C’mon, it’s time for gun control
And don’t say that it won’t make a difference because crazies will always be able to get a gun. We’re not going to eliminate gun deaths, any more than we have eliminated auto accidents. But if we could reduce gun deaths by one-third, that would be 10,000 lives saved annually…
The tragedy isn’t one school shooting, it’s the unceasing toll across our country. More Americans die in gun homicides and suicides in six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terrorist attack and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
So what can we do? A starting point would be to limit gun purchases to one a month, to curb gun traffickers. Likewise, we should restrict the sale of high-capacity magazines so that a shooter can’t kill as many people without reloading.
We should impose a universal background check for gun buyers, even with private sales. Let’s make serial numbers more difficult to erase, and back California in its effort to require that new handguns imprint a microstamp on each shell so that it can be traced back to a particular gun.
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 Next »
Fine, turn in your guns, plant a “Gun Free Zone” sign in your yard and come talk to me in six months.
LincolntheHun on December 17, 2012 at 4:34 PM
How about we ban the progressive-collectivist policies that have destroyed cities, families, responsibility and morality.
forest on December 17, 2012 at 4:35 PM
Go to he11 you little Marxist ba$tard.
SWalker on December 17, 2012 at 4:36 PM
Yes and a huge tax on guns and $1 per cartridge tax on ammo! Between this and the tax on legal pot we will solve the financial crisis overnight! It’s like liberal Christmas or something.
Rocks on December 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM
It’s time for media control. One editorial per month limit, waiting lists before you can publish your story, etc. Fools.
SirGawain on December 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM
And these will reduce gun deaths by 1/3rd? Shoot, why not 2/3 or 3/3? I mean if you are gonna pull a unrealistic number out of your butt…go big.
HumpBot Salvation on December 17, 2012 at 4:38 PM
The amount of guns in the hands of private citizens in the country is one major reason we’ve never been invaded.
portlandon on December 17, 2012 at 4:38 PM
It’s time for tyrant control.
Capp on December 17, 2012 at 4:39 PM
It’s like he has no idea that Connecticut actually has among the strictest gun laws in the nation.
JeremiahJohnson on December 17, 2012 at 4:39 PM
Yes, why not. I mean it’s fine that soon it will cost you 20K just for basic transportation. A couple thousand to own a gun isn’t too much to ask. It’s Liberal Christmas!!!!!
Rocks on December 17, 2012 at 4:39 PM
A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example…that legislator…who would deprive men of the use of fire for the fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned…laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent…It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons. Cesare Beccaria 1764
Tripwhipper on December 17, 2012 at 4:40 PM
This always amuses me. Because 12 deaths would have been better than 27. /s
ThePrez on December 17, 2012 at 4:41 PM
It’s going to get really interesting if Obama manages to replace a couple of Supreme Court justices over the next four years.
I hope all the Republicans who stayed home during the last election are looking forward to the new gun-free America. Hey, Romney was the same as Obama, right?
Django on December 17, 2012 at 4:44 PM
Absolutely. Because it’s hard to hit your target if you don’t have control of your gun.
Oh, you mean gun bans. No thank you.
Guns can be traced even with serial numbers erased. The metal below the serial # is deformed, you can pick up the serial number that way.
rbj on December 17, 2012 at 4:44 PM
No mass shootings, how about mass killings, did they stop? Murder and suicide rate with firearms dropped 40% but did the overall murder and suicide rate drop?
If the answer to both is No than all you accomplished was to make it harder and more expensive for a lawful person to own a gun.
Rocks on December 17, 2012 at 4:44 PM
It always amazes me how liberals are so concerned about people dying yet they discount the hundreds of thousands of babies slaughtered each year.
darwin on December 17, 2012 at 4:44 PM
We can’t stop 20% of drivers from driving without insurance.
But we expect to plug a needle in a haystack gun possession miss?
tomg51 on December 17, 2012 at 4:45 PM
[ThePrez on December 17, 2012 at 4:41 PM]
Heck, you’ll still get 27 dead, and more guns carried by the killer.
Dusty on December 17, 2012 at 4:46 PM
lets outlaw swimming pools …
more kids die in drowning then from guns.
lets outlaw buckets while we are at it …
more kids die in buckets also …
conservative tarheel on December 17, 2012 at 4:46 PM
Where did he pull this BS stat from? There are under 10,000 gun related homicides annually.
JannyMae on December 17, 2012 at 4:47 PM
Not one of these laws would have prevented Newtown. It’s so painful how stupid liberals are.
2lbsTest on December 17, 2012 at 4:48 PM
WTF??? How exactly would that have stopped what just happened?
Liberals scare me more than any nutcase. These people will kill you with their “good intentions”.
More people have died under the tyrannical hands of liberals than anything else.
darwin on December 17, 2012 at 4:49 PM
This would have had ZERO impact on the recent school killings.
Lets have a contest. I’m willing to bet my life that I could drop a magazine and slap another one in in less time then it took to type that sentence. Heck I could fire a full magazine, reload and fire another one in less time.
Good idea. I know if I was ever planning a shooting rampage I would seriously reconsider it if the serial number on the gun was hard to erase.
This has been proven time and again to be useless and the science on this is far more settled than the crap AGW that liberals believe in.
I never listen to Rush but one day a few months ago the radio was tuned to a station with him and he said, I paraphrase. “These people are to stupid to understand how truly stupid they are.”
For some reason that pops into my head every time I read a liberal gushing forth their reasonable solutions.
Frank Enstine on December 17, 2012 at 4:51 PM
love it when the writer takes the best argument against gun control and simply makes it seem like its not worth discussing.
the problem is that it won’t make a difference because the crazies will always be able to geta gun and the more you make the population defenseless the more incentive you give to the crazies to get the gun. This is the argument. the writer doesn’t even address this argument he simply wants to gloss over it change the subject because he can’t debate this point. It’s the central theme of for why people against gun control are against it. Sure if you take away this argument then all the rest resonable. but you can’t take away the argument because it is 100% you disarm the lawful population and the unlawful population are the only ones with the guns. the police took almost 15 minutes to get to the school in that time almost 30 people were dead. The police can’t be everywhere and i wouldn’t want to life in a country where the police were.
Im an adult I can protect myself and my family now. Because of liberal gun control laws those adults in that school could not. The writer wants everyone to be like those little kids in the school defenseless when the crazy guy comes a calling.
unseen on December 17, 2012 at 4:52 PM
By golly he is a rich white male at that. Darn, I never noticed. Thanks for cluing me in.
Frank Enstine on December 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM
LOL. He’s right. Ever heard of car-free zones?
Oh wait, felons can drive cars. Nothing prevents someone from driving without a license, or registration, or without insurance, or while intoxicated, or with an open container, while on the phone or texting ….
Moron.
Dusty on December 17, 2012 at 4:56 PM
Following his reasoning, we should require people to wear body armor and helmets because, like seat belts, they will save lives.
DAT60A3 on December 17, 2012 at 4:57 PM
Hey, Romney was the same as Obama, right?
Django on December 17, 2012 at 4:44 PM
Not really, Obama hasn’t yet passed an Assault Weapons Ban and Romney has.
“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” – Mitt Romney
sharrukin on December 17, 2012 at 4:58 PM
Is there a material objection to these regulations? I know it’s touchy, but I really want to avoid the name calling and vitriol; I would just like to know what material objections, if any, conservatives might have to these proposals.
ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 5:00 PM
I think Romney would have introduced an “Assault Weapons” ban along with a ban on large magazines.
Rocks on December 17, 2012 at 5:00 PM
Meanwhile at a school in Israel.
http://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/israleiteacher.jpg
sharrukin on December 17, 2012 at 5:00 PM
Those policies, and even more progressive ones, are in place all over the world. Yet the statistics still show us as an outlier. Why?
ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 5:01 PM
That’s the new carp the grabbers are pulling. They talk about gun deaths, instead of murders. Gun deaths include suicides, accidents, and self-defense justifiable shootings, which total about 31,000/year.
juliesa on December 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM
one of Romney’s advisors have already called for gun control idiot. the difference if romney would have been elected is he would have given cover to the GOP in Dc to pass the gun control they want to pass but are too afraid because of voter backlash. Screw the liberal Mitt. He w ould have been worse than Obama during this time.
unseen on December 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM
So very false. The one, and only, reason is the same reason we are so rich and powerful now in the first place: geography and empire.
ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM
Yeah, besides invading the privacy of law abiding people and jacking up the cost … exactly how would they prevent anything?
darwin on December 17, 2012 at 5:04 PM
C’mon, it’s time for gun control
Hmmmm, I’m able to “control my gun” quite fine Nicky
So Step Off, em effer.
ToddPA on December 17, 2012 at 5:04 PM
They will reduce freedoms while increasing costs for law abiding people who wish to own guns while accomplishing little if anything in preventing the type of mass shooting which sparked the so called need for these laws.
When it comes to limiting freedoms it’s the government’s job to justify it, not the individual’s job to explain why he wants those freedoms.
Rocks on December 17, 2012 at 5:04 PM
yes to all of them. they do nothing but make people feel good about themselves. the crimnal doesn’t care about any of these laws.
unseen on December 17, 2012 at 5:04 PM
ROFL. You really don’t know anything do you?
unseen on December 17, 2012 at 5:05 PM
Dusty on December 17, 2012 at 5:06 PM
Some of those policies work in small, homogeneous, cohesive boutique countries. The US is not in that category. And those boutique countries can only exist with an umbrella of security provided by us.
juliesa on December 17, 2012 at 5:06 PM
Y’know, you’re right. There is absolutely no difference between Romney and Obama and there would be no difference re Supreme Court selections.
GO F–K YOURSELF.
Django on December 17, 2012 at 5:07 PM
Actually it was a real concern of the Axis powers in WWII
Irritable Pundit on December 17, 2012 at 5:09 PM
.
Yea I guess the White House spontaneously caught fire back in 1812.
.
Not sure why Tony Blair apologized for it.
.
Pancho Villa was just takeing a ride, same with Santa Anna.
.
Mexico was never tempted in WWI and no Germans ever landed in WWII.
.
No Japaneese soldier ever stepped onto the Aleutian Isles.
.
Nope none of that ever happened.
LincolntheHun on December 17, 2012 at 5:10 PM
These guys all have a different starting point don’t they?
MikeA on December 17, 2012 at 5:12 PM
worth repeating …
Lost in Jersey on December 17, 2012 at 5:12 PM
So this is essentially a cost issue. If it could be demonstrated that the aforementioned policies brought the gun death rate down in a statistically significant manner, would you oppose them?
So what is the problem, and how would a conservative address it?
Another notch for, “it will make our hobby more expensive”
So, aside from the theoretical (it is against our god given right to bear arms), this the only real objection is that it might make gun ownership more expensive. Seeing as reasonable people can disagree over whether or not there is a god and whether or not that god endowed us with any rights whatsoever, let alone the right to a gun, I’m having trouble understanding why the aforementioned policies should be avoided at all costs. What if they could demonstrably lower the gun death rate? Even only the accidental one, which in America numbers in the hundreds. Is it really so hard to stomach?
ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 5:12 PM
Bullshit!
Fazman on December 17, 2012 at 5:13 PM
So we’re clear: gun ownership prevented none of those incidents.
ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 5:13 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »