Jay Carney: Gun control is part of the solution but far from all of it

posted at 4:11 pm on December 17, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite. Carney usually looks uncomfortable to the point of constipation but I’m still surprised to see him so ill at ease and noncommittal in talking about this. Obama has the political wind at his back. Per ABC, 54 percent of adults now say they favor stricter gun-control laws, which is a bit higher (but only a bit) than polls have shown over the past five years. Longtime pro-gun Democrats like Harry Reid, Joe Manchin, and Mark Warner are chattering about a change of heart, no doubt in part because they’re afraid to cross a guy who just won 330+ electoral votes at a moment of high national emotion. If ever there was a time to pound the podium, this is it.

So why the conspicuous hedge? Probably because the White House knows that the public backlash to guns after mass shootings, at least until now, has been fleeting. O’s afraid to dive headfirst into the gun-control pool until he’s sure there’s some water in there. (That’s what all the “tipping point”/”this time is different” rhetoric from liberals was about this weekend.) But if even pro-gun Dems are giving him political cover, what does he have to lose by pushing the issue as hard as he can and daring Senate Republicans to filibuster whatever emerges? All that’s left of the Hopenchange brand is the idea that the GOP is scary and evil and loves rich people and dead children. That message got this guy re-elected; no sense to give up on it now. At the very least, if he can force a party-line vote in which Republicans filibuster a Democratic gun-control bill banning, say, high-capacity magazines, he might make enough GOP senators uncomfortable about being boxed in on that issue that they’ll try to compromise on other issues that are more important to him. If he’s lucky, depending upon how restrained the eventual Democratic bill is, he might even attract enough Republicans to get to 60. Murkowski can usually be counted on to cross the GOP in a pinch; Collins is a perennial wild card too. Those two, plus the increased number of Democrats in the next Congress will get him close if he can hold the Democratic caucus together. A new assault-weapons ban like Feinstein is proposing may be a bridge too far for Reid, Manchin, et al., but something more modest might be viable. Then, if it gets through, the House will torpedo it and Obama can get back to his scary-evil-Republican messaging, which might earn him an extra concession or two on immigration or the budget or whatever.

Incidentally, a data point from that ABC poll linked above:

You see now why the Journal thinks high-capacity magazines are a likely starting point for a new gun-control bill. Look at the other two results, though. Adults overwhelmingly oppose a total ban on guns but they marginally support a ban on semiautomatics, even though semiautomatics make up the vast, vast majority of guns. Per Tim Carney’s post this morning, talking about “semiautomatic weapons” is like talking about “gasoline cars.” That’s how common they are. If the public opposes those and yet also opposes a blanket prohibition on guns, it’s likely because some chunk of them is confused about what a “semiautomatic” actually is and does. Which is another way of saying that when you read opinion polls on this topic, take the results with a grain or two of salt.

Exit question: Jeff Greenfield argues that the immediate aftermath of a horrendous attack is precisely the right time to start a policy debate over solutions. Okay, but does that logic apply to acts of terrorism too? I know people on both the left and right who think that creating TSA and passing the Patriot Act in a flurry of Do-Something concern after 9/11 proved to be a panicky, ill-considered response to the attack that hasn’t done much to improve safety. Second look at the Do-Something approach, then?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

How many guns do you need?

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 4:57 PM

It doesn’t matter how many I “need”.

What matters is how many I WANT.

And, as far as I can see, the Second Amendment doesn’t put a numerical limit on them.

How many violent video games do you or anyone need?

How many violent, murder-aggrandizing rap videos do you or anyone need?

How many violent, hate and racism-filled movies do you or anyone need?

Inbreds like you should be put in a home and monitored carefully.

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 5:53 PM

When it comes to guns and violence, the right throws up its hands and says nothing can be done.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 4:55 PM

In your sad Lost World, the only movies and TV shows glorifying gun violence are made by Republicans like Clint Eastwood. Democrats have never made such films or TV shows, even though they dominate Hollywood and the TV industry 99:1.

Likewise, all music advocating offing people with guns is composed, sung and recorded by White folks who voted for Mitt Romney. Democrat voters have never produced such material.

Z———-

Del Dolemonte on December 17, 2012 at 5:53 PM

” bye bye to high capacity clips…and bulk ammo buying/storing.”

ROFL

Bishop on December 17, 2012 at 5:54 PM

The only thing that will be accomplished by any of the gun control measures being proposed is that it will give even more of an advantage to bad actors who have no regard for the law to begin with. More laws will not stop criminals from being criminals — nor will they stop the deranged from being deranged.

Measures limiting gun capacity, certain types of weapons, and restricting access to responsible, law-abiding citizens will certainly make it far easier for another massacre such as this to occur. Someone bent on destruction will find ways to circumvent the law, and the fact that these proposals make it more likely that a bad actor will meet little or no effective resistance is obvious to anyone looking past their knee-jerk emotions.

This response is understandable, given the ability of human emotions to overcome rational thought processes, but it is not the right response.

If our culture didn’t devalue life and responsibility, there would be far fewer of these incidents. Gun control is a cop-out.

hillbillyjim on December 17, 2012 at 5:54 PM

sharrukin on December 17, 2012 at 5:44 PM

You missed the point, it seems.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Sure, man. Whatever.
Ok…um…
Hey! You’re so dumb you tried to drown a fish.
Your turn.
(And you’ll be getting the last word.)

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 5:54 PM

It’s fun to destroy

typical gun nut.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 5:54 PM

typical gun nut.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 5:54 PM

^^^ typical communist

darwin on December 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM

It doesn’t matter how many I “need”.

What matters is how many I WANT.

Gimme gimme gimme. More guns for me. Less safety for you. How socially responsible of you.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM

When it comes to guns and violence, the right throws up its hands and says nothing can be done. I guess dead kindergartners are the price we all pay for your freedom to own a weapon of mass destruction. Hope you can sleep at night.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 4:55 PM

I’m fine with it. I’ll gladly sacrifice the occasional 20 schoolkids to ensure Americans keep their constitutional protections. I live in Detroit where little black kids are killed by the truckload annually. The only difference here is its a bunch of little white kids, and the msm is making its usual “Oh the horror” to-do about it. Libs don’t care about the piles of little dead black kids though… they can’t vote yet.

Guns make society safer. Plain and simple fact. What you’re advocating for is more dead kindergartners.

spinach.chin on December 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Sorry, but the threat to public safety of widespread access to “semi autos” is too great. Maybe you can make do with an old fashioned 22. How many guns do you need?

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 4:57 PM

.22 rifles.

.22 pistols.

I’m just curious, but do you want to be laughed at? Because I can’t figure out any other reason for why you would so easily make a colossal fool of yourself by demonstrating such monstrous ignorance about everything firearms related.

NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM

So the culture of violence is among democrat voters…

Actually not.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Wow, I’m impressed. Citing a Democrat Associate Professor of Sociology means what you claim must be true!

A+

Del Dolemonte on December 17, 2012 at 5:56 PM

So why the conspicuous hedge?

A new assault-weapons ban like Feinstein is proposing may be a bridge too far for Reid, Manchin, et al., but something more modest might be viable.

What looks like hedging might be nothing more than trying to control the debate, trying to stay under the passionate demands for the losing position and letting everyone know the White House is aiming for a lower target.

Also, if the minions are wailing for mass confiscation, requiring a little more paperwork starts to look pretty reasonable. Carney, and the White House, is now postured like a little nervous girl in a room full of shouting men, saying something reasonable (only because it’s against a background of bloody mindedness). And how can we not listen?

I nominate this, “The Politics of ‘Aw.’”

Axe on December 17, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Gimme gimme gimme. More guns for me. Less safety for you. How socially responsible of you.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Why is it everything the left does or proposes takes more rights away from people?

darwin on December 17, 2012 at 5:57 PM

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 5:38 PM

A semi-auto handgun inflicts as much damage at close range as a semi-auto “assault weapon”.

It’s illogical.

darwin on December 17, 2012 at 5:50 PM

It’s just a term that could apply to anything since it has no meaning.

An “Assault weapons” ban could be a ban on every weapon that could be used for assault – and that could be anything the oppressives choose it to be.

Galt2009 on December 17, 2012 at 5:57 PM

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 5:49 PM

So you’re using a meaningless term and expect to take you seriously?

Galt2009 on December 17, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Says you.
But your semantics are just a dodge and a deflection.

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 5:57 PM

verbsoutofbalance,

On being poor and living on a ranch is west Texas.

At 10 it was my job to make sure the very large and agressive coyote packs did not kill and eat a large portion of the new crop of calves each year.

Both my grandfather and grandmother trained me from around 6 or 7 years old to be safe, knowlegable, and very very good at this.

Good because we where poor decandents of non reservation apache,
so grand dad only allowed one .22 long rifle cartridge to each dead coyote.

So the answer is “if common sense and personal responsibility are allowed as in the past” a first grader with a gun could have done the job, and long range if needed.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 17, 2012 at 5:58 PM

we’d be better served as a nation profiling angry white gun nuts like you.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Translated: “Non-White people do not own guns.”

Breathtakingly stupid.

Del Dolemonte on December 17, 2012 at 5:58 PM

courageous teachers

I thought you lot hated teachers?

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 5:06 PM

See what happens when a mental deficient like you tries to think?

You’re wrong. Always dead wrong.

All you do is demonstrate your stupidity and hate for all to see.

Just go FOAD.

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 5:58 PM

OK, problem is solved. The gun laws pass. All guns are melted and used to make incubators for premature infants. Now two thugs with two baseball bats kick in your door. Oh, look, you have a baseball bat too! Feel safe?

Limerick on December 17, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Second, I have shot just about every fully automatic weapon the military has. I have never found a need for that function, except at first contact as point man or at an out we were taking. I used to carry the old M-60 in my first platoon. I thought that “Patriot Vet” would imply my prior service.
Patriot Vet on December 17, 2012 at 5:45 PM

I figured prior service easy enough, just not clear what kind.
I know some vets who have never handled guns before, in or after the military and really don’t know much about guns.
I just felt a need to correct the statement that “all guns are semi auto”.

dentarthurdent on December 17, 2012 at 5:59 PM

spinach.chin on December 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM

NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Please stop quoting the trolls – they want you spread their pungent brand of Bull Spew – don’t them the satisfaction.

Galt2009 on December 17, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I guess dead kindergartners are the price we all pay for your freedom to own a weapon of mass destruction. Hope you can sleep at night.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 4:55 PM

You know, you come across as a fanatic and a lunatic. How do YOU sleep at night?

zoyclem on December 17, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Gimme gimme gimme. More guns for me. Less safety for you. How socially responsible of you.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Less guns is not always more safe, for you or for anybody else.

rightmind on December 17, 2012 at 6:01 PM

I’ll stop, the temptation was too stronk.

rightmind on December 17, 2012 at 6:02 PM

what do Muslims have to do with school shootings you freak?

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Ruh-roh. Sounds like someone struck a nerve there.

You don’t like it when someone ties your islamofascist pals to murder?

Did we hurt your poor feeeelinnns?

God.

FOAD.

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 6:02 PM

I guess dead kindergartners babies are the price we all pay for your freedom to own a weapon support an organization of mass destruction. Hope you can sleep at night.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Fixed.

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 6:03 PM

It’s just a term that could apply to anything since it has no meaning.

An “Assault weapons” ban could be a ban on every weapon that could be used for assault – and that could be anything the oppressives choose it to be.

Galt2009 on December 17, 2012 at 5:57 PM

You can run with that, but fact is there was an ‘Assault Weapons’ ban in place until 2004. It offered up defining criteria. It was imperfect. And in some cases there were ways around it.
Expect this time for the term to develop a little more meaning.

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 6:03 PM

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 5:57 PM

So Says Merriam Webster:

Definition of WEAPON
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weapon

1: something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
2: a means of contending against another

Examples of WEAPON

Assault with a deadly weapon

If a term can apply to anything imaginable, it’s meaningless.

You really like losing arguments don’t you?

Galt2009 on December 17, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Darn! The power is out. I dialed 911 and got a busy signal. Those two thugs better be ready to meet me with my baseball bat! Come on, make my day, punks!

Limerick on December 17, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Like I said, not playing.
It’s an imperfect term…sensible idea.
But why don’t you pause for a minute and consider the CT kid leaving the house with his Mom’s hunting rifle instead.
With your firearms knowledge, care to to suppose the day playing out at all differently?

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 5:49 PM

In other words, you really don’t know what you are talking about, do you?

I’ll bet you can’t even define “hunting rifle” , because with a modern hunting rifle, nothing would have turned out any differently.

AZfederalist on December 17, 2012 at 6:04 PM

I find it extremely ironic that the same stupid liberals who try to convince people that not all Muslims are terrorists are now trying to convince people that all gun owners are criminals.

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Thread Winner.

Del Dolemonte on December 17, 2012 at 6:04 PM

You can run with that, but fact is there was an ‘Assault Weapons’ ban in place until 2004. It offered up defining criteria. It was imperfect. And in some cases there were ways around it.
Expect this time for the term to develop a little more meaning.

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 6:03 PM

2011 – SIX YEARS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN EXPIRED: New Report: U.S. Homicide Rate Falls to Lowest Rate in Four Decades

This week, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced that in 2010 the U.S. homicide rate fell to 4.2 homicides per 100,000 residents, the lowest U.S. homicide rate in four decades.

Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Thread Winner.

Del Dolemonte on December 17, 2012 at 6:04 PM

I don’t think I’ve ever won before.

Do I get a key to Bishop’s bunker?

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 6:07 PM

When it comes to guns and violence, the right throws up its hands and says nothing can be done.

Liar. 20,000 gun laws on the books already, by the way.

I guess dead kindergartners are the price we all pay for your freedom to own a weapon of mass destruction.

Speaking of WMDs, 5,000 later term abortions every year, and you’re responsible for every one of them. How does it feel to be a mass murderer, murderer?

Hope you can sleep at night.

lostmotherland

With rabid morons like you on the loose, no one sleeps well at night.

xblade on December 17, 2012 at 6:08 PM

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 6:03 PM

The words are closely related.

Example: Travel vehicle

I find it extremely ironic that the same stupid liberals who try to convince people that not all Muslims are terrorists are now trying to convince people that all gun owners are criminals.

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 5:15 PM

That’s another one.

Galt2009 on December 17, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Do I get a key to Bishop’s bunker?

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Don’t even try to take my bunk! I paid plenty!

Limerick on December 17, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Do I get a key to Bishop’s bunker?

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 6:07 PM

:)

But seriously — you don’t wanna go in there, man.

Axe on December 17, 2012 at 6:09 PM

If a term can apply to anything imaginable, it’s meaningless.

You really like losing arguments don’t you?

Galt2009 on December 17, 2012 at 6:03 PM

I do enjoy a good argument.
And this just isn’t one. You have this one card to play here and it’s an ineffective one.
If you were being intellectually honest, you’d offer that even if a specific and detailed meaning could be given to the term ‘assault weapon’, you still would not support the ‘ban’ or any of the various regulations being discussed.
I’m more familiar with guns that you assume. I understand your point.
And I dismiss it.

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 6:09 PM

More guns for me. Less safety for you. How socially responsible of you.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM

So, tell me…how do my guns make you less safe, nancy-boy?

(Other than you wetting your panties at the thought of big, bad guns…and possibly catching cold because you’re too mentally deficient to change your pants.)

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 6:09 PM

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 6:03 PM

I find it extremely ironic that the same stupid liberals who try to convince people that not all Muslims are terrorists are now trying to convince people that all gun owners are criminals.

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 5:15 PM

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here.
I doi not think all gun owners are criminals.

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Please stop quoting the trolls – they want you spread their pungent brand of Bull Spew – don’t them the satisfaction.

Galt2009 on December 17, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Most of them tend to go silent once you make a complete fool of them. Not all, but most.

NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 6:11 PM

ARMED SECURITY at all public schools……..

IF IF IF ……….they REALLY cared about ” the children”.

Greedy Superstate Liars.

PappyD61 on December 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

But seriously — you don’t wanna go in there, man.

Axe on December 17, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Yeah, probably not…

Necessity makes strange bedfellows though.

Deadly serious – if push really came to shove, you guys are on my short list of ‘people to hole up with’.

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

“WMD” presupposes a weapon that’s blind, indiscriminate. You destroy an area with it, either the biosphere or the physical area. A rifle can’t be a WMD by it’s very nature; it’s a projectile weapon that places one projectile on one target.

A person can though.

Axe on December 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

The latest from ThinkOpression:

Jeff Spross / ThinkProgress:
Tea Party Group Blames Connecticut Shooting On Teachers, Unions, And Sex — In a lengthy screed that’s essentially a round-up of every major cultural and policy grievance the American right holds with the rest of the country, author Timothy Birdnow cited concerns about the mental health …

Oh! Heavens to Betsy! Conservative have the temerity to blame cultural rot on the purveyors of cultural rot!

Galt2009 on December 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Also,

Just give a thinking moment to being in a fight to save your wife and family and there are say 5 of the bad guys and the only person who lives on your street to help in any way is verbsoutofbalance.

We are on our on.

Obama just wants our tax money and for U.S. to listen to his wild mutterings on guns and redistribution.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here.
I doi not think all gun owners are criminals.

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 6:11 PM

That was for motherload and not you. That’s why I quoted him in the original post at 5:15.

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 6:14 PM

You can run with that, but fact is there was an ‘Assault Weapons’ ban in place until 2004. It offered up defining criteria. It was imperfect. And in some cases there were ways around it.
Expect this time for the term to develop a little more meaning.

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 6:03 PM

No you moron, it wasn’t imperfect, it was stupid. It basically banned “scary looking black guns” — yep, even with guns, the democrats are racist. There was zero difference in most of those firearms and their “non-assault” counterparts other than the look. High capacity magazines? Meaningless in a situation such at this one. A 10 round vs. 30 round magazine in a room full of small children would be meaningless, the evil madman would just carry more magazines.

Yeah, there were ways around the law, because it really was aimed at the cosmetic looks of the firearms that were banned.

You can’t even define what an assault weapon is, yet you expect there to be more meaning in the next law?

AZfederalist on December 17, 2012 at 6:15 PM

You can run with that, but fact is there was an ‘Assault Weapons’ ban in place until 2004. It offered up defining criteria. It was imperfect. And in some cases there were ways around it.
Expect this time for the term to develop a little more meaning.

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 6:03 PM

“It was imperfect” – and it did absolutely NOTHING to reduce crime.

If you really want to save lives, I suggest we implement an assault vehicle ban – since vehicles kill about 5 times more people per year than guns.
It could be easily defined – any vehicle with 4 or more wheels, a gasoline or diesel powered engine, an assault/killing bar (bumper) on the front, and the metal or plastic surfaces concealed with paint. Ban all of those things and in theory you would save about 38,000 people per year – as compared to banning ALL guns which would, in theory, save about 8000 people per year.

dentarthurdent on December 17, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Let me get this straight. There are 270 million firearms in the U.S., right? Thereabouts anyway. At the evil gun owner extension of that based on this school shooting then shouldn’t 5.6 billion Americans be dead?

Limerick on December 17, 2012 at 6:16 PM

“Hope you sleep at night.”

lostmotherland

Dear lost,

Aborted babies never get the chance to sleep.

Apachwhoknows

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 17, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Just tell liberals the CT shootings were late term abortions….then they would start handing out guns.

The Notorious G.O.P on December 17, 2012 at 6:17 PM

If a term can apply to anything imaginable, it’s meaningless.

You really like losing arguments don’t you?

Galt2009 on December 17, 2012 at 6:03 PM

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Can you comprehend that words form the foundation of political discourse and law?

We’re talking about a term that could have any meaning – and ban of such could ban just about anything.

If the Oppressive-left were intellectually honest, they would specify what they want to deprive the innocent of.

But they don’t – so much for their intellectual honesty.

Galt2009 on December 17, 2012 at 6:18 PM

AWB is signed in 1994.

Murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants:

1994: 9.0
1995: 8.2
1996: 7.4
1997: 6.8
1998: 6.3
1999: 5.7
2000: 5.5
2001: 5.6
2002: 5.6
2003: 5.7
2004: 5.5

AWB expired in 2004.

Murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants:

2005: 5.6
2006: 5.7
2007: 5.6
2008: 5.4
2009: 5.0
2010: 4.8
2011: 4.7

The murder rate peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 inhabitants in 1980.

CCW laws:

In 1986: 1 state was UNRESTRICTED; 8 had SHALL issue;
26 had MAY issue; and 15 had NO issue.

In 1987: 1 UNRESTRICTED; 9 SHALL Issue; 24 MAY Issue; and 16 NO Issue.

In 1990: 1 UNRESTRICTED; 15 SHALL Issue; 20 MAY Issue; and 14 NO Issue.

In 1994: 1 UNRESTRICTED; 20 SHALL Issue; 17 MAY Issue; and 12 NO Issue.

In 1998: 1 UNRESTRICTED; 30 SHALL Issue; 17 MAY Issue; and 7 NO Issue.

In 2002: 1 UNRESTRICTED; 31 SHALL Issue; 11 MAY Issue; and 7 NO Issue.

In 2009: 2 UNRESTRICTED; 37 SHALL Issue; 9 MAY Issue; and 2 NO Issue.

In 2011: 4 UNRESTRICTED; 37 SHALL Issue; 8 MAY Issue; and 1 NO Issue (Illinois’ ban has just been struck down by the Appellate Court).

The murder rate has been falling in correlation to the the increase of CCW. I wonder why???? Hmmmmm….

Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM

dentarthurdent on December 17, 2012 at 6:15 PM

And ban ‘high-capacity’ vehicles like minivans and buses, because in a serious accident many will be killed.

Liam on December 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM

If the Oppressive-left were intellectually honest, they would specify what they want to deprive the innocent of.

But they don’t – so much for their intellectual honesty.

Galt2009 on December 17, 2012 at 6:18 PM

I actually respect the lefties who have the stones to say, out loud, that they advocate removing all guns from Americans.

They at least have the courage of their convictions to state them.

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Austin Gun Store Owner Offers Teachers A Discount
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/austin-gun-store-owner-offers-teachers-a-discount/

AUSTIN (CBSDFW.COM) – An Austin-area gun store owner is joining the gun rights debate with a controversial offer for teachers in light of the tragic shooting in Connecticut.

Crocket Keller of Kellers Riverside Gun Store says if educators want to get a concealed handgun license, he’ll give them a discount.

“As we do with veterans, I would offer them a discount. Our normal rate is $110.00, so I would give them a rate of $90.00,” said Keller to KRLD. “If they are teachers, we would be more than happy to do that.”

Galt2009 on December 17, 2012 at 6:21 PM

ps

The Apache made great use of big old wild grass and brush fires as assault wepons to fight the blue coats.

Better ban matches too.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 17, 2012 at 6:21 PM

I’m more familiar with guns that you assume. I understand your point.

… and yet you don’t mind looking like a total moron when posting your “knowledge” or lack thereof regarding firearms. You just don’t want to show the rest of us up. How noble.

And I dismiss it.

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Yep, that’s what liberals do, when they can’t make a rational, reasoned argument, they reject the rational, reasoned arguments that refute the liberal’s position.

Don’t worry, you are typical of all the brainless libs that troll here.

AZfederalist on December 17, 2012 at 6:22 PM

The Democrats are well aware of what happened to them after they passed the AWB back in 1994. The next election cycle saw them thrown out after 40 years in power.

GarandFan on December 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

f the Oppressive-left were intellectually honest, they would specify what they want to deprive the innocent of.

But they don’t – so much for their intellectual honesty.

Galt2009 on December 17, 2012 at 6:18 PM

I actually respect the lefties who have the stones to say, out loud, that they advocate removing all guns from Americans.

They at least have the courage of their convictions to state them.

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 6:21 PM

I think that’s why they use such terms – one to confuse their Low-information Zombies and to have a law they can use to ban just about every weapon imaginable.

Galt2009 on December 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

I’m more familiar with guns that you assume. I understand your point.
And I dismiss it.

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 6:09 PM

At some point you calling a semi-automatic rifle an assault weapon because it looks ominous is nonsensical.

The same semi-automatic mechanism can be placed in a sports rifle with a wood stock and a scope as well as a rife with a plastic folding stock and pistol grip. The latter modifications do not make is shoot faster nor make the rifle more deadly. It just looks different.

The military defines assault rifles as full-auto, or at least with the three-shot option (not available to the public). Semi-automatic rifles are ubiquitous and any discussion of banning them because they look dangerous is not an argument, anymore than putting a hood scoop on a Civic makes it fast.

STL_Vet on December 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

dentarthurdent on December 17, 2012 at 6:15 PM

And ban ‘high-capacity’ vehicles like minivans and buses, because in a serious accident many will be killed.

Liam on December 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Yes, a ban on high capacity assault vehicles could save a lot of lives.

Galt2009 on December 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

And ban ‘high-capacity’ vehicles like minivans and buses, because in a serious accident many will be killed.

Liam on December 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM

You know, you’ve got something there.

Trains? Ban ‘em!

If only we had banned those big-assed, high-fuel-capacity jets, that 9/11 thing would have been prevented. How “socially-unconscious” can we be?

hillbillyjim on December 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Liberals react the same on AGW as here with guns.

Misinformation, misdirection and at the end, “I dismiss your facts.”

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 17, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Texas here. Two Christmas’ ago I purchased a Ruger 22 semi rifle for my 17 yo grandson in California. Found out he couldn’t take it home. It is an assault weapon and illegal. It sits in my closet, waiting for his next yearly trip to Texas for a knock down some cans experience. Meanwhile his California will allow him to kill his unborn children and wear a Che-was-awesome t-shirt.

Limerick on December 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Which points to the complete and utter idiocy of leftist pundits believing that public opinion in on their side, or that only those crazy red counties want to remain armed. I live in Michigan and it is one of the most liberal states in the nation when it comes to firearms laws. And Michigan, like many other states, practices reciprocity when it comes to out of state CCW holders.

NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

You really like losing arguments don’t you?

Galt2009 on December 17, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Yes, he does. And he’s the type of Troll who will wait until the thread is dead, and post, to try and get the last word in.

kingsjester on December 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

I’m more familiar with guns that you assume.

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 6:09 PM

You’re a horrible liar.

NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM

kingsjester on December 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Well he/she/it will beat me. I’ve got to get up at 3am to pay the rent. Mom and dad never invested in a basement for me. Darn.

Limerick on December 17, 2012 at 6:34 PM

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 5:30 PM

You do realize that you’re an idiot, don’t you?

And quite stupid.

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Limerick on December 17, 2012 at 6:34 PM

I’m up at 5. I hear ya.

kingsjester on December 17, 2012 at 6:37 PM

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Same tired strawmen. Don’t you folk ever get tired of being liars?

besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 5:33 PM

They never tire of it.

It’s all they have.

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 6:38 PM

“Discovery Series ‘American Guns’ Cancelled”

Scumbag libs threaten cast and charactors.
Gawd I hate libs.

O’puke phonyed up his tears and the sheep all cry.

Disgusting

Texyank on December 17, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Was just looking at my NRA card. Maybe next election I’ll use it as proof of identity at the polls.

Limerick on December 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Ban assault weapons and high capacity mags all you want, it won’t stop another of these types of shootings.

It didn’t stop Columbine, it wouldn’t have stopped VT (pistols), it wouldn’t have stopped Loughner, it wouldn’t have stopped someone like Breivik (who used explosives, a hunting rifle, and a pistol), and it wouldn’t have stopped or really changed anything at Sandy Hook, where the killer had 2 pistols with him in addition to the rifle.

Unless your definition of ‘assault weapon’ is so broad that it includes semi-automatic pistols, it’s not going to prevent any of this.

If we move past this without understanding the psychology of how these killers are created and what we can do to stop them, then we have failed utterly.

rightmind on December 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM

I’m more familiar with guns that you assume.

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Watching a full season of CSI or Sons of Anarchy on TV doesn’t make you any more familiar with real guns than watching a NASCAR race makes you an expert driver.

dentarthurdent on December 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Thread Winner.

Del Dolemonte on December 17, 2012 at 6:04 PM

I don’t think I’ve ever won before.

Do I get a key to Bishop’s bunker?

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Actually I also liked this later gem:

motherload

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 6:14 PM

A+++++

Del Dolemonte on December 17, 2012 at 6:40 PM

This Lostmother****** is one of the worst trolls here ever.

the new aesthetic on December 17, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Del Dolemonte on December 17, 2012 at 6:40 PM

I’m glad I could bring some Christmas cheer to your computer.

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Watching a full season of CSI or Sons of Anarchy on TV doesn’t make you any more familiar with real guns than watching a NASCAR race makes you an expert driver.

dentarthurdent on December 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Actually it probably makes him more ignorant, especially CSI. If one believed real life was like CSI, one might think every other crime committed using a firearm involved an automatic weapon. I tried to find any reference data to the number of crimes committed in the US using an automatic weapon, but I can’t find anything.

NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Actually it probably makes him more ignorant, especially CSI. If one believed real life was like CSI, one might think every other crime committed using a firearm involved an automatic weapon. I tried to find any reference data to the number of crimes committed in the US using an automatic weapon, but I can’t find anything.

NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 6:47 PM

I once worked with a guy who actually thought he was automatically an expert skier after reading 2 books about skiing. On our first crew ski trip, I made sure to go to the bowl at the top of Arapaho Basin with him to see firsthand how great he was. I almost fell from laughing so hard watching him slide down the entire slope on his face.

dentarthurdent on December 17, 2012 at 6:52 PM

I have my own story about guns. My parents never had them (as far as I knew) while my siblings and I were growing up.

Then when the man and I married (’75) and I knew he had several, he and I had a conversation about them. Soon after, when I learned we’d become a ‘mom and dad,’ I insisted he teach me about them–their safety, cleaning, storage–and finally, being able to use (and aim) them properly. That’s precisely what he did. Oddly enough, he was extremely surprised at what “a precise shot I was” never having picked up a gun in my life before.

So we raised this guy (who’s now in his mid-30s, with little interest in guns, btw,) without incident.

In the mid-80s, we bought a home next to a town in Jersey that was considered a ‘city with problems’ back then.

Now, 2 1/2 decades later, nearly every night I stir awake at night hearing gunshots. Not long ago, a home a block and a half away was burglarized (with a young girl inside) by someone with a gun.

I can attest that the lessons the man taught me all those years ago (at that time because we had the child on the way) aren’t forgotten. I thank him each and every time I hear those gunshots at night.

I’d like to pose a question to any person posting on this thread who believes more “gun regulation” will solve a damn thing.

If you, or your daughter (or son,) or your wife/husband were that young girl inside the house–and you or they came face-to-face with someone pointing a gun at them, would you be crying out for more “gun regulation?”

I don’t think so. Criminals, gangs, or anyone with a shred in their soul to kill will.

My heart goes to the children and adults and their families who were murdered in Newtown, CT.

My brain says it won’t happen to me. Thank you, husband.

jersey taxpayer on December 17, 2012 at 6:53 PM

You can run with that, but fact is there was an ‘Assault Weapons’ ban in place until 2004. It offered up defining criteria. It was imperfect. And in some cases there were ways around it.
Expect this time for the term to develop a little more meaning.

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 6:03 PM

I’d be interested to hear your explanation of why crime has gone DOWN since the expiration of the “assault weapon” ban.
Are criminals just getting lazier? Can’t be bothered to get off the couch and go rob and kill – or assault?

Could it have anything to do with the expansion of concealed carry laws nation-wide?

What’s your explanation?

And, why was there more crime when the awb was in place?

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 6:56 PM

jersey taxpayer on December 17, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Stay safe.

NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 6:56 PM

A+++++

Del Dolemonte o

STFU Delmonte.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM

If you, or your daughter (or son,) or your wife/husband were that young girl inside the house–and you or they came face-to-face with someone pointing a gun at them, would you be crying out for more “gun regulation?”

jersey taxpayer on December 17, 2012 at 6:53 PM

According to the libtards – you just need to tell that intruder that the gun he has is illegal – and he’s using it illegally.
I’m sure he’ll just put it away and leave peacefully as soon as you point that out to him…/

dentarthurdent on December 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM

A+++++

Del Dolemonte o

STFU Delmonte.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Uh oh Del, I think you made him cry.

NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM

NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Thanks to that wonderful man, and his patience and instruction, I will,

jersey taxpayer on December 17, 2012 at 7:00 PM

I understand your point.
And I dismiss it.

verbaluce on December 17, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Of course you do.

You’re a leftist stooge.

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 7:00 PM

According to the libtards – you just need to tell that intruder that the gun he has is illegal – and he’s using it illegally.
I’m sure he’ll just put it away and leave peacefully as soon as you point that out to him…/

dentarthurdent on December 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Thankfully, that’s yet another thing my husband and I have in common–we avoid liberals, and the ‘gimmedat’ culture.

Sometimes, it’s hell living in a blue state. As long as there are two more parents to care for, we wouldn’t think about leaving their well-being up to “gub’mt.”

jersey taxpayer on December 17, 2012 at 7:03 PM

I just felt a need to correct the statement that “all guns are semi auto”.

dentarthurdent on December 17, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Fair enough. But if you look at the poll, the question isn’t about all guns, it is specifically semiautomatic handguns that a majority think should be banned. That is the majority of pistols.

The gun used in CT was a semiautomatic rifle. Why are they asking about pistols then? It is to merge rifles and pistols together.

Patriot Vet on December 17, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Oh! Heavens to Betsy! Conservative have the temerity to blame cultural rot on the purveyors of cultural rot!

Galt2009 on December 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM

OH!MY!GOD!

Yer gonna wound their psyches if yer not careful.

(And you can’t tell what’ll happen then. Leftists are prone to steal guns and get violent.)

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 7:04 PM

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Awwww. Someone needs a diaper change. Motherload’s got a motherload in his onesie.

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 7:04 PM

STFU Delmonte.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Comrade … are you upset?

darwin on December 17, 2012 at 7:06 PM

The public thinks “semi-automatic” means “automatic”. The press has fanned that flame because most of them don’t know the difference.

But hey, I can go for an updated Peacemaker.

“It’s a complex problem that will require a complex solution.”

Only for simpletons.

MarkT on December 17, 2012 at 7:09 PM

STFU Delmonte.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Since you’re so obviously dismissive of “Delmonte”, perhaps you would answer my earlier question:

“If you, or your daughter (or son,) or your wife/husband were that young girl inside the house–and you or they came face-to-face with someone pointing a gun at them, would you be crying out for more “gun regulation?”

jersey taxpayer on December 17, 2012 at 7:15 PM

The public thinks “semi-automatic” means “automatic”. The press has fanned that flame because most of them don’t know the difference.

MarkT on December 17, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Liberal morons only know what their overlords and the media allow them to know.

In liberal land … guns are sentient beings capable of taking control of some poor persons mind and ordering them to kill people.

darwin on December 17, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4