anyone familiar with guns could kill a few dozen people with a couple of revolvers if they had five minutes and faced no armed resistance.
You can fire 12 shots from a 6 shot revolver in 3 seconds flat giving it a sustained fire rate of 240 rounds per minute.
Banning semi-automatic rifles and magazines larger than 7-10 rounds is not going to do anything to reduce the death toll. What will work is reducing response time between when police are informed of the attack and getting them to the location as well as increasing resistance among the victims towards the attacker.
The run on the gun stores in NY state yesterday showed a lot of white, middle aged men trying to get their hands on any type of gun they could buy before the law went into effect.
Tell you anything?????Compensating for something? Bloomberg had it right; the NRA is losing influence and trying like hell to drum up the base. Yea, they are saying a lot of new members; I've heard that so many times before if I added up all the people they say are in the NRA it would include every person in the US, Canada & Mexico combined.
The ban will not work, this is a social issue. Gun bans seem like an easy fix, it's not. Fixing the social issue in American is will be extremely hard to fix. We are not willing to pay the price for mental health, incomes that allow a patient to stay home with kids, getting the mentally ill off the street and helped. I also agree with some of the posts that when they see that banning assault weapons and clips didn't work they will go after other guns. Again, not solving the deeper social issues.
Everyone in Washington seems to want things fixed in one news cycle. This problem is going to take years to make even a little better.
Yeah...
They're "compensating" for the FACT that on their way home, they're likely to get MUGGED by a CRIMINAL with an ILLEGALLY obtained HANDGUN, and they might have to fight for their lives.
Perhaps, if you were ever in that position, you might feel differently about our Second Amendment.
Again MSNBC lies in an article. The AR-15 was NOT used at Newtown. Also, the Colorado shooter picked the one movie theater out of choice of 5 within 15 minutes of his home that did NOT allow firearms to be carried in. He wasn't stupid. But obviously way too many of you anti-gun types are.
Can you explain how people being allowed to carry firearms in that Aurora theater would have made any difference whatsoever? The shooter was wearing body armor so no one with a gun was going to stop him. Just think about the shooting in New York where 9 innocent bystanders were shot by the police, who are well-trained to use firearms. It could only have been more death in that theater if a bunch of John Q. Citizens pulled out their guns and started firing in the dark. It's just unbelievable to me that anyone brings this argument up.
The AR-15 was used in Newtown. Are you that mis-informed?
No Zannie, they are not misinformed, just not bright enough to realize that the rest of us as also on-line.
still no fix for stupid
Axlcat it has since been proven he wasn't wearing body armor at Aurora. Body armor doesn't take unlimited bullets, body armor begins to crack after taking several shots, being shot with a bullet while even wearing body armor will generally knock you to the ground. It is like someone taking a sledge hammer and baseball swinging it at your chest. Many soldiers and police officers have been killed by the just shear force of impact by the bullet even if the bullet didn't penetrate the vest.
AxlCat--Unless he had body armor with ceramic plates installed, getting hit by pistol fire would probably have put the shooter down. There was no armor on his lower torso, face, arms, etc. A well placed shot from a trained and armed citizen (or off duty deputy) could have ended that slaughter as soon as the smoke grenades went off.
These countries are ones that citizens have assault weapons. Lybia, Afghanistan , Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia Syria. Amazing the U.S. belongs to this club
New Zealand and Canada also allow military style semi-automatic rifles.
"We’re dealing with a people problem. We’ve got to find a people solution.”
So what the gun rights groups are really saying is we need to raise taxes to pay for increased mental health solutions to violence. This is a start to a real dialogue.
Politicians know that they cannot have much impact on the level of gun violence which actually has been dropping significantly over the past 20 years while the number of guns in the hands of the public has been dramatically rising. It is an issue that can give them votes on election day, and that is what all this "noise" is really about. Whatever is done or not done will not have much actual impact.
I don't like guns and I don't like shooting and, to me, it seems like a really strange form of recreation.
But what I'm concerned about is getting to the bottom of what is actually happening in these mass shooting cases. None of the proposals I've heard so far would have stopped these the recent shootings from happening as far as I can tell. I admit that I'm suspicious that there may be something covert going on here. The recent incidents are just too similar and too bizarre. Whatever that something is, I believe it's time for it to come to the surface so that we can deal with it in a meaningful way.
Thats what I admire about people like you. You feel that just because you do not enjoy shooting guns is no reason for others not to have them. Thank You.. you are a true liberal that tries to understand other points of view.
My concern, never giving in to conspiracy theories, is that the news has been altered. I followed this story from Newtown as it broke on National News. Original; reports were that he had armed himself with four handguns and a shotgun and AR-15 were found i the car. He was wearing a tactical vest with pistol clips not Ar-15 clips (which tend to be banana shaped.)
Later the story changed and he had only used an AR-15. Then he took his own life with a pistol? I know as stories break information changes but it was the State Police report that stated the Ar-15 was in the car. What gives?
moviefan,
Please, let me educate you.
If you have never used a firearm in a recreational capacity, you should do so. Find a friend that likes to shoot, and have him take you to the range. I guarantee, you will understand, then.
How is it you can understand the fun people have shooting (throwing) darts at a target, but not shooting bullets at one?
Both are games of skill.
My sons and I enjoy long-range target shooting.
It is quite a challenging sport- hitting a two-foot square target, at over a half-mile away.
It requires extensive learning and knowledge of external ballistics- the effects of wind, temperature, and humidity on a bullet in flight. Learning how to read and understand the effect the wind will have on each individual bullet, at the time of the shot.
People that have never used a firearm, don't have a dog in this hunt, and no right to an opinion as to whether they have a recreational purpose.
Wrong, NV. It has been reported numerous times that he had on him a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm, along with numerous high capacity clips. He had a shotgun in the car.
I do not mind automatic or semi-automatic guns with clips or 30 to 40 rounds in the hands of those who have permits and purchased them through state or federal regulated controls.
I am not at all comfortable with those same guns in the hands of any individual off the street having them in their possession when they can buy them from uncontrolled gun shows, flea markets, Internet sites, newspaper adds, etc.
This country, as all countries, has its share of nuts and those fools do not need better weapons than those hired and charged with protecting the public from them!!!
Until this thing is fixed it will plague us forever!
You cannot stop people from selling them from the trunk of their car. It is illegal but it still happens. However,m, the myth of internet sales and gun shows is just that. Since Columbine ( which did acquire weapons in the parking lot of a gun show) all gun shows are now handled through licensed dealers only. There is also law enforcement on the Scene. No legitimate dealer is going to risk their licenses and jail time for a few bucks. Likewise look into the internet sales. You can order the weapon but if can only be delivered to a licensed dealer, with usually a small fee. There you still have to do the background check before the dealer wil turn over the weapon.
Craigs List, et. al, there I am not sure. However the sell of privately held weapons should be made in the presence of a licensed dealer and a background check performed. Unfortunately it is not but that is a regulation that should be changed.
"...the guns are just plain fun to shoot...." I think there must be some words missing here about the assault rifles, like "...the guns are just plain fun to shoot at people..." Just stating that it's fun to shoot those rifles bolsters the argument that violent video games contribute to the need for violent guns. Yeah, take it up one notch from video games to real rifles and real people.
Im a former Marine, hunter and gun owner. The only purpose for assault weapons and large clips in civilian hands is to kill unarmed, innocent people. Obviously the NRA thinks 20 children just wasn't enough. Hey guys, sorry if we want to ruin your "fun." For ducks, I can load three rounds, for kids, the sky's the limit. You people are frikkin sick.
The heavy weapons people look at Syria and Egypt where Presidents tried to take away the freedom of the people. The people revolted and had to fight to oust the dictators. Obama is acting like a dictator. He could be ousted!
How about automatic death penalty for anyone convicted of a mass shooting? Mental or not. This may deter the crimes more than a gun ban. Punish the criminal lawbreaker not the law abiding citizen.