“I think if we’re going to control guns, we really have to do it massive”
Later in his appearance, Brooks added that, although Friday’s shooting likely won’t change public opinion on gun control in the long run, he favors strict gun control measures.
“These kinds of shootings historically have had no effect on public opinion in the gun debate,” Brooks said. “I think if we’re going to control guns, we really have to do it massive. I think I’m all for getting rid of the assault weapons and machine guns and all that … but if we want to prevent something like this, we have to really think seriously about drastically reducing the number of guns in our society, and particularly — this is an old Patrick Daniel Moynihan idea — the number of bullets. It is very hard to control 300 million guns. The bullets are a little easier to control.”









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 Next »
300 million guns pales in comparison to the 6 BILLION rounds of ammo sold to private citizens the last quarter of 2009 alone.
Of course such legislation would need to wind its way through a lengthy process, meanwhile the sale of powder, primers, cases, and bullets would skyrocket overnight.
Bishop on December 15, 2012 at 9:00 PM
While deep down I’d love for us to be Japan or France on this, I know you guys will never let us. So, how’s about a trade: the country spends more on mental health access, and we just walk away from any gun control that goes above and beyond the rules for driving a car.
Deal?
ernesto on December 15, 2012 at 9:01 PM
Sounds like someone wants to open up a lucrative new revenue stream for the Mexican cartels.
Kataklysmic on December 15, 2012 at 9:01 PM
Machine guns?
Really?
BallisticBob on December 15, 2012 at 9:01 PM
Assault rifles kill about 1/4th the people that fists do each year. Knives kill far more.
Sorry, I don’t have the source handy, but if you’re interested, look for murders with rifles vs murders with fists, and the assault rifles are a subset of the rifle count.
strictnein on December 15, 2012 at 9:01 PM
cripe
cmsinaz on December 15, 2012 at 9:02 PM
Can we please start telling people like Brooks to take a long walk off a short pier and become an official democrat. They are no longer welcome in the Republican party.
txhsmom on December 15, 2012 at 9:02 PM
The UK outlawed just about all gun ownership and gun crime went up 86% over a decades time. But what am I doing? They’re arguing emotion, not logic. Hey, maybe if we outlaw rocks the Palestinian kids will stop trying to kill IDF soldiers.
Boogeyman on December 15, 2012 at 9:03 PM
2nd that
cmsinaz on December 15, 2012 at 9:03 PM
Frum, Brooks, Meggy Mac et al know if they followed their hearts and came out of the closet as Democrats they’d never be heard from again.
Kataklysmic on December 15, 2012 at 9:06 PM
This is a silly argument, as is the whole magazine capacity thing. Would these idiots really be happy if the cray people they insist we leave alone and not make feel bad because they are crazy, only kill 10 people in a shooting instead of 11? That in and of itself is crazy.
MikeA on December 15, 2012 at 9:07 PM
People just keep seeing Japan, where 70 gun deaths creates a national uproar and as recent as 2006 only 2 people died from guns. I’ve not heard a conservative explanation for why we can’t strive to at least come close to that, but so long as the examples exist certain people will ask why we can’t manage to shoot each other at a rate closer to the rest of the big, large, stable democracies.
ernesto on December 15, 2012 at 9:07 PM
DEAL! Oh wait…I know you guys will never let us.
Oh well, can’t say we didn’t try.
Bishop on December 15, 2012 at 9:09 PM
You should take your own advice and get the hell out of our country. May I suggest Japan or France?
jawkneemusic on December 15, 2012 at 9:09 PM
If we’re to use the same “logic”:
Many people have died because of the media’s mishandling of information that they have access to. In order to prevent this, there needs to be strict controls on the media.
Left Coast Right Mind on December 15, 2012 at 9:10 PM
What a great idea!
Might just work as good as Prohibition.
MHatch on December 15, 2012 at 9:10 PM
I can’t believe Brooksie, the faux conservative, thinks he has the chops to call for anything. lol!
Blake on December 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM
Guy in China stabbed 22 kids (aged 6-12) and an old lady yesterday. No fatalities.
Just sayin’.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM
Now if China would only ban knives, school children would not be injured by a lone maniac.
honsy on December 15, 2012 at 9:12 PM
First, you ought to learn how to speak English properly, you wet turd.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 15, 2012 at 9:12 PM
Sorry, Earn. No dice. The right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the constitution. Kind of like the right to have an abortion./////
/SNORTSNORTSNICKERPBBBBBT
gryphon202 on December 15, 2012 at 9:13 PM
We’re thinking the UK, but these things take time.
ernesto on December 15, 2012 at 9:13 PM
Part of the reason the history of both Japan and France has been what it has been is because the common people did not have weapons.
Look at the millions who died and suffering because of that.
As long as there is armed governments on this earth than there must be armed individuals as well.
William Eaton on December 15, 2012 at 9:13 PM
Why don’t you just move there, already, and get out of our hair. We like America being America. You prefer Japan and France, so go.
And don’t call us. We’ll call you …
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 15, 2012 at 9:14 PM
Depends.
By mental health do you mean just line the pockets of Big Pharma more than we already are? Or do you mean real mental health facilities?
ButterflyDragon on December 15, 2012 at 9:15 PM
here’s the difference between a dumb liberal (brooks) and a smart liberal (jeffery goldberg)
so sadly enough Brooks is one Dumb buckaroo….but we already knew that
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-case-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/?single_page=true
r keller on December 15, 2012 at 9:15 PM
And that really means that we all have to live with mentally unstable people getting a hold of force multiplying firepower? There’s zero action that would be acceptable to try and make spree shooting a less common occurrence? Not even only on the mental health side?
ernesto on December 15, 2012 at 9:16 PM
Could it be that a gun in the hands of an individual halted that attack in the mall?
Could it also be that since it didn’t fit the BSM gun grabbing narrative, no one is talking about it?
Galt2009 on December 15, 2012 at 9:16 PM
Exactly.
I have a reloader that will tun me into a billionaire. Heck, my kid could grow up to be president with that type of financial backing.
ButterflyDragon on December 15, 2012 at 9:17 PM
The UK has a higher violent crime rate per capita than the US so good luck with that.
jawkneemusic on December 15, 2012 at 9:18 PM
We’re edging closer, little by little, to the day when the southern and middle sections of the country tell the coasts that they want a divorce.
Mark1971 on December 15, 2012 at 9:18 PM
Show me the qualifications and/or exceptions in the second amendment, and I’ll concede you your point. Oh, wait! There aren’t any!
Bad people will do bad things, Ern. You can’t stop it. It’s human nature. That being the case, it takes a truly warped (read: liberal) mind to think about ways to restrict our ability to protect ourselves.
gryphon202 on December 15, 2012 at 9:18 PM
Who the heck is Patrick Daniel Moynihan?
Ted Torgerson on December 15, 2012 at 9:18 PM
We start by creating the world’s most homogenous society which makes it painfully difficult for non-Japanese to become citizens, a society that goes back a few thousand years with almost no outside racial influences stirring up the demographics.
Then we create a legal system that intrudes into most aspects of the citizens lives, things such as random searches, zero Miranda protections, and court trials without juries.
And finally we try to explain why Japan has a higher murder rate than Britain, Switzerland, and Israel, the latter two nations having more guns per capita than the United States. In fact those two nations also require their citizens to train regularly with their firearms.
Bishop on December 15, 2012 at 9:18 PM
So are you saying that people who have done nothing wrong, who just want to be able to defend themselves should be punished by have that right taken away from them because of the actions of one lunatic?
Are you really saying that?
Galt2009 on December 15, 2012 at 9:19 PM
Will Doomberg and other celebrates give up their armed security and live like us peasants? I think I know the answer.
Dingbat63 on December 15, 2012 at 9:19 PM
The Chinese government also denies their people liberty and freedom and put bullets into the heads of those who ask for freedom.
There as been lots of fatalities who have died due to guns, just not at that school and not by a derange man but a government.
William Eaton on December 15, 2012 at 9:19 PM
No we won’t. Just sayin’.
VegasRick on December 15, 2012 at 9:20 PM
Ern’s liberal. You have to ask?
gryphon202 on December 15, 2012 at 9:21 PM
Sad news – we’re not Japan or any other nation you want to distract the debate onto.
We want to have the ability to defend ourselves.
But perhaps you can explain why these kinds of mass shootings are a recent phenomena?
And perhaps you can explain why they are prevalent in places that effectively have strict gun control?
Galt2009 on December 15, 2012 at 9:24 PM
no one wants crazies to be running around shooting people.. But there are a lot of variables here. Privacy issues in mental health. Civil commitment laws…many, many issues
and, then, guns can be found in many places, if you want to look. I think the CT guy was pretty high functioning.
i read somewhere that the principal had tried to chase him down and tackle him…he shot her. IF she had a gun, it might have been a very different story
r keller on December 15, 2012 at 9:24 PM
Of course in Japan’s relative Utopian society there is a lead lining.
Japan suffers from many double or multiple suicides, called shinju. Suicidal parents often kill their children, at the rate of one per day on average. Why, because their tighter family structure which helps keep crime low inflicts a greater sense of honor on families and parents feel a need to “defend” that honor.
In fact, 17% of all Japanese homicide victims are children murdered by suicidal parents. Yep, Japan has it goin’ on.
Bishop on December 15, 2012 at 9:24 PM
Surprisingly reasonable, this Mr. Goldberg. Still, there is no sensible law that could have saved those children from a woman who kept a small arsenal in her home, if indeed her son was so seriously disturbed that she quit her job to stay home with him.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 15, 2012 at 9:25 PM
Ernesto you’d love this site called gunfacts dot info
CorporatePiggy on December 15, 2012 at 9:26 PM
Sort of amazed by how brilliantly well-done your comment was. Damn.
Robert_Paulson on December 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM
That is not correct. The first 10 amendments, which today we refer to as the bill of rights, but when they were adopted were simply known as the first 10 amendments, are not a charter of rights.
The second amendment does not guarantee you the right to own a gun. It simply prohibits the Federal government from preventing you to. That is because the second amendment only applies to the federal government.
I live in CT and my rights to own a gun (which I do not) are guaranteed by the CT state constitution. It is called federalism.
And in CT we have some of the toughest gun laws. The shooter tried to buy a gun just 1 week ago and was denied. Unfortunately his mother did not secure her guns. Had she lived she would most certainly stand trial.
ReformedDeceptiCon on December 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM
Yes, I believe that is what he wants to do. Of course we could apply his rule to the ownership of a cars, boats, planes, steak knives, gasoline, fertilizer, crossbows,…..
Why aren’t we discussing the banning or at least the heavy regulation of labor unions in light of the event in Michigan last week?
Can it not be said that we won’t be free unless we don’t have to worry about the scourge of union thug violence?
Hey ernesto, do they have labor unions in France?
Galt2009 on December 15, 2012 at 9:31 PM
Well, okay. But fwance is vewy, vewy safe!
*nesto
VegasRick on December 15, 2012 at 9:32 PM
Point taken. I was merely stating that two deranged men went after twenty or so schoolchildren on the same day, and one anihilated all of his targets.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 15, 2012 at 9:33 PM
Wrong, moron. The 2nd amendment clearly reads, “the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say that only the federal government cannot infringe on it (as the 1st amendment talks about Congress) and it doesn’t say that the States have the right to decide. It says the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is a right OF THE PEOPLE. Period.
Learn how to read. THe amendment is written clearly enough that even you should be able to understand it.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 15, 2012 at 9:34 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »