In the wake of last week's massacre in Aurora, most leading Democratic officials, including the nation's top Democratic official, have said almost nothing about gun policy. The conspicuous silence helped reinforce what's been widely assumed: the fight over gun control is no longer a fight at all.
But for his party, President Obama broke his silence last night in New Orleans, speaking to the Urban League, making his first public comments on gun policy in quite a long while. MSNBC's "The Ed Show" aired the remarks live.
For those who can't watch clips online, these comments were of particular interest:
"I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -- that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.
"But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals; that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn't be controversial. They should be common sense."
I suspect the right will go on the attack over the remarks, but I'll also look forward to conservatives explaining why restricting firearm purchases by convicted criminals and the mentally unbalanced is outrageous.
For his part, Mitt Romney has weighed in on gun policy a bit, too.
A couple of days ago, Romney told CNBC, "There were, of course, very stringent [gun] laws which existed in Aurora, Colorado." That's not even close to being true.
Yesterday, Romney went further.
"Well, this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them," Romney said.
For the record, the gunman in Aurora purchased his guns and ammunition legally.
I sometimes get the impression that Romney speaks on multiple subjects without any regard for reality.
Leave a Comment:
Every poll shows that even gun owners are calling for a sensible national discussion on laws that protect people from our nation's rampant gun violence. We've seen numerous instances just in the past months alone if tragic shootings that have claimed dozens of innocent lives. Enough is enough. There is absolutely no reason why ordinary citizens need access to AK-47's and other military-style automatic weapons. These should be banned immediately and permanently. You don't need an Uzi for self-defense or for hunting -- just hunting people. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Automatic weapons are already banned. The AR-15 used in Aurora was a semi-automatic rifle. No more or less capable than your average hunting rifle. The same can be said for the vast number of AK-47's sold at gun shows. A pistol grip, Muzzle shroud, folding stock etc. only make it look scary. Something the assault weapons ban of '94 got wrong. The real issue is the 150 round drum magazine that was fitted to the rifle. I'm all with you on crafting legislation to address the issue, but lets get it right this time. Banning the stuff that some people think makes the rifle look 'cool' does nothing to prevent gun violence and only makes gun enthusiasts angry. Wiki assault rifle, then look up assault weapon. Big difference.
hunting rilfes hold 3 to 5 rounds most AR 15 magazines hold 20 plus
Pararobbie you are an idiot. After serving in the Army for over a decade. I can honestly tell you that and AR-15. Is more than a mere hunting riffle. And AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16. They are the exact same weapon. Literally. And as for an AK-47. It is one of the most deadly assault riffles ever constructed. The things that make it "look cool". Are just as less important as the banana clips you can get for them. The riffle itself, should not be sold period.
Same thing goes for MAC-10's, Uzi's, MP7's FAL's. Or any other Sub machine gun (SMG), machine pistol or military grade assault riffle. I have no problem with Hand guns, shot guns and hunting riffles being sold. But when people are able to buy weapons not meant for civilians. Legally or illegally. Than I have a real problem with it. Because Military Grade weaponry. Was not and can not be used for "hunting". unless you are hunting people.
"And AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16. They are the exact same weapon. Literally."
Calvin Lundy,
2 words. Auto sear.
And the response from the gun lobby is that the Second is absolute: no restrictions on weapons of war, period. Because the whole idea is for an armed populace to defend itself against a tyrannical government which possesses tanks, attack helicopters, etc.
@The Activist
You wrote:
"Enough is enough. There is absolutely no reason why ordinary citizens need access to AK-47's and other military-style automatic weapons. These should be banned immediately and permanently. You don't need an Uzi for self-defense or for hunting -- just hunting people."
The key word here is "need" no one *needs* a civilianized, semi-auto-only rifle for hunting or any other purpose: they *want* them, for reasons similar to those that make wealthy arrivists choose Maseratis, Porsches and BMW sedans over volkswagen beetles.
Your argument, that military-style semi-automatic weapons should be banned "immediately and forever" forces two statements into existence that you probably don't intend to make but that are nevertheless wildly offensive.
The first is: "I think that you, you personally, should be deprived of what you want so I can feel better. I offer you nothing whatsoever in exchange but the contemplation of my happiness."
The second unintentional statement is that what you propose is a form of proactive restraint on my behavior. Your worldview, were it to become law would punish me without even the thought of due process by denying me access to something which under current law, I and literally *millions* of others can legally and safely own and use.
Essentially, you put yourself in the position of eliminating a right for me that you either cannot, or choose not to use; treating *my* choices in life as a *free good* that you can dispose of as you wish at will; creating a situation that maps exactly to that of a man in a priest's collar haranguing a woman about abortion and given the circumstances, you can surely understand why statements like yours are like NRA-recruiting posters.
Surely, at this point, you can see reasons why some poeple find your viewpoint threatening and something worthy of resisting.
@Calvin Lundy,
What you wrote is fascinating in that it not only expresses an opinion but demonstrates one of the more curious phenomena of the internet: someone making a statement that is either mistaken or knowingly false, in a medium where the statement can be fact-checked in seconds.
I don't even have to leave this page to know that what you say is false when you say:
"After serving in the Army for over a decade. I can honestly tell you that and AR-15. Is more than a mere hunting riffle. And AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16. They are the exact same weapon. Literally. "
Actually, they are *not* the exact same weapon. Literally.
Not only are all versions of the M-16 capable of full-automatic or burst-fire (while the AR-15 is, by definition, limited to semi-automatic fire) the two weapons are differently engineered so that even if you were to break into a place that had M-16 parts and steal an M-16 lower-receiver--you know, the part with the trigger and butt-stock attached to it--you would find that the holes for the pins that hold the weapon together don't match up so an M-16 part would be useless to you if you had only an AR-15 to begin with.
If you were, as you say, "serving in the Army for over a decade" you should know things like this, meaning that you are either lying about serving in the military, lying about firearms to bolster a weak point, or, that while in the Army, you should have spent a lot less time working in the kitchens.
All in all an interesting piece but sad to see President Obama forced to talk about gun control by yet another media-carressed crazed killer.
Before now, the POTUS was a surprise to the right, so much so that the spike in gun sales that followed his election seemed an irrational decision because he quickly proved himself to be so neutral on the issue that it made LaPierre's style of rhetoric look even stupider and crazier than usual.
Now there is some possibility, however remote, that some single-issue voters who find Romney just as creepy as people on the deep, deep left do, might vote for him as a matter of perceived self-defense.
One thing that is interesting about Ms. Maddow's style of argument here is not a question of fact, but one of quality. She writes:
"I suspect the right will go on the attack over the remarks, but I'll also look forward to conservatives explaining why restricting firearm purchases by convicted criminals and the mentally unbalanced is outrageous."
That second sentence about convicted criminals and the mentally unbalanced is a classic straw man argument. I learned as a liberal who shot rifle matches and talked with people afterwards, that no one in the NRA advocates putting weapons of any kind into the hands of the criminal or insane. No one in the NRA marches with signs saying "hollowpoints for crazies!"--with liberals aching to enact new bans on weapons or ressurect old ones; they would be out of their minds to do that even if they thought it was a good idea.
The thing that gets even the most rational elements in the NRA's panties in a bunch is the fear that the measures that the left will put into place will effect legal gun-owners--the vast majority of gun owners, thousands or tens-of-thousands-to-one ratios--far more than they will affect criminals and headcases and it is a fear that has been bourne out again and again.
If, Ms. Maddow, you chance to read this, you might survey the pro- and anti-gun furballs that take place in discussion forums here and on sites like Slate.com.
Over and over, you'll see pro-gun people make reference to the Assault Weapons Ban and how misconceived they thought it was and if you analyse what they have to say about it with anything like objectively, you might find yourself agreeing with some of what they have to say.
In the army we were taught this little ditty: "This is my rifle, and this is my gun. One is for fighting, the other for fun."
Sadly, too many armchair warriors confuse the two.
Yes, but the rifle that ditty was written about was an M1; and the gun...well... referenced part of the soldiers anatomy.
So why do gun owners support the NRA?Why do republicans fight against any regulation? Because gun lobbies and the NRA love money.
Another example of Obama's empty suit. Nice speech, but where's his proposed legislation to ban?
Speaking of Empty Suits. Where are the proposed jobs bills that actually create jobs. The Tea Party ran on in the 2010 elections.
Pot meet kettle.
Tom, you don't know anything about Obama or his policies.
For example, you have admitted that you are on Medicare, yet still support the GOP who, if given the chance, would eliminate a program you benefit from.
You are one of those low information voters who votes against your best interests.
Best invest in gun and ammunition stocks right away.
After the edited version hits your crazy Uncles mailbox, there will be another run on guns and ammo, because for sure Obama's commin' to get yer guns n ammo and all yer high capacity magazines and assault weapons
Fear -a republicans best friend. No need to try and show them how silly they are since you are just some liberal welfare cheat who refuses to see the world the way they do.
name calling how childish! I am a liberal. I have never been on welfare. I have had the same job for 22 years. Those that resort to name calling are showing that lack of education.
Dammit. The very reason I didn't want Obama to do this, no matter what the Bloombergs of the world say, is that it's exactly what the NRA needed for its next patented LaPierre LaParanoia fundraising frenzy.
In Gun Hoarder Coo-Cooland, when any politician of any stripe says anything about the need for even the most tepid, limited kinds of restriction on gun ownership and purchases, he's actually speaking in code and what he really means is "we will forcibly confiscate every single gun from every single law-abiding white person in America as the first stage in our UN related plot to unleash the dusky hordes for a national orgy of terror and riot and looting and rapine upon them."
Indeed, Obama doesn't even have to say anything. Just the mere fact of his election is proof to them that this is coming no matter what he says or does. But the flames of fear and paranoia must constantly be stoked to keep the NRA's treasury stuffed with the funds of the gullible.
Steve, you state that this was the reason why you didn't want Obama to say aything, and then point out that even if he hadn't, LaPierre would have found a way to spin his silence into propaganda. I'd argue the reverse, that Obama and the cause of gun control -- however weakly he embraces it -- can only be helped by his speaking out, that it hurts him no more than silence would have, and it inspires those who would go further.
how many Obama voters live in " Gun Hoarder Coo-Cooland,"?
Like many disoriented and confused folks, their minds were made up years-if not generations- ago!
After the Joker had his moment of mirth, the sales of both guns and ammo skyrocketed . Psychologists are quite busy examining entrails as to the "why".
Got to agree with that . He ain't losin' no votes from that crowd
Agree here, too - it doesn't hurt anything for Obama to speak up. In fact, his common sense approach, stated extremely well last night, should appeal to independents, moderates, and undecideds.
But watch out for the next commercial that mixes up Obama's words to make it sound like he was saying something entirely different...
Guys, what I'm saying is that the words coming from Obama's mouth are what let LaPierre monetize the general sense of irrational anxiety that prevails among gun hoarders. No, he didn't lose any votes, but as sure as anything, he added another ten or twenty million dollars to the NRA's coffers.
Gun hoarders are already prone to dueling anxieties. At one level, they have inchoate fears of "other" that lead them to assemble an arsenal and, at another, they look at all the guns they've piled up and something buried deeply inside them says "damn, I can't believe I'm allowed to have this stuff." But to turn those anxieties--and the associated cognitive dissonance--into a pulse in the regular influx of sweet, sweet cash, grifters like LaPierre have to have a specific threat to point to. Because, at some point, the gun hoarder becomes accustomed to the formless anxieties he feels all the time and that's not sufficiently motivating when he has to choose between upgrading from a lifetime NRA membership to a SuperDuper Golden Target Wayne LaPierre Needs a Platinum Toilet Seat Endowment membership and buying another crate of high-capacity magazines for your H&K MR556A1 simulated battle rifle.
Kind of like how it was for non-gun hoarders during the Cold War. We lived with a low-grade anxiety about the possibility of being turned into radioactive charcoal at a ten minute's notice all the time, but it took an actual superpower confrontation and/or the sound that dissonant two-tone EBS signal to bring that anxiety up to the surface and turn it into a focused fear.
So if Obama doesn't speak up because of fear of the Right wing gunz uber alles crowd, what does that say about the dialogue surrounding guns in this country?
It would tell me that the NRA truly controls the dialogue, the when, the why, and the what, and dissenting opinions and intelligent policy discussions are impossible.
I don't think this discussion IS impossible, but someone has to wrest the conversation from the bottom of the NRA barrel, and challenge their supremacy over the subject. Otherwise we're basically all held hostage by their political will.
That's not how to run a country. I'm glad Obama said, although he will get @!$%# tons of grief from the squeakiest wheels.
I did not hear the words "ban on assault weapons come out of his mouth. I believe he said in earlier comments that we have to work to enforce our existing laws. Why is someone legally allowed to purchase large quantities of ammunition via the Internet? Why can't these purchases be flagged and sent to local law enforcement to check out individuals making these purchases? Why does the NRA fight a ban on Assault Weapons, how does that take away your 2nd Amendment Rights, you can still own guns for protection, hunting, collection. My husband owns guns and he agrees the banning of Assault weapons does not prevent him from owning guns.
Obama missed a great chance to rake in a fortune in campaign cash: buy up every round of ammo on the market, then give a speech on the enforcement of existing laws against personal possession of heavy artillery.
The price of small-arms ammunition goes through the roof, the campaign sells into the bubble and makes a fortune.
Steve, your point about the NRA memberhsip getting ginned up enough to donate more to their imaginary cause is well made. But I agree with DJ that we can't let them dominate the narrative.
I believe that the more Obama speaks about this issue, the more clear it will become that he is not out to take away everyone's guns. It may take a few generations, but at some point some folks will realize "hey, I've been worrying for 50 years now that the gub'mint will take away my guns, but I still have 'em all! Maybe they're NOT coming for them and I DON'T need to keep giving money to the NRA!"
Certainly some will continue to believe the nonsense that they only still have guns because of their NRA donations. As the saying goes, you can't fix stupid. But the answer isn't to stop talking about reasonable, common sense gun control.
Greetings! Rachel
President Obama is correct. It is common sense to keep assault weapons out of the hands of criminals even law abiding Americans. I do hope and pray that the congress brings back the assault weapons ban.
Peace be unto you!
Marquest Burton
He was NOT a criminal until he did this. The gun laws had nothing to do with it. He was only cited with a traffic violatioin. I think we should put a limit on the types of guns available for public sale. The laws need to be changed so that no one can get their hands on these types of weapons, leave them to the military and law enforcement to use.
These small business people who think Romney is going to help them are wrong. Romney has no intention of helping any small business, unless you are these big corporations or extremely wealthy. Any small business people who listen to Romney would be outright fools to listen to Romney’s lies and deceptions. Romney will be the biggest nightmare you have ever seen, if he gets into the White House. If you think Bush, Chenney, and their cronies were bad in craving power, corrupt, greedy, arrogant, hypocrites, and deceiving, Romney by far is even worse and it will impact America and the world in the worst ways possible. A premonition told what these Republicans, extremists of hatred, and extreme wealthy were, but Romney is by far worse yet. When they say Romney has no ethics or moral’s that is just putting it lightly that man is a walking nightmare with a smile on his face enjoying all the misery, despair, and death he puts on others.
ONCE AGAIN THE LEFT HAVE NO CLUE whatsoever...
Officer Leroy Pyle dispells myths about what the media always labels "Assault Weapons"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeyS6LYIx4&feature =results_video&playnext=1&list=PL03DEA79B096E49D1
"Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them."
- Walter Mondale, U.S. Ambassador to Japan
ALL GUN FREE ZONES WHERE MASS KILLINGS OCCURRED
...like in a Theater (Aurora Colorado 2012)
Norway - Fort Hood - Mexico - Columbine - Virgina Tech - Arkansas State - Northern Illinois University - Louisiana Tech - Delaware State University; TWICE -South Mountain Community College - University of Iowa - San Diego State - Appalachian School of Law - University of Arizona - Shepard University - Bard College - Case Western Reserve University - University at Central Arkansas - University of Alabama........
GUN STORES - GUN SHOPS - GUN SHOWS ---- Z E R O.
June 29, 2010
“Investigators: 15-year-old son of deputy shoots burglary suspect........The 15-year-old boy and his 12-year-old sister had been home alone in the Mount Royal Village subdivision when around 2:30 p.m. a pair of burglars tried the front and back doors, then broke a back window. The teenager grabbed his father's ASSAULT RIFLE and knew what to do with it. “We don't try to hide things from our children in law enforcement,” Lt. Jeffrey Stauber said. “That young boy was protecting his sister. He was in fear for his life and her life.” ........The home invaders fled, leaving a trail of blood."
http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Burglary-suspect-shot-by-15-year-old-son-of-deputy-97430719.html
April 27, 2012
“Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store…….SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store. Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people." Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. "There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms." Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him."
http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx#.UA4SfccSJEI.facebook
April 22, 2012
“Armed Churchgoer stops rampage shooting- Aurora, Colorado
Police said two vehicles ended up in the church parking lot after some sort of argument between the drivers. Police said one vehicle was chasing the other. The man who was being chased got out of his vehicle and entered the church and told people to take cover. A woman came out of the church to see what was happening in the parking lot and got shot.
Police said an off-duty officer was at a service and went outside and shot the man who shot the woman"
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/04/22/2-shot-outside-aurora-church/#.T5WjZzkp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sKQl-Qp5W0&feature=player_embedded
March 22, 2012
“Killing of intruder by Springville man justified, county attorney says
Police said Martinez had walked through the neighborhood Yarrington lived in, checking as many as 20 homes for unlocked doors. He ultimately entered Yarrington's house through a sliding back door. The door was locked with a child lock, but Martinez apparently disabled it by pulling hard on the door.
Once inside, Martinez found some dry clothes and changed into them before making himself a snack, police said. He then entered the master bedroom and threatened Yarrington and his wife, saying he had a gun. He demanded that they retrieve their wallets and keys and drive him to an ATM. Yarrington walked into a closet under the guise of getting ready to leave, but instead, took a 9mm handgun from the closet and shot Martinez, striking him once in the chest. The homeowner and his wife were uninjured.”
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=19692315
July 18, 2012
"Florida elderly man stops armed robbery" ……..WITH A GUN.
OCALA, Fla. -- An elderly Florida man became a hero after he stopped an armed robbery.
Surveillance video showed two men, one armed with a gun and the other with a baseball bat trying to rob an internet cafe. It happened last week Friday. Samuel Williams, 71, jumped into action. He pulled out a gun and started firing. Both 19-year-old suspects were shot and taken to a hospital in Gainesville.
Williams does have a license to carry a gun and does not face any charges.
http://www.abc57.com/video/Florida-elderly-man-stops-armed-robbery-162848846.html
March 10, 2012
“.......DURING ATTEMPT TO ROB JEWELRY STORE, MANAGER PULLED GUN ON SUSPECTS........Miguel Lopez Hernandez, 25, was arrested for investigation of aggravated robbery after he and another man allegedly attempted to rob Kelly Jewelers, 7045 S. State, around 6 p.m. Friday........Hernandez walked into the store and was joined a few minutes later by another man, according to Unified Police Lt. Justin Hoyal....BEFORE EITHER COULD ACT, HOWEVER, THE MANAGER PULLED OUT HIS OWN HANDGUN. --Upon seeing the gun, THE ARMED MAN RAN OUT THE DOOR, and Hernandez was left unarmed in the store, according to Hoyal, said...............
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=19538735
June 29, 2010
“Investigators: 15-year-old son of deputy shoots burglary suspect........The 15-year-old boy and his 12-year-old sister had been home alone in the Mount Royal Village subdivision when around 2:30 p.m. a pair of burglars tried the front and back doors, then broke a back window. The teenager grabbed his father's ASSAULT RIFLE and knew what to do with it. “We don't try to hide things from our children in law enforcement,” Lt. Jeffrey Stauber said. “That young boy was protecting his sister. He was in fear for his life and her life.” ........The home invaders fled, leaving a trail of blood."
http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Burglary-suspect-shot-by-15-year-old-son-of-deputy-97430719.html
Please tell us where you live so that we might avoid an encounter with you.
For all those nice stories of people standing their ground the fact stands that 10,000 plus people are killed every year by guns.
There are 123,000 licensed gun dealers in the US about the same number as gas stations .
When we talk assault weapons we are talking about weapons designed for mass killing which can even be a handgun with a 40 bullet clip
No one is coming to get your gun , but with your views on assault weapons maybe we should.
SMOKING, PER THE CDC KILLS MORE PEOPLE than firearms and all other causes combined.... Stuff that into your left minded tude about firearms.
MORE PEOPLE ARE KILLED by car accidents than Firearms....
...the list goes on...
"When we talk assault weapons we are talking about weapons designed for mass killing which can even be a handgun with a 40 bullet clip"
Magazine not Clip... just a FYI.... and your wrong... it takes a shorter time to replace a handgun magazine than it does a rifle magazine. But then again if you knew anything you would know that to be true.
Most gunshot deaths are suicides. You could "look it up".
I'm sure that comparing smoking and car accidents to those lives lost because of gun violence provide no comfort to their families. If anything I'd imagine they find it insulting. Smoking is a personal choice, and a car accident-is an accident. But that is common sense. It's gross what people will say to prove a point, as invalid as it may be. HUMAN LIFE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT YOUR DESIRE (NOT NEED) TO OWN SEMI AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. Death is final. Crazy people with the means to kill or wound 70+ people in minutes is beyond dangerous. What about the rights of the people who can't stand up for themselves now? -because they are dead. What about all the plans they had? What about their children? I can't even believe after all this time, after the all the people who died and die everyday that this become a debate.
or is still a debate.
@truthIS-HAD.
As the daughter and granddaughter of two men who died from lung cancer, I'm very experienced with the concept of death by smoking. First, it should be noted that, in volume, we're currently seeing the deaths of baby boomers, not 18 year olds. The smoking rate in America is falling even though our population is exponentially on the rise. We're currently at the lowest rate since the 1920's. Thanks to legislation, radio and TV ads are no longer an influence, and changes in public perception of smoking have helped as well.
That doesn't mean it isn't a fight. In California this year during our primary election, we tried to pass a new taxation law on tobacco products in an effort to further reduce smoking in the state. The majority of the funds collected from it would have gone to cancer research and treatment of current cancer patients. Midway through the campaigning, it looked like it it might pass. So, the GOP and Big Tobacco (led by Phillip Morris) put out a terrifically expensive, misdirective, prime time ad campaign, and bought the election. People making money from tobacco don't want you to quit.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_29,_Tobacco_Tax_for_Cancer_Research_Act_(June_2012)
Now about car accidents. I'm going to be very generous here, and use this data from a kid's report where he WANTED cars to be more dangerous than guns.
Legally owned guns in the US: 80,000,000
Legally owned cars in the US: 189,000,000
Accidental deaths per year via firearms: ~1,500
Accidental deaths per year via automobiles: ~50,000
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/chat-conversation/total-number-car-owners-u-s-84291.html
Here's the PROBLEM. People drive their cars multiple times every day, in good and poor weather, before and after work, whether or not they've eaten, longer distances than they should, etc. They DON'T brandish their weapons multiple times every day, in good and poor, before and after work, yadda yadda. Well, some do - and they account for those 1,500 deaths.
Not only that, accidental death by car can be the pedestrian's fault. I live in an area where people quite literally cross the street from in between cars while texting with 3 year-olds in tow and never look up. Not every car accident is caused by the car, but EVERY gun accident is caused by the gun.
To say legislation does nothing to assist in preventing accidental death by car is a fallacy. Here's why: seat belts.
Seat belts were first legislated in 1961 to serious opposition. People felt that being forced to use them violated their civil rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation
People STILL don't always buckle up (that's why we just had another push to get people to do so here in CA), but the CDC estimates that seat belts have saved an estimated 255,000 lives since 1975. I'm one of them. I was involved in a major car accident in my 20s, broadsided by a wrecker tow truck that ran a red and simply didn't see me turning left on the green. I could have died. Without the seat belt I would certainly have been ejected from the vehicle.
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html
So, legislation saved my life when someone else missed the red.
Assault Weapons Myths
Officer Leroy Pyle dispells myths about what the media always labels "Assault Weapons"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeyS6LYIx4&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL03DEA79B096E49D1
There is a monster hidden in plain sight. It is the smile of the Cheshire cat, it is the pill Alice took to make small and the one that made her tall. It lies in wait as those who seek it out trip over it and curse it. It screams into your ear yet is unheard.
Fear it, despise it, for it is truth and truth is cold-hot and waiting.
So turn away now before it hits you and go watch FOX!!
It's as I said when I posted this to my Facebook page - no matter how tepid the President's comments regarding gun safety were, there would be someone, somewhere who read them (or didn't bother to read them, for that matter) and would immediately get their panties in a wad.
You make such a ruckus about your rights as a gun owner - what about *my rights as a person who is afraid of people who have almost unrestricted rights to own a weapon capable of killing or wounding dozens of people in a matter of seconds?
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for the regulation and registration of firearms, however, the term "Assault Weapon" or "Assault Rifle" needs to be changed. I can walk into a gun store here in Indiana and purchase an AR-15. Even an AK-47. I know what a lot of you are thinking. But you're all wrong. I cannot legally own or buy a fully automatic gun. You need a very special license for that. MOST assault rifles are semi-automatic. Meaning that one pull of the trigger fires one bullet. I can buy a hunting rifle that's semi-automatic. should the hunting rifle be banned as well? In my humble opinion, I'd be more afraid of someone with a high powered hunting rifle. They usually have longer barrels, a higher muzzle velocity, and greater accuracy. Unless they're a revolver, most handguns are semi-automatic as well. Now, if you want to talk about high capacity clips, that's a different story. A 30 round clip for a handgun is beyond silly. I have a 10round clip for my .45 and even that is too many. In a home defense situation, if you've emptied your clip, things have already gone terribly wrong. The mentally deranged individual that has sparked all of these debates (again) had (or so I've heard) a 100 round magazine for his AR-15... Outside a combat situation, there is no need for that kind of magazine and should never be in the hands of a civilian. Gun regulation isn't taking the guns away from people. I do, however, believe that strict regulation of those that wish to purchase firearms is a must. It won't catch everyone, obviously, but it might bring down instances of mass killings.
The DC Sniper over the counter rifle and scope.
@stknmov
Yes, that is absolutely true.
He (they) used a civilianized version of an AR-15 rifle and sniped from the trunk of a car from which the back seats had been removed. Their plan (their completely insane plan) was to kill a lot of people at random in a lot of places around the country until they could get around to the one person they actually wanted to kill.
The thing that makes my blood run cold is the thought that they did two things wrong:
The first was that they used a rifle with a relatively short range. If they had used a bolt-action hunting rifle, they could have picked a much longer standoff from their victims with better seclusion (they were caught purely at random when someone in a state in a state of panic noticed their suspicious-looking car).
The second was their sticking around in that one area too long instead of implementing their plan and going to another state and killing more and different people there.
If they had been a little more organized and capable of following their own plans, we might *still* be looking for them.
It makes you shudder, but it wasn't the weapon that was to blame: in fact, they made the wrong choice when they chose it.
Maybe someone can explain why is it that rethugnikans will fight for the rights of the mentally disturbed and criminals to have the "right to bear arms", and yet have disenfranchised those same groups from voting? And why does any real "hunter" have to shoot an AK-47 to kill his target when an A5 rifle should kill anything?
Just asking.....
one word : Rambo
They all think they are versions of him when standing behind an AK47
Actually, the AK-47 is one of the most reliable rifles in the world. I can bury one in mud and sand for a week, pick it up and fire it... If i choose to hunt with it, and it is legal in my state, why should there be a problem with it?
Because the only person who should have an AK-47 are soldiers or the police.
No one needs to hunt with that type of weapon. No one.
says you. The rest of the hunting community may disagree with you. Oh, and no US police force uses an AK-47. Same with the US military. No "god-fearin american" would use a russian made rifle.
Says me. Says the people who lost their lives in that movie theater.
Hunting with an automatic weapon is absolutely idiotic.
No matter how you try to spin it, no ordinary citizen should own an AK-47.
@Zora Renee
The simple answer to your question is the one no one ever tells you: it's cool.
It's about playing soldier with real weapons, just like buying a car that looks really good and can do 200 MPH gives you the opportunity to own something cool and play race-car driver, and, like a Lamborghini, there is nothing wrong with them so long as I don't or some other legal owner doesn't do anything wrong with them as I'm sure you'll agree.
The statement, "we need them for hunting" is a blind, sure, some people actually *do* use them for hunting, but in the real world, that is by no means their primary attraction.
Unfortunately, this leads to the statements made by the kind of people who say "no one needs them, no one" and then call for their elimination (I think you'll find one of those just a few posts below.) in fact...
@Donna J. Edmond
"Says me, Says the people who lost their lives in that movie theater."
Okay, first off, in the cold light of day, that that guy went ape using firearms is not the fault of the firearms. Nor is it the fault of the millions of actual and potential owners of such firearms.
The idea that a living, breathing, human being is, to some extent and in most contexts, sacred is a cornerstone of civilization, but using the deaths of the people in that theater to try and eliminate the rights of millions of others as a sort of proactive straightjacket for the handful of people who go insane and use firearms each year is not ennobling.
Fifteen people were killed in a way that makes them a cause celebre and that is sad, but your dragging the dead into your political agenda does them no honor. looking at what you say and the force with which you say it, it's easy to imagine your old argument as a new phenomenon in the world of discourse: impassioned cynicism.
"Hunting with an automatic weapon is absolutely idiotic."
Long ago, one of my professors asked me a question that I will make you the gift of: "how do you know?"
Of course, that's a cheap shot, assuming you've never hunted and trying to make you look foolish for making such a strong statement about something about which it's very safe to assume you know absolutey nothing.
In truth, for the most part, I agree with you. There are better things to hunt with than military-style weapons. Hunting is a matter of choice, class and style: some hunters go on safari-styled hunts with scoped rifles and the animal is never aware of the hunter that kills it, others throw in the challenge of eliminating firearms altogether in their hunting, going after game with a bow or other, more primitive weapons.
People tend to own (civilianized, semi-automatic-only) versions of AK-47s and other military weapons *not* for hunting, or to commit murder, mass- or otherwise, but because they appreciate them--call it the Rambo Factor if you like, but the tens of millions of owners of semi-automatic, military-style weapons in this country who *didn't* commit mass-murder two weeks ago and probably *won't* in the future don't share your opinion and find your ideas about eliminating their rights something worthy of resisting.
"No matter how you try to spin it, no ordinary citizen should own an AK-47"
Actually, no ordinary citizen *does* own an AK-47. Exceptional citizens do.
Fully automatic, battlefield-ready assault rifles are only available to people willing to apply to the BATF for a tax-stamp to allow the transfer of the weapon from one owner to another. The person applying for that tax-stamp has to pay $200 and wait for months in a long application process involving background checks before he or she is given permission to buy that kind of weapon.
After that, there's the matter of paying the money for the weapon itself which, since the idiotic ban on sales of new legally owned full-auto weapons (which have been used by their owners in murders *twice* in fifty years) means paying in the tens of thousands of dollars.
That is what you are talking about, really talking about, when you say "AK-47." Joe-average doesn't have the patience or the cash to get his hands on one and if he did, he would be strongly motivated not to do anything with it that would lead to his wearing orange for years and, in nearly all cases, never being allowed to own a firearm of any kind again.
When you use the word "should" you are introducing a value-judgement which can be translated to a phrase which would make things clearer if it was appended to "should" in all such statements: "according to my belief system", would make things much clearer. You are saying "according to your belief system, no one should be allowed to own an AK-47 assault rifle."
It is your absolute right to hold and express that opinion (I support your expressing it with vigor) but when your opinion is based on raw emotion lightly sprinkled with factual inaccuracies, I hope you will understand mine.
"(CBS News) - No one saw the movie theater massacre coming, but a package may provide some insight into the moments leading up to the shooting. Sources tell CBS News suspect James Holmes mailed a package to the University of Colorado-Denver/Anschutz Medical Campus where he had been a student. The mail was sent to a psychologist at the university, but the letter wasn't discovered until Monday."
You mean the shrink didn't get the mail until Monday? and didn't turn his carrot top arse in (The patient / client relationship would not cover such threats so don't go there).... Because if the shrink DID NOT the shrink would be liable............ Monday right? Ya sure.... ! ...... Why this shrink, you mean, he was already a patient?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57480221/police-find-disturbing-mail-from-colo-suspect/
Also, the fact remains, people in general can snap, this is a fact, and you can't really weed out that....not that is a good thing because it isn't.
Some of you live in a vacuum thinking the police can help you, but the fact remains the police only react to situations and are rarely there when things get out of hand.
Besides, SMOKING, PER THE CDC KILLS MORE PEOPLE than firearms and all other causes combined.... Stuff that into your left minded tude about firearms.
Looks like someone ate a big plate of crazy for breakfast.....
.
If you'd heard more than one report, you'd know that it wasn't in the doctor's office, but in the university mailroom over the weekend. It was discovered there Monday morning.
I do wish the Gun Lobby or whatever would get their history correct. In the 18th century the vast majority of 'Colonists' weren't armed. If you lived in a city or larger town there was generally no need for them. Yes, those in the militia had access to arms, but they were generally kept in armories and they drilled regularly. (well regulated) If they did have arms they were personal weapons (small caliber) for hunting, sport and at rare times, self protection. They were not military issue, (ie. the brown Bess). Military style weapons were for State and Local militia use only! The concept that the Minute Men snatched his rifle off the mantle on the way to battle is really a false romantic image. They went to the Armory first! The idea that private citizens went around armed with military style weaponry is a fantasy as well. If only that damn comma wasn't in the Second Amendment.
They were not armed because the British didn't allow them weapons. Then again.... well that was until WE got tired of that ...
Prior to July 04, 1776, the signing of the Declaration of Independent from the Crown of England or Britain; a bunch of Colonial teachers, doctors, masons, blacksmiths, farmers. etc. et. al. fought a well organized and armed British Army-hence the Revolutionary War.
The mindset of the found fathers George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, and someone who you probably don’t know Gouverneur Morris. [1]
All of these persons had basically had the ideals of or concepts of limited government, the consent of the governed, separation of powers, and concepts of a certain social contact. [2] Do not misconstrue this social contract as you see it today. This concept of a social contract as that the state serves the will of the people, they are the source of political power and the people can choose to give or withhold this power. [3] As stated this is not as it is today.
So the The Revolutionary War was caused by the mind-set of the Founding Fathers that we should not have a massive government-which we have today. Also, that most of the power should reside in the States.
There were other considerations such as Geography. There was a great distance between the Crown and the Colonies and the Colonists had an earning to seek opportunity which means that you wouldn’t necessary get what you wanted but you can seek it. The Colonial Legislatures were also largely independent of the Crown as well not mention there was Salutary Neglect or enforcement of external trade relations was lax. [2] This was notwithstanding a strong independent streak-which today more and more people are dependant. [4]
With the aforementioned mindset and principals in mind…..
I am sure I am missing other reasons for the Revolutionary War. It is CLEAR that the chief causes of the Revolutionary War were over MANDATES and TAXES and how these interfered in the Independence or should I say FREEDOM.
In recent events I wanted to take the time to do a write-up as to why YOU are praising or celebrating July 04, 2012 – Independence. The larger question though is if you are celebrating today what will you be doing tomorrow, the next day, a week from now, or a few months from now? Will you being holding to true as to why we are herein the first place or will you be doing something different contrary to the principals herein?
Enjoy.
[1]
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/revolutionarywar/tp/foundingfathers.htm
[2]
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/revolutionarywar/a/amer_revolution.htm
[3]
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/g/social_contract.htm
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/g/social_contract.htm
[4]
Bush SNAP Participation over 8 years: 10,905*
Obama SNAP Participation over 3 years: 11,219*
http://www.facebook.com/notes/john-conley/______obama-_is_-the-food-stamp-president-added-more-people-to-assistance-in-3-y/10150604089997528
P.S. You need to get a better history lessons...
Ignoring the raving of our ultra -- whose bringing in of food stamps (of all things) demonstrates how little he deserves the attention he obviously needs so badly -- let me remind people that not only were the colonists not gun owners, but that, in the "Wild, Wild West," the one constant in most settled towns was that visitors to the town were required to turn their guns over to the local sheriff and would not get them back until they were leaving. Gun control ordinances were never as prevalent as they were in that setting, and even the famous OK Corral incident was spurred by a violation of a gun-control ordinance.
Wait, I get it! Toothless laws and availability of automatic rifles at gun shows attract d-bags who need guns! A Turkey shoot just isn't fun without an automatic rifle and an extended magazine! I've got to have an Ingram mac-10 or I can't provide food for my family and protect myself from marauders (and the British!) at the local multiplex!
We are un-represented? We need to have another Revolution so you can own mass murdering assult rifles and the ammunition that feed them, because you are un-represented? I am so sick and tired of the NRA 'freedom 'BullS***. Go pay your dues, so your fearless, feckless leader can draw his MILLION DOLLAR salary and continue to intimidate and mislead with his fear mongering rhetoric.
@truth(!?)IS-HAD. You have your information wrong. When we were under British rule, colonists were, of course, allowed to own guns. They used them to hunt game and protect their homes. Their complaint with Crown was that they had to buy powder and guns through policed channels. The idea was that they could only buy enough powder and guns to live as colonists - not revolt. Requesting too much powder or too many guns made you appear to be an agitator.
That's why the Second Amendment is written the way it is. "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."
Note that when this was written we had NO organized standing military (which takes the place of a Militia) AND guns had little stopping power. As guns grew in strength, SCOTUS determined that this IS one of the Amendments that must be reinterpreted as technology and society changes. To interpret it literally means any man can have a nuclear bomb.
Would have been nice if NBC pointed put that Romney was misquoting the law. Guess it wouldn't have been 'objective'.
I would like to suggest a compromise system that should be acceptable to most rel gun owners, if not to the 'registration is the first step to confiscation' paranoids.
From most surveys it seems as if most gun owners -- even those who are members of the NRA, would have little objection with these restrictions. I'd also consider two further ones, a requirement that all transfers be made on a face-to-face basis, that guns could not be sold through the mail (and that even shippers transporting a load of guns from manufacturer to wholesaler or retailer shall be required ti 'file as owners' for the duration of that shipment). And a requirement that any person seeking to purchase a gun above a certain level of 'lethality' should be required to state in writing why they need a gun of this power.
I, for one, am glad he said something. One simply cannot disagree with what he said, except for the fact that the target on the weaponry in case is not necessarily true. As mentioned, we need control on AMMUNITION. It is not so much the fact that it is a semi-automatic weapon, but that it had 100 rounds available. There is clearly no reason this should be available over a mail-order catalogue.
That being said, in Louisiana, it is quite easy to obtain weaponry. Individuals may sell weapons to other individuals without any paperwork whatsoever. I defend all law-abiding citizens' rights to responsibly own and operate guns. I do believe, however, that the decision to purchase a gun-- whether from a reputable institution or an individual should require a registration process and licensing process. You need a license to own and operate a car. You must register said car even when selling from a dealership or from an individual. I think the same should be true for guns.
TO EVERYONE and especially the POLITICIANS:
ANY Politician who wants Gun Control MUST immediately give up their ARMED Security AND/OR their Concealed Weapons Permits.
We can start with Senator Feinstein.
Do you have a job where you live in the public eye, under terrific controversy, often receiving death threats? If not, shut it.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/holy-@!$%#-i-just-realized-people-want-to-kill-my-d,28891/
@Christine Fisher
I know this is more than a little late to the party, but sometimes NRA supporters come up with the odd *good* slogan or argument now and again and this is one of them.
All the people in government who demand that you give up your guns from Bloomberg on down have well-payed, armed security details.
Why am I less deserving than they?
copy/pasted from my FB page since i don't feel like retyping it...
Okay, time for another mild rant... First, what happened in Colorado was horrible. There is NO question of that. But, as usual, the "OMG!! GUNZ ARE BAD!!!" kneejerk reaction kicks in. I own several guns. I didn't buy them, I inherited them. I shoot guns. It's fun to shoot at an inanimate object. I hunt. (not since i moved to IN, but i do hunt) I don't kill for sport, I actually EAT what i kill. I enjoy hunting quite a bit. Its nice to be out in nature. I do not think for an instant that anyone should own a fully automatic weapon. I do however think when people hear the words "assault weapon" that is the first thing people imagine. An AR-15 is an assault rifle, but a legal version is simply a semi-automatic rifle. that's it.. you pull the trigger once, one bullet is fired.. how is that any different than a semi-automatic hunting rifle? AND.... for those of you headed down the road of "well why does anyone need an assault rifle?!?" Guess what, they're FUN TO SHOOT! You aim at a paper target 100m downrange and shoot. You're not killing anyone. I would also like to point out data that i researched for a speech I had to give for speech class about guns.... there are about 330,000,000 people living in the united states. And, while every life that is lost is horrible, there are on average 15,000 murders in the US. 15000 out of 330 MILLION people. We lose more people to automobile accidents. I don't hear a cry for the banning of cars. The fact the one person took the lives of 12 people and injured another 58 is HORRIBLE, but it is an isolated incident brought on by a mentally disturbed individual. You want to regulate guns? sure. I think every single gun should be registered. Period. As i recall there's a week long waiting period for buying a gun. (may have changed, but thats what i remember) For those of you who live in Indiana, did you know that you don't have to register any guns? Its voluntary, AND costs money. (except when buying from a gun shop) I intend to get my permit to carry concealed. I also plan to carry. (I'm sure my wife just rolled her eyes and is planning to have a frank discussion with me about that.) I have to pass a background check and pay about $130 total. Does that make me a dangerous person? Nope. I was brought up around guns. (I grew up in Pennsylvania where just about everyone hunts.) I was taught to respect them. I have taught my wife about handling guns. I intend to teach my children about the safe handling and use of guns. From my experience, most people that are anti-gun have either never fired a gun, or are just afraid of them and won't learn about them. Even if you never intend to fire a gun, and I mean never, you should still learn how to safely handle one. Okay, this seems to have rambled on a bit, but i think you get where I was going. Guns aren't the problem, the people that get their hands on guns and use them outside the laws are. Oh, and one final note. If i want to kill someone, and I don't have a gun... I'll simply find another way. GUNS aren't the issue. They're just a tool.
People ARE the problem. You don't put your big bad corporations in prison do you?
"There is no reason for a civilian to have an ak-47 assault rifle. Period, end of discussion. Theres no debate there."
Officer Leroy Pyle dispells myths about what the media always labels "Assault Weapons"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeyS6LYIx4&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL03DEA79B096E49D1
“Investigators: 15-year-old son of deputy shoots burglary suspect........The 15-year-old boy and his 12-year-old sister had been home alone in the Mount Royal Village subdivision when around 2:30 p.m. a pair of burglars tried the front and back doors, then broke a back window. The teenager grabbed his father's ASSAULT RIFLE and knew what to do with it. “We don't try to hide things from our children in law enforcement,” Lt. Jeffrey Stauber said. “That young boy was protecting his sister. He was in fear for his life and her life.” ........The home invaders fled, leaving a trail of blood."
http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Burglary-suspect-shot-by-15-year-old-son-of-deputy-97430719.html
Think again.
Your article is of a trained professional who has an automatic weapon for his job. Not a good argument to push back against the quote about a civilian sited.
truthIS-HAD
Thank you for your fine contributions today .
I'm sure your many weblinks and your numerous links to good ol' Officer Leroy Pyle have changed many minds here . Keep up the good work .
Lawrence O'Donnell said the other night some things that stuck in my mind. I normally don't watch him, the tv was on in the other room. He was talking about the reluctance of legislators to work on gun laws, even though there have been dozens of mass killing episodes in our country. Yet, we have one guy one time in one airplane have something in his shoe that may have done some damage to that plane, and now EVERYONE gets their shoes scanned at the airport. Why are we so eager to legislate that but so hesitant to touch gun laws? I don't get that either but I thought it was a great thinking point.
TSA is a joke.
yet, we all comply like so many sheep, our gov't trying to protect us;...the NRA on the other hand is not a government agency yet has the power to cripple our congress...and leaves us less safe in the long run...
The answer's simple: Even with Dr. Scholl's out there, there's no real "insole lobby". Meanwhile, the NRA has an estimated 4.3 million members, and they use those numbers to threaten members of Congress into voting as the NRA selects. Then, the NRA tells their members how to vote and who to vote for.
Here's what outrageous:
The NRA is telling people who to vote for based on ONE issue. It doesn't matter at all what the rest of that person's record looks like if it doesn't directly benefit those who build and sell guns. That's why Congress kowtows to them.
Gun owners are truly susceptible to the idea that someone will "take their gun away" - but they don't even bother to read up and learn current national laws or get their history right. They're happy to be spoon fed from a organization that has everything to gain financially by skewing the facts. This is made even more ridiculous by the fact that the internet makes research so easy!
The NRA is ruling BOTH their members and members of Congress through fear. The only thing that fixes that is education. Little boys and girls, it's time to turn on the light in your closets!
I do not believe that the gun issue in the US can ever be fixed, and this is only partially due to the fact that because of politics, it is very difficult to even properly address the issue.
You have a culture that appears to have an above average comfort level with guns. Tragedies like what happened in Aurora can only be interpreted as an acceptable bi-product of having the ease to access to guns that your culture demands.
It is not simply the ease of access for this individual, but also the ease of access in general, that makes having a gun not such a big deal. It seems like this makes the option of a seemingly normal person "snapping", stocking up some guns and ammo, and going on a rampage far more likely. Or a person killing themselves. Or accidental shootings in the home. There is no doubt that the number of deaths by guns is ridiculously huge in the US compared to the rest of the world. I have yet to hear a decent explanation for this by someone who thinks any restrictions on gun access or use are bad.
Where I live, I guess you could say having guns like these would be extremely taboo. I am very ok with this. For me, the positives far outweigh the negatives. I live in a city of about 500,000 people, and less than an hour of a city with a couple million, and at 39, having lived in this general area most of my life, would have no idea where to go buy a gun if I wanted one. I do not feel I am missing out. It is obvious that the "cool" factor of owning a gun in the US does play a part in wanting to own them, still dont feel I am missing out.
Having said that, I am sure if I had to live in certain parts of the world, I could see having a gun at home.
Not all of us do.
Remember that states in the U.S. are the size of European countries, and have their own sets of laws. Gun control varies widely by state, and those states with loose gun laws draw gun fans. Unfortunately, not all gun owners even realize how broadly the laws differ.
Shadow8088 is a great example. He posts the waiting time for a gun in Indiana as a supposedly reasonable week. However, in Florida, the wait for a handgun is only three days. In Arizona, there's no waiting at all. The difference in the speed and type of gun you can get is why we've got straw purchasers. Guns may be legal in one state and not another, so a guy may ask his girlfriend to use her out-of-state id while on break from school to buy him a gift. That's the "innocent" version of the story. There's a criminal form as well.
Where I live, guns are common, but we're not happy about it. Many of those who carry in an urban area tend to be up to no good. I do understand the attraction to firearms, and I come from a family that hunts, so I have experience using long arms for hunting. You don't need a semi-auto if that's what you're doing.You certainly don't need 100rd clips.
@CdnRobbie:
God it's so good to see a post without the "shout and sneer" factor.
You are absolutely right in saying that our problems with firearms are next to impossible to solve. Our culture has aspects of personal responsibility and personal freedom and our ready access to guns can be seen as a glorious part of it: our government trusts every American, by law, with the ability to have responsible access to firearms.
Unfortunately, this access creates the possibility of situations like mass-killings by the insane, or criminal activity, that are cracks in the system which lead to arguments by non-gun users for the elimination of weapons and types of weapons which those who appreciate firearms resist with a will; leading to a situation in which both sides view the other as irrational or ignorant, making an intelligent dialog about firearms law, complete with the real give-and-take found in other discussions, impossible.
It really is sad and confusing. Human life is valuable, but so are all manifestations of real human freedom and the ability to own and use firearms responsibly is a great thing.
If you ever come to the U.S. you should avail yourself of the opportunity to go to a range somewhere, get some safety instruction, and do a little target shooting: it teaches you something about yourself.