I'm going to post it here, in its entirety:
It's been more than two months since the tragedy in Tucson stunned the nation. It was a moment when we came together as one people to mourn and to pray for those we lost. And in the attack's turbulent wake, Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain.
But one clear and terrible fact remains. A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun.
He used it to murder six people and wound 13 others. And if not for the heroism of bystanders and a brilliant surgical team, it would have been far worse.
But since that day, we have lost perhaps another 2,000 members of our American family to gun violence. Thousands more have been wounded. We lose the same number of young people to guns every day and a half as we did at Columbine, and every four days as we did at Virginia Tech.
Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it.
Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They're our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that's something that gun-safety advocates need to accept. Likewise, advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson.
I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides. People shout at one another, which makes it impossible to listen. We mire ourselves in stalemate, which makes it impossible to get to where we need to go as a country.
However, I believe that if common sense prevails, we can get beyond wedge issues and stale political debates to find a sensible, intelligent way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place.
I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few - dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example - from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.
I'm willing to bet they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas - that we should check someone's criminal record before he can check out at a gun seller; that an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to buy a gun so easily; that there's room for us to have reasonable laws that uphold liberty, ensure citizen safety and are fully compatible with a robust Second Amendment.
That's why our focus right now should be on sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.
• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.
• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.
• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.
Porous background checks are bad for police officers, for law-abiding citizens and for the sellers themselves. If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.
Clearly, there's more we can do to prevent gun violence. But I want this to at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people.
I know some aren't interested in participating. Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.
But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.
As long as those whose lives are shattered by gun violence don't get to look away and move on, neither can we.
We owe the victims of the tragedy in Tucson and the countless unheralded tragedies each year nothing less than our best efforts - to seek consensus, to prevent future bloodshed, to forge a nation worthy of our children's futures.
I couldn't agree more. And his sentiments are reflected in many national and regional surveys, including in Arizona. Most particularly, people agree on strengthening background checks.
I think this is a great first step. There are other areas of legislation that need to be supported, but let's start here, where the greatest support is among gun owners, including NRA members, and non-gun owners alike.
RELATED ARTICLE regarding policy meetings on this by the President: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/obama-gun-policy-meetings_n_835453.html
RELATED VIDEO: The NRA's Wayne LaPierre reluctantly supports the President's proposal. See a great statement from Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence: http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201103140014
.
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteIf we are going to talk, then you have to talk about what gun control laws you are willing to repeal.
Plain and simple.
I've asked before and you said you couldn't think of a single one you would repeal.
If we are to move forward on the issue, it is common sense to think it can not be a one way street.
Yet, that seems to be the approach you want to take.
So again.
What gun control laws are you willing to see repealed, support repealing?
What regulations, rules, and laws are you going to actively work to get rid of?
I remember you asking, Bob, and my response (perhaps you forgot) was that that the only regulations I have found that I might be willing to consider repealing were some around hunting restrictions. Fewer crimes are committed with long guns, compared to handguns, and hunters often have to go through stricter regulations.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as time has gone on and I have searched, I have found none others I am interested in repealing. Those regulations were inacted to reduce misuse of firearms or their availability to those who would misuse them, often as a response to crime. To repeal those measures is to suggest that the problems that brought them about no longer exists, which is never the case.
To use the oft-used comparison with regulation of vehicles, it would be like repealing car safety regulations. Would you repeal a law requiring safety belts in order to pass a law requiring back-up sensors? Would you repeal a law requiring child safety seats for babies in order to pass a bill requiring side-impact airbags? No, in both cases. No one would support such things. I feel the same about gun regulations. To do so would be a step backward in protecting the public.
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteI would support repealing laws requiring the use of seat belts because those laws are an infringement on personal liberty.
Time and time again, antis like you argued that if 'this law' or 'that law' was passed, there would be 'blood in the streets' or a 'return to the wild west'.
Guess what? Hasn't happened.
So why not repeal those laws that show no evidence of addressing the issue?
Let's continue with your car analogy.
Currently I know of NO state that has a 'may issue' scheme for driver's licenses.
Yet many states have such a scheme for the 'right' to purchase a firearm or to carry a firearm.
No state can deny a person the right to drive in that state if another state has issued a driver's license.
Yet many states do not recognize another states concealed carry permit.
I have found none others I am interested in repealing.
So once again we come back to a simple fact.
Gun control advocates like you lie when they say they want to compromise.
You aren't interested in compromise.
You want us to continue to give up our rights, continue to accept more and more restrictions on the exercise of our rights.
I'll ask you a simple question.
What level of 'gun crime or gun violence' would be low enough for you to say "we don't need another restrictive law"?
Bob, you illustrate beautifully how you would sacrifice public safety for your sense of "personal liberty" which is typical of pro-gun extremists. Nearly every safety law infringes on a personal liberty to at least some extent in exchange for guaranteeing the welfare of our people. It is a reasonable sacrifice that the vast majority of people gladly accept.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your comparison of driver's licenses, the state-by-state standards for issuing driver's licenses are relatively uniform, which was a prerequisite for acceptance across borders. The same can not be said for concealed weapons permits.
I don't have some sort of magic number of deaths below which I would stop advocating for stricter gun regulation, but I do know that 30,000 dead and 70,000 injured a year by guns in far, far too high and worthy of continued effort.
There is just no sense in arguing this issue with Bob because he doesn't see the necessity even for seat belts. You are right, Baldr. We have been sacrificing public safety for many years now so people like Bob can maintain what they see as personal liberties. What they don't see is that they can have their personal liberties at the same time as the rest of us get public safety. The two are not mutually exclusive as Bob would have us believe.
ReplyDeleteJoan,
ReplyDeleteOnce again you prove yourself either a liar or completely unable to comprehend the written word.
I would support repealing laws requiring the use of seat belts because those laws are an infringement on personal liberty.
I didn't say that I don't see the necessity of seat belts. That is simply something that can not be derived from my statement.
Personally, I do believe in the necessity of seat belts. I've seen, up close and in person, the aftermath of not wearing seat belts.
Where we differ is you don't seem to have a problem making other people live by the rules you want to have for yourself.
You want to wear seat belts, Great. GO for it.
You want to make everyone in your car wear a seat belt, Great. Go for it.
But because you think so, doesn't mean there should be a law.
But because seat belts can and do save lives, doesn't mean there should be a law.
It's pretty funny when one of the most unreasonable and stubborn guys around asks what would we like to give up.
ReplyDeleteI've already told Bob, nothing. We give up nothing because this is not a bargaining situation like in business where you give and take.
This is a matter of right and wrong and a matter of life and death.
About the president's letter, I'm not sure how I feel. I'm afraid he's got too great a history of making promises that he doesn't live up to, Guantanamo comes to mind. So, let's see.
I do appreciate that it's one of the most detailed and comprehensive statements on the gun debate to come out of the White House in a good long while. Let's see what happens next.
By the way Joan,
ReplyDeleteLet's talk about the firearms you own, eh?
You want to have a firearm registry, right?
Have you registered your firearms?
You want to require a background check on every transaction, right?
Did you or your husband submit to a background check?
You have stated that firearm ownership should be public information, right?
Have you published information on the firearms you own and your address?
For every proposal or idea you've floated, have you complied with that proposal?
Baldr,
Do you own any firearms?
Bob- the rules you mention are rules that are good for all. We live pretty well with mandatory seat belt laws with some exceptions. Your logic here is beyond comprehension actually. Your comments are, as usual, impossible to understand and not worthy of a response. Your name calling is not conducive to further discussion. I trust that Baldr will see that responding to you is not worth the effort.
ReplyDelete@japete said "What they don't see is that they can have their personal liberties at the same time as the rest of us get public safety. The two are not mutually exclusive as Bob would have us believe. "
ReplyDeleteWhich stands in contrast to Baldr's statement that there are no laws he would repeal.
So here is the stalemate. We have the Constitution on our side. We are busily forcing states and cities to repeal restrictive and illegal laws that violate the 2nd amendment and winning consistently. Wyoming just adopted "Constitutional Carry" (no permits required to carry concealed)
Almost every state is passing less restrictive laws. Here in Ohio we are about to add carry in restaurants (that serve drinks) and bars as long as the person carrying is not drinking.
So you folks can think of nothing to compromise on and we have finally realized that we don't need to compromise over rights we already have, in fact we can expand them or help politicians find another line of work.
Baldr, you may not be able to think of anything you would repeal but, as distasteful as it may be, if you bring nothing to the table that will attract the support of the gun folks, you are fighting a losing battle.
No doubt, sometime this week I'll get an NRA-ILA alert about a political issue involving gun rights. That email went to 3-4 MILLION people who feel just like me. Unless you can get some of those people to support an action you want to take, you are tilting at windmills and the only way that happens is to offer them something they want more than another law.
No, Bob, I don't own any firearms.
ReplyDeleteI think it's humorous how baldr and Mikeb keep calling current gun control "safety measures" when they have absolutely no proven record of making any society safer.
ReplyDeleteA loose, inconsistent correlation is all that can be found - not any REAL proof that gun control is a legitimate safety measure at all.
Bob S. is right - you aren't interested in compromise, and many of us gun owners have compromised and given up FAR too much as it is.
Here's some suggestions of things you could "let go" in the spirit of compromise:
Eliminate the National Firearms Act requiring registration, arbitrary taxes, and restrictions on firearm sound suppressors (silencers), short-barrelled shotguns & rifles, and fully automatic firearms, including the ban on post-1986 fully automatic firearms.
Any of that sound like something you'd be willing to give up?
...Orygunner...
No, Orygunner, no sane legislator would repeal any part of the National Firearms Act, nor would I.
ReplyDeleteI tend to side with Einstein's definition of insanity: Trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time.
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what gun control is. You've proven no results, only suggested a loose correlation. What kind of proof is it when there are a dozen counter-examples for every piece of evidence you provide?
The ONLY reason the NFA wasn't overturned as Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) is because Miller was nowhere to be found, there was absolutely no defense present, and the attorney for the US lied through his teeth to the court.
Tell you what I'd be most interested in would be sound suppressors for some .22 rifles and pistols. We require mufflers on cars, why should we have to pay high costs for mufflers for our firearms IN ADDITION to a $200 TAX?
...Orygunner...
How is someone wearing or not wearing a seat belt in their private car a "public" safety issue? I can see how requiring seat belts that meet certain safety standards are provided in all cars sold is a "public" safety issue, but whether or not an individual uses one has no bearing on the safety of anyone except the person not wearing a seat belt.
ReplyDelete"We give up nothing because this is not a bargaining situation like in business where you give and take. This is a matter of right and wrong and a matter of life and death."
ReplyDeleteAhh. I hope that now we see the end of calls for gunowners to "compromise" since we now see that there will be no actual compromise -- just more and more restrictions upon gunowners as "a matter of right and wrong."
"I've already told Bob, nothing. We give up nothing because this is not a bargaining situation like in business where you give and take."
ReplyDeleteThen why ask for "compromise"? A true compromise means both sides gives up something. Simply saying "Oh, we want this, but we won't ask for this just now" doesn't cut it.
"This is a matter of right and wrong"
Indeed it is, and most times, you are demanding more restrictions on innocent people. That puts *you* in the wrong. No ifs, buts or maybes about it, bans - all bans - on the law abiding are wrong.
"No, Orygunner, no sane legislator would repeal any part of the National Firearms Act..."
Okay, how about the Hughes Amendment? Let's look at the facts:
-No legitimate need when passed
-Very little, if any criminals affected
-If current debate is accurate, passed under seriously dodgy, if not outright unscrupulous circumstances.
Let's face it, it's undisputable that no honest person can support this section of law. Repealing it and acknoledging the wrong is common sense, nothing more.
"I think this is a great first step."
ReplyDeleteWhat is the last step, Baldr? No journey begins without knowing where one is going.
Moving suppressors from being regulated as NFA items to being no more heavily regulated than a handgun (requiring that one go through a background check and fill out a 4473) would be the sort of rational thing that anyone concerned with safety would support.
ReplyDeleteThere are laws requiring the use of suppressors on everything from motorcycles to cars to lawn mowers.
Many European countries allow suppressors to be freely owned by their citizens, with no evident adverse problems.
Failing to support such a minor modification to laws written at a time when there was little or no medical understanding that exposure to loud noises causes irreversible hearing damage says all I need to know about anti-gun activists.
Aztec, I'm referring to further regulation that I would support. For instance, I would add child access prevention laws, bans on extended ammo clips, and restoring requirements in all states for stricter conceal carry licensing, for instance.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous and Orygunner: regarding repealing regulation against silencers, I think it's a weak argument to compare them to mufflers on cars and lawn mowers to prevent hearing damage. Cars and lawn mowers are used fairly constantly, and we are exposed to their noise even in our own homes, in every neighborhood. Guns, on the other hand, are very rarely fired in cities and thus almost no one has to endure their noise -- it's only an issue at shooting ranges. And, given that the real reason for the invention of silencers is so that shooters can kill with less chance of being detected due to noise, the comparison with lawn mowers and cars becomes ridiculous. Earplugs and earphones are cheaper, safer for society, and foolproof.
ReplyDelete"restoring requirements in all states for stricter conceal carry licensing, for instance"
ReplyDeleteBaldr, I am curious as to whether we could agree in principle on that. My thoughts:
License required, including proof of training (to be determined), unlike AZ, VT, AK.
Police may deny only for reasons specifed by law, not limited to felony conviction (also TBD) -- no making up any reason they want, different in every juridiction in the country.
Police must divulge evidence for denial if denial is appealed to impartial arbitrator (such process also TBD).
To do all that in "all states" as you say would require a preemptory federal law -- otherwise you have to go state by state (lotsa luck with that).
@Baldr "And, given that the real reason for the invention of silencers is so that shooters can kill with less chance of being detected due to noise, the comparison with lawn mowers and cars becomes ridiculous."
ReplyDeleteSurely you are not saying that bad guys avoid shooting people today because of the noise or that they would shoot more people if they could get them.
Read the wiki on suppressors, since you folks tend to like the European style of gun regulation I'd think you wouldn't mind following Finland Norway, Germany, Sweden and New Zealand rules of little or no regulation of suppressors.
In some countries it's considered very impolite to hunt with dogs if you are not using a suppressor since it damages THEIR hearing.
Over hear the problem is in a home defense situation. There is no time to don hearing protection and shooting a major caliber handgun or rifle in an enclosed space WILL damage your hearing or that of the people around you.
Understand that suppressors were never a problem in the US. They were made illegal under the excuse that it made poaching gamer easier. Not that hitmen were running amok.
(This is 18Echo posting.. The AIM login I use was having problems at 'blogger' for some reason.)
18Echo, if you are defending yourself against a home invader, as extremely rare as that is, I doubt your main concern will be whether the couple shots you fire will damage your hearing. Ridiculous. Nor am I concerned about the hearing of hunting dogs, who are rarely right up against the shooter, anyhow. As far as what other countries do, that's nice.
ReplyDelete"Aztec, I'm referring to further regulation that I would support. For instance, I would add child access prevention laws, bans on extended ammo clips, and restoring requirements in all states for stricter conceal carry licensing, for instance."
ReplyDeleteBut where would you stop? At what point do you agree that further regulation is not needed?
I've noticed that most gun control advocates can't name a single regulation that they think goes too far. They'll say yes to any gun control law.
In the interest of fostering understanding, I gather that the facts are thus:
ReplyDelete1.) Usage of suppressors could save tens of millions of dollars in health care costs, especially for those who opt not to use hearing protection (many hunters, for instance, choose not to use ear plugs because it impedes their ability to track game.)
2.)Suppressors are widely available in many European countries, and there is no evidence that they lead to guns being misused at a higher rate than they otherwise would be.
3.)Their cost and size would make it unlikely that they'd be used in crime except in the rarest of circumstances.
4.) The compromise proposed is one that would stil require a purchaser to fill out an ATF Form 4473 and go through a Federal NCICS background check.
Anonymous, thank you for your comment. I have serious doubts that use of suppressors could save "tens of millions" of dollars in healthcare costs due to hearing damage! But can suppressors be sold with stricter limitation? Perhaps it is worth exploring, similar to a concealed weapons permit.
ReplyDeleteBaldr,
ReplyDeleteIf firearms are already controlled, why should suppressors be controlled?
@Baldr. You have made my point. When the gun control people speak of compromise, they have no intention of any compromise, yet accuse the gun rights folks of being inflexible.
ReplyDeleteYou were presented with thses facts.
1. there are valid alternative uses for suppressors.
2. You were presented with the fact that many countries with very restrictive gun laws do not find suppressors to be worth regulating.
3. Presented with fact that they were never a problem in the US when they were legal and no evidence that the stated reason (poachers) was even valid.
and yet, you still can't find a way out of *your* rigid thinking that there is nothing to compromise on.
Remember this the next time you are tempted to to accuse the NRA of refusing to budge on "reasonable compromise" regulations.
This will be my last post on this subject, as I think the point that 'compromise' is impossible is well and thoroughly made.
@Anonymous: While guns may be controlled in one fashion or another, they are nonetheless still present in our society. Thus, we must also control the accessories which are most likely to be abused, such as extended ammo clips or suppressors.
ReplyDeleteBaldr,
ReplyDeleteSo why not make it illegal to use those accessories in a crime instead of prohibiting them or making them prohibitively expensive?
See the issue as we view it is simple; you are trying to restrict our right to these items in the vain hope that a few criminals will be so inconvenienced as to not use those items.
Maybe we should apply the same logic to Fraud and make blogging so expensive and subject to multiple regulations so we can prevent a few fraudulent web sites will be shut down.
"Thus, we must also control the accessories which are most likely to be abused, such as extended ammo clips or suppressors."
ReplyDeleteBut standard capacity magazines and suppressors are not abused that often, therefore the claim of "most likely" isn't factual.
Common sense dictates that misuse *never* comes beofre proper use. A law banning standard sized magazines can't be legitimately called sensible if the law-abiding gun owners are affected.
Again, take Hughes: There were no instances of misuse of registered machineguns until after the ban. The only argument for the ban was "I don't see why anyone would object". The obvious and undisputable answer is "Because it's wrong".
If the majority of owners of a gun or even an accessory of a gun do not misuse them, then it's a serious and reprehensible injustice to ban said gun/accessory from ownership or transfer.
No, the ban against machine guns wasn't because "I don't see why anyone would object," but because machine guns had been used in mass killings, such as by gangsters (think the Valentines's Day Massacre for instance), because of the continued potential for use in such massacres, and because they were designed to kill large numbers of people very quickly, which legitimate owners for hunting and self-defense do not require. The same arguments apply for banning large-capacity ammo clips and semi-automatic assault weapons.
ReplyDelete"Thus, we must also control the accessories which are most likely to be abused, such as extended ammo clips or suppressors."
ReplyDeleteAccording to statistics compiled by the BATFE, 12 gauge shotguns, .22 handguns and rifles, .38 Special revolvers are some of the most popular choices for use in crime.
Should we apply special effort to controlling arms chambered in those calibers due to their evident popularity among the criminal set?
Anonymous, this is why there was a movement back in the late 70's to outlaw "Saturday night specials."
ReplyDeleteThose weapons are not specifically designed to kill large numbers of people in a short time, like assault weapons or large ammo clips, so, no, here I am not advocating banning those weapons that you mentioned or specifically regulating their ammo.
"Those weapons are not specifically designed to kill large numbers of people in a short time, like assault weapons or large ammo clips"
ReplyDeleteAnd again, this lie. If they are designed for mass murder as you claim, why are police exempt from all bans?
If, as you claim, the only purpose of rifles mislabled as "assault" weapons are only used for mass murder, you'd advocate forbidding police from owning them as well. If there are purposes beyond mass murder, then the law-abiding who do not harm anyone by owning them should not be inconvenienced by a ban.
You don't get to have it both ways.
@ Guy: Sadly, too many criminals, most particularly gangs, have assault weapons. Our law enforcement officials must have them, too, or they will be outgunned. I trust them to possess these weapons, as they are highly trained and accountable to the public, unlike the typical citizen.
ReplyDeleteIf the vast majority of crimes committed with guns are being committed with guns that fall under the category of "not assault rifles" then what's the point of banning them again?
ReplyDeletePlease explain how regulating weapons that are almost never used in crime is expected to have a positive effect upon the rate of violent crime?
Thanks.
Anonymous, you live in a dream world. Assault weapons are used in crimes all the time. Though other gun types are used more often, assault weapons are *intended* to kill more people in a faster period, and thus are potentially more deadly. There is no legitimate reason for civilians to own these.
ReplyDeleteIf you want an example, consider this story, where a mother grieves at the death of her son by a killer with an AK-47:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/02/AR2010050203563.html?sid=ST2010050203580
Would he have been any less dead had he been shot with a .38 revolver?
ReplyDeleteAlso, according to statistics compiled by the BATFE's Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, rifles of ANY SORT accounted for only 11% of guns used to commit crimes by perpetrators of all ages.
ReplyDeleteFar more people are killed with guns chambered in .22, .38 Special, and 9mm than are killed with expensive "assault rifles."
The statistics clearly bear this out for anyone who actually takes the time to look.
Not that I expect you to actually post this. I'm sure you'll toss it down the memory hole along with all of the other posts that disagree with you.
If I'm reading this right, you guys are suggesting banning handguns, since guns other than assault rifles account for a greater percentage.
ReplyDeleteI agree that assault rifles account for fewer deaths than handguns. Obviously a victim is just as dead, no matter the gun. However, assault rifles are not necessary for hunting or self-defense, which puts them into another category, and given their more deadly potential (number of shots, larger magazines, accuracy, shorter size than long rifles making them easier to hide, etc), they should be banned.
@Baldr, your logic is shaky at best. The only reason you're pushing to ban assault weapons and not handguns is that you KNOW you can't get any public support for banning handguns, but those "evil" assault weapons, well, they're just not necessary for any good purpose (so you claim), so you think you can get people to agree with you.
ReplyDeleteAin't gonna happen. Too many people see through the "assault weapon" sham - they're functionally no different or more dangerous than any other semi-auto firearm.
...Orygunner...
PS: You haven't posted any of my last four comments on this thread, I'm wondering if you're gonna post this one? Or ignore them like the rest?
I'm not suggesting banning anything.
ReplyDeleteI'm pointing out that your attempts to ban so-called "assault rifles" would have almost no effect on violent crime, even if we were to work from the unrealistic assumption that removing so-called "assault rifles" would have actually prevented death rather than causing the perpetrators to simply substitute another weapon.
Orygunner, your repeated assertions that assault-style weapons are no more dangerous than any semi-automatic handgun or hunting rifle is misleading. It is a common assertion among those who are pro-gun extremists, like yourself. You downplay their dangers, insisting that they do not shoot more rounds, and that the differences are "cosmetic" or "just scary looking" and that common people should own them for hunting or self-defense. If this were true, why would anyone want them when one of those other options would do? These arguments are ridiculous, and I'm not going to continue posting those arguments.
ReplyDeleteHere is a good FAQ page detailing those differences and why they make these weapons more dangerous: http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/msassaultweapons
I agree with Obama, he is not saying that we should take away guns from gun rights advocates but rather that "we should check someone's criminal record before he can check out at a gun seller." I respect responsible gun owners as well and therefore agree that owning guns is not wrong or evil. However, I believe that we should make sure that unstable people can't purchase guns so easily, and that is why there should be criminal record checks, etc. I understand it's more irritating steps for gun supporters; however, I believe that these are some very necessary methods and that both the gun rights advocates and gun regulation advocates should compromise and not shout at each other.
ReplyDeleteI would be willing to let facts and results decide whether those features of "assault weapons" cited by the Brady Campaign actually do what the Brady Campaign site says. For example:
ReplyDeleteAnnually in the US, how many killers are able to get away by using a silencer on a threaded muzzle and not making noise?
Annually in the US, how many killers are able to get away by using a flash suppressor to remain concealed when shooting at night?
Annually in the US, how many people are killed by being stabbed with a bayonet on a gun?
If those features of "assault weapons" cited by the Brady Campaign can cause those problems and should be banned, then there should be many examples of those problems actually occurring. Looking at facts and results might help us determine if those features cause real problems in the real world, or are just theoretical or imaginary.
A background check should always be done before a person purchase a gun. Also the gun seller on that way all registered guns can be monitored.
ReplyDelete