Today's Poll: Should 'assault weapons' be banned?
Submitted by Howard B. Owens on December 17, 2012 - 7:30am
- Feinstein will introduce assault weapons ban in Senate
- George Will: Tougher gun laws, assault weapons ban won’t help
- Durbin: Assault weapons ban more likely in wake of Newtown school shootings
- Assault Weapons Are Weapons of Mass Destruction and Should Be Banned
- Lanza’s Weapons
- Lieberman calls for ‘national commission’ on culture of ‘violence’
My opinion is not the popular one but here it is.... No as a matter of fact I think the incidents that led to this poll question might have been prevented if gun control wasnt so restrictive. Had that school had a gunsafe in the office and a few administrator qualified in use and permitted to carry then the shooter wouldnt have been as successful as he was.
An article posted by a mother of an Adam like child... had instead showed me a different angle and approach to this type of incident. About the time that we changed the way we deal with the mentally ill, we started to see these type of things happening. In our rush to be fair and just and give everyone a chance at being normal, as well as cutbacks and knee jerk reactionary to abuses in the care of the mentally ill we have lost our way, there are parents out there crying for help. Please read this article and then post what you think... http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother
I feel this might be a more sensible path to persue then more restrictions and rules on firearms. People who commit these atrocities don't care about laws or restrictions, they will still find a way to arm themselves, but they will be guaranteed more victims as those of us that do abide by the law will be more appealing as victims.
Kyle, I read that article as well. Moving. We clearly need to do more for the mentally ill. That said, I am a sportsman that would support a ban on assault weapons.
I don't see the point in owning an automatic assault weapon. It's intended to do one thing.....kill. And kill fast. Weapons of war have no place in a civilized society.
It is paramount that we react from the standpoint of logic and not emotion. Some of our most repressive and unnecessary legislation is borne out of knee jerk reactions to tragedy.
The linked article is a good "step back and take a deep breath before legislating" take on recent events.
Bud, you make a fair and arguable point about the necessity of a citizen owning a weapon that is designed as such. However, we must consider the root causes of their abuse, not their use. The highest legal speed limit in the US is 75 mph, yet 100% of cars manufactured past and present can exceed that, often by twofold. We know that excessive speed contributes to fatalities but we don't restrict top speeds in our cars to that of our legal speed limits. More people die each year due to accidental poisonings than by guns. How do we better regulate chemicals around us? Do we ban all drain openers since it only takes a little effort to unclog a drain manually and no one has died by plunger? Do we go back to prohibition simply because of the number of alcohol related deaths each year?(more than guns).
Balancing safety and liberty is a finer line as time goes on but the solution must logical and not political.
First of all, what the media and some government types are calling assault weapons are in reality NOT true assault weapons.
It is already illegal to own a fully automatic weapon in the United States and has been since the 1930's
Assault style weapons are semi automatic, no different than a semi automatic shotgun or hunting rifle, you pull the trigger once, you get one shot. That is NOT automatic which is hold the trigger down and it keeps shooting until you release it.
I was truly touched when a father of a student killed at Columbine was asked that question during an interview this weekend, his response was.
" Over the years I have been asked this everytime something like this happens, my answer is NO, an emphatic NO, rather than restrict the legality of semi automatic weapons, we should be spending our money analysing why the Mental Illness seems to be more prevalent in our younger people now than it was before, and addressing that issue"
While the incident that precipitated this is horrid, and I myself found tears in my eyes when I first watche dthe news reports, reactive legislation is every bit as dangerous as any firearm, they both share a common bond, in the hands of everyday people they are both just fine, in the hands of a loonatic, they are both weapons against freedom.
There have also been loonatics and there always will be, if this kid didn't have access to an AR15, he very well could have done the same damage wiyth a pump shotgun, or a coke botttle filled with gasoline and glass chards or driving over people at a crosswalk. The true issue is why our youth has become so desensitized to death and violence.
Have you ever seen a 30 round magazine for a pump shotgun? Just curious, because I haven't.
Just some random thoughts.
First, they are not 'auto'. They are semi auto, needing the trigger to be pulled each and every time you fire.
States and cities with restrictive gun control laws also have high gun crime rates, so more restrictions will not work.
While not to same extent as the US, countries like England, Australia, and Norway have had shootings similar to this and they have very restrictive gun laws.
Switzerland, one of the most heavily armed countries in the world, has a low crime rate. So does Israel (not counting the arab terrorist)
I do not favor banning a type of gun or the restrictions some states like NY place on pistol ownership, but I have no real problem with restricting the size of clips.
If we agree that drugs and alcohol kills as many people each year as guns, and you also believe drugs should be legal, then guns should be legal.
Mark, with regard to owning fully automatic weapons, I believe you are mistaken. The National Firearms Act did not make it illegal to own fully automatic weapons. It did impose very strict regulations upon the ownership of those weapons though.
This country has millions of guns and millions of gun owners. One person committed a heinous crime with a gun while millions of other guns and gun owners went about their daily business and didn't hurt anyone.
As tragic as the events were at Sandy Hook, lets put things into perspective about people dying violent deaths. In 2011, 32,367 people died in car crashes. If that's divided by 365.26 days, that's 88 to 89 people per day dying a violent death in a car crash. I don't hear anyone proposing laws to ban certain vehicles.
I have to say I'm not surprised by the general tenre of the discussion here.
Frankly, I'd be absolutely in favor of a ban on these types of weapons. There is no place for this type of weapon in society. They are for one purpose and one purpose only as was so tragically demonstrated this past weekend.
Having said that and knowing that when the dust settles and the NRA comes out of their shell (where have they been this weekend by the way??) that the pressure will be applied to members of congress against the bills that are going to be proposed and it's even money whether such a bill passes or not.
How about this as a solution however? How about a law that makes clips that hold larger than 5 rounds illegal? If these firearms are truly used for "sporting" purposes, do you really need more rounds than that? Most hunting rifles that I'm aware of hold roughly that number of rounds.
I did a quick Google search this AM for "100 round magazine for Bushmaster" and the second link was a website where I can buy exactly that for $234. I'd love for someone to try to tell me that makes sense.
A Ruger 10-22 is a semi auto rifle that can look like a tradional Rifle but you can but kits that make it look like a assault rifle so should it be banned? The looks of the weapon wont change what it does.
Remember when some wanted to ban SUV's because they were 'dangerous' in a car crash? The other driver was at risk because the SUV was bigger.
Dave, what obligation does the NRA have to issue any kind of statement this weekend? The NRA represents law abiding citizens who choose to legally own firearms. No law abiding citizen who chose to legally own a firearm killed anybody this weekend.
We have been drugging our kids for a long time. The kids that are not treated properly, there are alot, are vacant inside. They have no idea who or what they are. They are devoid of life. We have been over or under dosing these kids for along time as well. To high, heres something to bring little Johnny down. We have become a society of pill poppers. If we ban anything it should for the mentaly challenged not have access to BUY a gun. The mother was a prepper that recieved 240,000 yr in alimony. These were her guns. These weapons should have been secured in a safe and away from the EYES of her son with aspergers. Reports are going to show that his disabling Aspergers led to high anxiety, and the high anxiety led to one form or another of Schizophrenia or such. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THIS KID SHOULD HAVE HAD ACCESS TO A SLING SHOT, let alone a bushmaster .223.
Here is a question: Why is it easier in this country to buy an assault rifle with a zillion rounds of ammo than to get help for your mentally ill relative?
The NRA has respectfully kept silent is what I think. Anti gun groups have jumped on the the soapboxes to use this incident as ammo for their viewpoint. I find that kind of vulgar and ghoulish of them, at least a few days should be given in respect to the victims. Especially in this case.
Let talk about how we get these types of people nailed down and in treatment. The article posted is an excellent example of one of these types of monsters in the making. Even his own mother is torn between her mothering instinct and the intellectual knowledge that within her son are the seeds of a possible disaster like the one we had on Friday. The last part of the letter is a perfect example of why these things are happening...not because of of guns but because of this...
"""When I asked my son's social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. "If he's back in the system, they'll create a paper trail," he said. "That's the only way you're ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you've got charges."
I don't believe my son belongs in jail. The chaotic environment exacerbates Michael's sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn't deal with the underlying pathology. But it seems like the United States is using prison as the solution of choice for mentally ill people. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and it continues to rise—in fact, the rate of inmate mental illness is five times greater (56 percent) than in the non-incarcerated population.
With state-run treatment centers and hospitals shuttered, prison is now the last resort for the mentally ill—Rikers Island, the LA County Jail and Cook County Jail in Illinois housed the nation's largest treatment centers in 2011.
No one wants to send a 13-year-old genius who loves Harry Potter and his snuggle animal collection to jail. But our society, with its stigma on mental illness and its broken healthcare system, does not provide us with other options. Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A kindergarten classroom. And we wring our hands and say, "Something must be done."
I agree that something must be done. It's time for a meaningful, nation-wide conversation about mental health. That's the only way our nation can ever truly heal."""
With Obamacare coming into the picture this state of mental health treatment is gonna get even worse. Why should we wait for these people to reach the point that they explode and make victims of one or one hundred people. In this lady's story she is really in a hard place, there is documentation of problems and violence, but if she was to use the discipline we think should be used on children like this she would go to jail then this volitile kid would be placed in a system that would excaserbate is mental state. We need people to focus the energy they apply to getting guns restricted and banned to this problem instead. Because even if anti gun legislation get passed...it really a false sense of security all you have done is disarmed law abiding and good people, leaving them open to become victims to those who dont care to follow such laws. I agree limiting clips would be a good restrictive act, but how many 5 round clips for any weapon could a person put into a duffelbag or backpack (worn in the front) and still have enough ammo to kill a large number of people? Hammers can kill, knives can kill, cars can kill, even a hockey stick, or a baseball bat can kill. Are we gonna start regulating those if they become the weapons of choice after guns arent available anymore?
True assault weapons should be banned. However, many weapons most people think of as assault weapons do not really fall into that category.
As for the idea that the NRA is being "respectful" in their silence... HA! They're doing what any immature 4-year-old child does after realizing they've been bad - run off and hide in the corner hoping nobody notices.
That, Julie is the question that should be asked.
My assumption is that those who are anti-gun and those who are pro-guns donate way more money to political campaigns for candidates who pander to their viewpoint, than mental-health patients or their families. Just a guess.
You may be able to refer a son or daughter to mental health, and get them treatment. But what if they are over 18 and refuse? Who is going to force them into treatment? And if they agree to go and it is determined they may be a danger, will we allow confidentiality to be broken without being sued?
Will the courts allow the present system of civil confinement to be streamlined? Right now it is very difficult to keep sex offenders who are being released from prison and who have been determined by psychiatric staff to still be dangerous, kept in mental institutions.
What safeguards against malicious referrals will there be and what penalties will there be for them?
Tim, I'm not an NRA member. What did the NRA do that was so bad they need to run off and hide? Maybe they find this debate at this time distasteful and disrespectful. Like Kyle does and I do too.
The federal government goes around and arms half the world with weapons alot worst then what was used in this case..This was a semiautomatic rifle.Not an automatic.which is an assault weapon...This person who committed this massacre at that school was mentally ill...Can't blame the guns used .It was a mentally sick person.....Our own government in the Fast and Furious operations provided weapons alot worst to the public which were used to kill a FTA agent....So before Obama starts his rant on guns he should also start with the government programs he promotes.....
SPOT THE FREAK ON MARK!!!!!!!!!!
Josh Constine, a writer for Techcrunch, theorizes that the NRA took down its Facebook page because "pro- and anti-gun citizens likely would have gone to war on its wall," adding that "discussions could have taken an ugly turn, with those on either side leaving inappropriate posts and comments."
In other words, they wanted to protect the world from douchebag arguments which is a sign of respect for the victims and their families.
Don't forget Obama claimed "Executive Privilege" so we can not find out the truth about that program.
the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, it's about the People protecting themselves from a tyrannical government. The government uses much more than assault weapons.
A 30 round magazine is not the issue Jason, a desensitized society and the errandt belief that banning an AR 15 will somehow some way prevent a nutburger from a killing spree.
Troubled souls like that will find away to effect the damage they feel so compelled to to do.
And while 30 round magazines are not available for shotguns, what difference would it have made if he fired off 8 shots into that classroom from a shotgun, 15 from a barreta or what ever, a sick individual killed 20 5 & 6 year olds using three different weapons... three shot guns @ 8 rounds each and the total is the same.
Just as deadly and just as insane
In my opinion this topic could have waited until after the families have buried their loved ones.
Jack tell that to all the politicians who couldn't wait to push their agenda on the gun issue....The left couldn't wait one day to start the issue of banning guns...
Mark, I agree 100%.
With over 20,000 pieces of legislation written for gun control throughout the country, why waste any more time and effort passing useless laws, people kill, not guns.
The homicides committed by Adam Lanza, a mentally ill (evil) man were a planned and choreographed act of immoral depravity. It was a gun free zone; the deranged mass murdering coward was safe from harm.
As a father of three, 23, 29 and 31 years of age, two sons and a daughter; I can only imagine what the parents are going through and my prayers are with them. I hugged mine the next morning after returning from a double shift.
That being said now is the time to think with our minds rather than with our emotions.
Some food for thought and then one link:
There are 129 million privately owned firearms in the United States according to the September, 1997 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. No doubt the number has grown.
There are an estimated 65 million handguns in private legal circulation in the United States. (FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 9/1997) Again, no doubt the number has grown.
The fastest growing group of gun owners is now women.
Firearms are used defensively roughly 2.5 million times per year, more than four times as many as criminal uses. This amounts to 2,575 lives protected for every life lost to a gun through illegal criminal use.
Motor-vehicle accidents, drowning, suffocation, and fires each kill more children under the age of fifteen than do firearms.
Less than one handgun in 6,500 is ever used in a homicide.
Gun crimes are at their lowest in the liberal carry states and highest in the most restrictive.
Citizens protect themselves and others with firearms like AR-15 Rifles and semi-auto handguns such as used illegally by Adam Lanza after he shot his mother in the head.
The NRA Magazine prints a page in their monthly magazine called “The Armed Citizen”. They publish articles taken from newspapers; mostly from the liberal carry states, seldom if ever from New York City, Chicago or Washington DC.
Gun Free Zones are honored by all except the likes of Adam Lanza.
Also in the news from Friday:
China stabbing spree hurts 22 schoolchildren
"No motive was given for the stabbings, which echo a string of similar assaults against schoolchildren in 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50. The most recent such attack took place in August, when a knife-wielding man broke into a middle school in the southern city of Nanchang and stabbed two students before fleeing.
Most of the attackers have been mentally disturbed men involved in personal disputes or unable to adjust to the rapid pace of social change in China, underscoring grave weaknesses in the antiquated Chinese medical system's ability to diagnose and treat psychiatric illness.
In one of the worst incidents, a man described as an unemployed, middle-aged doctor killed eight children with a knife in March 2010 to vent his anger over a thwarted romantic relationship."
The problem is not gun control. Why is this constantly an issue? I can put my gun (rifle, handgun, grenade launcher, etc...) on any table and give it numerous orders to shoot to kill and it will not. The issue is not weapons; it is the moral fabric of today's society. Like I mention before, our society is being desensitized by violence on TV, video games and music. Blaming a gun for the death of people is like blaming the fork and spoon for making people fat or banning alcohol because, people decide to drink and drive. What happen to personal responsibility? Instead of owning up to what we do wrong, we find blame with others or objects. How about the media STOP glorifying the active shooter( and mauling victim’s to get their feelings about what had happen to them. I am so; sicken by the media’s coverage of the Connecticut incident. The media add false statements into the story. Most of the things broadcasted by the media the first day were not facts but, fictions. How do you think these families feel you f-ing morons? I 100% positive they are not happy!
Guns are a tool for those who kill others. If, they do not have a gun they have other methods for killing people. IEDs or chemical weapons can be made and made cheaply. Anyone can look up the recipes online. This kid’s mom should have secured her guns properly. Those who view guns as the issue, you are clueless about the real contributing factors. Who teaches our children right from wrong? Most families have two working parents. Schools are not allowed to discipline our children because; it’s child abuse or ruins their self-esteem (BS). I bet half of those who asked for gun control probably have children who play Modern Warfare, Battlefield or other violent games and have no real issue with it. It’s just a game. Cyber-bullying is a real threat too and can cause an individual to harm themselves or others.
When will people wake up and realize that, our society’s lack of morals is the cause for such tragedies? Parent’s can’t punish children properly because, of nonsense (aka BS) reasoning. A time out has no effect on today’s children because; of today’s technology that keeps them entertained.
Guns Do Not Kill People; People Kill People!
Mr Ricmond, I can only pray to GOD that, I do not have to feel what those parents in Connecticut went through. I hope you will no as well as any parent. The coward took himself out and now people want answers. We all can only assume but, safe to say this individual had no true morals. He was probably withdrawn from society as well. His family values are questionable as well.
Mortal Kombat, Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty.....all violent, graphic and realistic video games. No kid should be allowed to play these games, as it does desensitize them from real violence and depravity.
I also believe our 24/7 news channels glorify these sick people. If I see that gaunt, evil gaze one more time, I'm going to scream. Stop making these killers celebrities. It need not be a platform for them.
And I'm still curious....why are these weapons neccessary outside of a war zone? Why? Six bullets in a revolver seems to me to be sufficient deterence to almost any situation. Why clips with 12, 15 rounds? I am not anti-gun, though I don't own one. I feel if someone wants to protect themselves from some perceived evil, they should be allowed. Self preservation is a natural right. But these semi automatic weapons are pure overkill. There is no reason to have one except that you can. If I am wrtong, please, someone explain why they are neccessary.
Poll is a virtual tie as of 11:00. If national polls show the same, it will be business as usual, no further discussion necessary. We'll just wait until the next Sandy Hook, and then we'll tell everyone how much we care, tell the families we're behind them all the way. We're sorry for your lose, but we are not going to do anything about it....after all, it wasn't MY family.
Hello Bud, I use assault rifles in time of peace and fire them often to keep myself proficient with them so, if there is ever a time of need to use such. Some like to target shoot and to others a handgun does not have the range of a rifle. Granted I am a little curious about why this woman would have such an inventory of such weapons. This whole family sounds strange but, that is my opinion. Part of the reason the United States has not been invade is because, our public is well armed. For example, the movie Red Dawn is unrealistic (Yes it is just a movie but, the concept is not plausible). There would be more than a handful of armed citizens to attempt to repel an invasion. Not only is our public well armed but, well trained in many cases.
Also, the AR-15 you can buy at a sport store here in New York does not have the same features as the ones I use in the military. Close but, they are semi only. Some states down south have different laws though.
Just 1 quick thought: Citizens of our United States of America have had firearms since its inception. I've never read anything about mass murder using a firearm until recent years.
It would seem to me that guns are NOT the common denominator here - society is. Or should I say the breakdown of society.
I'll tell you what, i will consider any legistration for gun control or more restrictions on guns, if and only if, the left ENDS partial birth abortion and stop using any federal funds for abortions around the world. With nearly 1.2million abortions per year in the US alone, we would do more to save lives with that little piece than any new gun laws.
It seems the mother liked to target shoot and regularly went to shooting ranges (replay to #40). Recently, women have been a major buyer of firearms.
Bud has a point. If you want to restrict guns, then restrict violent media. Maybe you need to register your copy of Grand Theft Auto and only own 5 games at a time?
And of course, you could not support drugs being legalized, right? You either have freedom or you don't. You do not get to pick this freedom or that one
Fixed it. Mr. Schlichter's points are pretty hard to argue with.
As was demonstrated yesterday in San Antonio (an off-duty deputy shot and killed an armed gunman at a movie theatre that was looking for revenge from a relationship gone bad).
I was born in the state of Nevada in the sixties. Seeing someone walking around the city (Reno - with about 500,000 people at the time, so it was a bigger city) with a pistol or revolver strapped to their hip was something you didn't notice, because you saw it three-dozen times every day. My elementary-school principal was one of them. What I CAN tell you is that whenever I saw him walk into my classroom with iron on his hip, it gave me a BIG sense of security. At least a quarter of the others had weapons, but they didn't all open-carry. (We all knew the janitor also had a gun hidden in his cart.)
My point is this:
We almost NEVER heard about gun-violence... When you did, it was some out-of-towner who didn't usually get very far. The criminals and crazies were TERRIFIED, because they knew that every other person was ARMED...
So, ultimately, if you want this problem to be severely limited, you need to get the guns INTO the hands of people, not take them away.
As to "assault-weapons"... The 2nd Amendment was NOT written so we could hunt, target-shoot, and/or protect our homes from petty criminals. The REAL reason is so that "We the People" would be able to take our government BACK from tyrants. If you look at the arms the 'government' has, you will see that the people are already out-gunned, but the wisdom of the founders has left us with the potential of a 'standing-citizen army' of over a hundred million armed individuals, and even the tanks and planes won't overcome that advantage, especially as so many police and military are NOT going to follow the coming orders to shoot American Citizens, and the People will have their own heavy arms soon after the attempted takeover comes. (The U.N. wrings it's hands every day over the difficulty of disarming the Americans, who really ARE the LAST bastion of true Freedom! Once we go down, they can eliminate "the little people" at will, and that really is the goal, as they believe that there are already way to many 'resource-consumers'.)
There is NOTHING but TRUTH in the old saying: "If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns." (and they are easier for a government to hunt down...) So, do your own thinking, as they haven't made it illegal YET, but you will have to break through the brainwashing you have been subjected to through the media and educators with the agenda...
Ok John R., sorry but, I am not sure where you were going with this comment. However, where did you get your information that women are major buyers of firearms recently. I know very few women that own personal guns both in and out of the military world.
John S. I liked your comment. It also proves my theory on the breakdown of our society. I remember while I was stationed in Montana you could open carry. It only makes sense to open carry. It is a deterrent. If, someone is going to attack they will attack the softest target before going after the one who can fight back.
With Obama in his second term and with over half the country not happy with him, it stands to reason why Obama would want gun control. Obama to me is not an American, he stands for his own agenda and greed, as most politicians do. That is obvious with the issues are country and the world are having.
I got that information for news items that women have been major buyers of handguns. And I do know 3 that have bought them in the past few years compared to only one guy I know who bought one.
If you are really that interested, maybe you could stop by some gun shops and ask them if the news items are accurate. But the days of thinking only males shoot guns is long over.
Hello John R., what news item? I know 17 handguns, 3 assault rifles, 2 shotguns and 7 high power rifles purchase in the last three years and all but two handgun was purchased by men. My friend Valerie in Arizona purchase a .32 caliber handgun and my friend Roy in Oklahoma purchased .380 caliber for his wife. It is like a survey and depends where and who you ask. So, the news item you use is not factual for all the USA. When I go to the gun ranges I would see primarily male shooters and most of the females I did see were law enforcement and qualifying with their agency.
As far as stopping by a gun shop it could be yes for one and no for others. To say the major of gun buyers are women recently may be true to some areas and not others.
One last thing John R. I am not saying there is not a larger amount of women purchasing guns. However, I can't recall any law enforcement females, military females or even civilian female friends that own one or even several high power and assault rifles. Even your comments have not shown me a woman who purchased an assault rifle. Handguns yes but, assault rifles are questionable.
The issue is not if the news reports are totally accurate or not. I brought up the reports because it seemed you wondered why this nut's mother had the guns. Turns out she liked to shoot and liked to shoot a .223, at a range. And why not? That was her business.
Yeah, I wonder why this woman needs so, many guns. I also wonder why she would allow her son to fire these weapons when she knew of his mental health issue. Yes, I understand women buy guns but, not usually the amount she had in her possession. If, you check your report again let me know what the percentage of the guns purchase by a woman are, i.e. pistol, shotgun, rifle, assault rifle etc... Thank you and Merry Christmas.