Six ways to stop gun madness
First, it should prohibit the manufacture and sale of the military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips that have been used in too many mass shootings, including in Newtown. The previous ban on assault weapons expired in 2004. While President George W. Bush supported reinstating it, Congress never acted. The time has plainly come. Banning these weapons and ammunition does not mean there will never be another mass shooting. But these weapons were designed for mass killing, not hunting or self-defense. They do not belong in our communities.
Second, the president’s legislative package should fix the broken background check system. Currently, nearly half of all gun sales in the U.S. are conducted without a background check. Criminals, the mentally ill, minors and domestic abusers are all prohibited from purchasing guns, but they all can do so as easily as attending a gun show or going online. The check takes only a few seconds, and it doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights. That’s why polls show that more than 80% of gun owners support a change in law to require background checks for all gun sales.
Fixing the background check system also requires the federal government to compel states to submit all necessary records on felons, domestic abusers, the seriously mentally ill and others to the background check system.
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: « Previous 1 2 3
Agreed but I would add only to someone who was already unsure of their own actions though, and at that point one could argue its more a cry for attention than anything else (in the same vein as an attempted suicide.)
The guy in CT would not have been deterred by anything like that, hearing the way he went about it leads me to think nothing was going to stop him besides 3 in the chest and 1 in the head
Gatsu on December 19, 2012 at 3:05 PM
Well at least the liberal Democrats take the same type of approach on most if not all other problems.
They think that an “asssult gun” ban will stop nut jobs from killing.
They think that a “CO2″ ban will cool the earth down.
Any old bull shit solution will do if it gets one more step done in the destruction of the U.S. Constitution and total power for commie Democrats.
It is we who are to blame by the fact we do not get out and vote when the votes count up.
Personal Responsibilty falls on U.S. all.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 19, 2012 at 3:06 PM
The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy tightens its imperial grip on society and the criminologists scatter in fear?
sharrukin on December 19, 2012 at 3:06 PM
Um, you don’t need a comprehensive study.
The crime data is already there and has been published by the FBI for years now. Crime has been steadily trending down since the expiration of the AWB, meaning it had no effect at all. This is also in concert with an increase in states changing their gun laws to shall-issue CCW, along with an overall increase in the number of guns/gun owners in the US.
There, I just saved the federal government tens of thousands of dollars on a useless study.
JohnTant on December 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM
Why can’t you answer the question:
Please explain how the term Assault Weapon wouldn’t presumably be applied to everything that could be used as a Weapon that could be used to Assault someone?
Example – there was show on the Tele last night that has self defense instruction showing a woman how to use a Lollipop as a Weapon to Assault someone attacking her.
So just to extend this out to show the sheer absurdity of the term – are we now to Ban Lollipops as Assault Weapons?
Galt2009 on December 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM
Lets look at all the false facts contained herein and then discuss.
Fistly, 100% of all legal gun sales are conducted with a background check. It is quite disingenuous to lump all illegal gun sales/transfers in with legal sales and then draw a conclusion affecting laws regarding legal guns from one already illegal.
Secondly, one cannot legally purchase at a gun show without going through a back-ground check and via a licensed FFL dealer. To say otherwise is just a lie. There is no gun show loop-hole. If someone illegally purchases a gun, then that is already addressed in the law. Having more laws doesn’t make it harder to illegally purchase a gun it just makes it harder to legally purchase one.
Thirdly, one cannot buy a gun on-line. One can order a gun and pay for a gun, but that gun must be delivered via an FFL dealer with appropriate background checks.
Lastly, the VT shooter broke no law in acquiring a firearm. What this statement is trying to say is that the current laws are broken when in fact they are not. There is no Law requiring someone to be deemed irresponsibly dangerous before they actually commit some act defining themselves as dangerous.
And in every single mass killing of the last 50 years, the killers had numerous means to achieve their evil objectives. Guns being just one of their murderous options.
In the end, banning guns will never stop mass killing events. The killers will simply find or devise some other method.
Lawrence on December 19, 2012 at 3:09 PM
The first step to stopping GUN MADNESS is to ban liberals from American politics.
Pork-Chop on December 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM
Background checks and anti-trafficking laws would have prevented Newtown how? I’m asking because if all these laws liberals want to pass wouldn’t have prevented Newtown then what exactly is your goal in passing these laws?
It’s certainly not for preventing mass murder. What is it?
2lbsTest on December 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM
This.
I wish I could tell you how many people at the office think its just as easy as going to http://www.buyanAK47online.com.com and getting a gun.
Makes me scream.
Gatsu on December 19, 2012 at 3:13 PM
The only gun show/gun store effective and well used “loop-hole” to date was/possibly “is” Obama’s ATF “Fast and Furious” gun running operations.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 19, 2012 at 3:13 PM
OK, you want strenuous objection? He wants to outlaw private sales and put all firearms transfers under the aegis of the federal government. His end game is to allow the feds to deny whatever sale they want, directly contra to the stated goals and aims of the 2A.
Strenuous enough?
JohnTant on December 19, 2012 at 3:13 PM
I don’t think you understand.
The problem with a gun ban IS the deterrent factor. Banning both drugs and guns deters their use.
Here’s the issue, though. It deters their use by law abiding people.
The problem with a “gun ban” is that it will not deter the use of guns by those who are determined to do evil. It WILL deter the use of guns by those who wish to protect themselves and their families.
This makes gun bans EVIL per se and also cause a net increase in crime as criminals are unchecked by the law (otherwise they would not be criminals, no?) and the law abiding are at their mercy.
The results of which we are already seeing in Britain as, for example, criminals have no fear of breaking into occupied homes, unlike the US.
makattak on December 19, 2012 at 3:14 PM
… they deter killers from attacking gun-friendly zones and focus killer’s attentions on soft-target zones where bans are in place.
Lawrence on December 19, 2012 at 3:14 PM
Yeah, not a real link. If that needed to be said.
Gatsu on December 19, 2012 at 3:14 PM
unearned ernesto is/will be a many post circle jerk-off
let it masterbate alone
APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 19, 2012 at 3:16 PM
Six reasons why nanny Bloomy is wrong.
AH_C on December 19, 2012 at 3:17 PM
We are close to a compromise…:)
(1) You can’t drink and drive…so I would suspect you won’t be allowed to drink and carry. Not sure the law would help very much.
(2) How about this I will accept the comprehensive national background database and enforcement, IF you can assure me there will be no more attempts to ban semi-automatic weapons in the future. That assurance would be in the form of a modification of 2nd amendment stating with clarity that all Americans, who have not committed a felony and are not mentally disabled or impaired (permanent or temporary), shall have a right own all firearms, including all semi-automatic firearms, with the exception of fully automatic firearms which shall be regulated by the government. The right to ammunition for all firearms shall not be infringed on by government. Or something like that…
You have to understand I am not convinced by promises. I understand a constitutional amendment takes sometime, but it is clear the founding fathers were not clear enough for some “modern” Americans….so we need some clarity for the 21st century.
Don’t get me wrong, I love our constitution, however it is increasingly clear that both sides (yes even my side, although the progressives are beyond the worst of all at this) plays loose with the 18th century terminology. It is playing a major part of the massive divisions we see in the country which I fear if not fixed will drive this country into revolution, disunion and civil war.
William Eaton on December 19, 2012 at 3:17 PM
Six ways to stop gun madness?
Here’s one way any of what you suggest will happen. Show that any of those things would have prevented even one death in Newtown and we can talk about it. Just one, not 10 or 20, just one.
There is nothing being suggested which would have saved one life in Newtown.
Background check? His mother passed them. Her son stole the guns from her. He could do the same no matter how strict the check.
Assault weapons? The guy was carrying 2 pistols which would have killed at the close range he was shooting as effectively as any assault rifle and as rapidly. Most mass killings are done with handguns as they are easier to conceal.
Large capacity magazines? The killer used 30 round capacity magazines and reloaded 3 times. 90 bullets to kill 27 people. He could have easily have done the same reloading each of his 2 pistols 3 times resulted in 60 shots with 10 round magazines.
Rocks on December 19, 2012 at 3:18 PM
Not going to be able to sum it up much better than that I’m afraid…
Law breakers do not care about the law. That’s why they break it, and a mentally unhinged person is not going to care about the law either, crazy is crazy for a reason…
Gatsu on December 19, 2012 at 3:18 PM
That’s because it’s .net and there you can buy them as easy as ordering an e-book for your Kindle.
Bishop on December 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM
Because we talking about banning more legal guns, with zero impact on illegal ones. It is illegal guns being used in crimes that have everyone’s panties in a bunch, yet the only solution we have is to ban more legal guns? The logic doesn’t track, and the hypocrisy is obvious.
And what other type of ban are we talking about that is so effective that we must model that in context of guns?
Drug bans? No, those don’t really work.
Banning drunks from driving? No, they still find themselves a way to do that.
Underage drinking bans? Those don’t work either.
Laws against illegal immigration? Shoot, we encourage the breaking of those bans.
Help me out with a viable example.
Lawrence on December 19, 2012 at 3:20 PM
Dude you are like that extra dram of scotch to chase the blues away.
Gatsu on December 19, 2012 at 3:21 PM
Perhaps ernesto is under the utterly false idea that criminals obey the law..
Galt2009 on December 19, 2012 at 3:24 PM
First for a reasoned dabate simple things like, reason, the willingness to deal with common sense solutions and to not have this other of lust for power agenda as with the current democrat party.
Therefore it is like spitting in the wind with the wind in your face.
Cutting deals that get our freedom and liberty cut short are not deals worth even the time of day.
Hold the line now.
Enough.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 19, 2012 at 3:25 PM
Good luck getting a response. Liberals are deathly afraid of logic because they don’t know how to use it.
I had the same problem on a couple of the gun threads here on HG yesterday with ernesto’s fellow New Yorker sesquipedalian, who proudly posted a story from Chicago about how many crime-scene guns had been purchased at a single gun store.
But later in his linked story, the article quoted Chicago gang members as saying they also stole weapons from parked railway freight cars in a Chicago rail yard.
When I repeatedly asked sesqui if railroad freight cars and railroad yards should also be banned, I curiously got no response.
Del Dolemonte on December 19, 2012 at 3:26 PM
Your asking for a compromise on a false argument.
Most bars don’t allow guns in them and can ban guns on premises if they want, CCW or not. So there won’t be a magical increase in bar shoot outs simply because more people start carrying weapons.
There may be an increase in security screening at the entrance to the bars to disallow guns inside, but most places with potential gun problems already do that.
You make some good arguments, but they are straw-man arguments, and nay conclusions based on these arguments is worth no more than the straw upon which they are built.
Lawrence on December 19, 2012 at 3:26 PM
And those Big Gulps…they are deadly and should be banned…
Should we be listening to someone who actually had this instituted..?
d1carter on December 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM
As you know, this all mental-gymnastics attempting to justify the continual erosion of personal freedoms. Place more power and control in the hands of government bureaucrats.
Bottom line, nothing with regard to true safety is achieved here. It is all about the power to tell other people what to do.
Lawrence on December 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM
ernesto
Facts for you.
With a question.
How many of the people who died in the Russian “gulags” died of gun shot wounds?
http://en.wikipedia/org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago
Had the Russian people had guns to protect themselves how many less deaths would you think would have been prevented?
Just a small (well not so small) example.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 19, 2012 at 3:33 PM
God you libs are such dishonest swine. Have you ever attempted to purchase a firearm? I’m guessing no. To legally purchase a firearm you MUST fill out a long form that then goes to the FBI in order to determine if you fit into one of 9 criminal categories. If you fit in to anyone of those you’re DENIED! If you purchase one over the Internet it MUST be shipped to a licensed FFL dealer where again, you must fill out the long form and go through the background check. Same with gun shows and even in most states if you want to transfer an owned gun to a friend or family member it must be done at a licensed FFL dealer where a all previous rules mentioned are applied. The only people who don’t follow these rules are criminals. More laws DO NOT DETER CRIMINALS.
You libs have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to guns. That’s why your only arguments consist of lies and demagoguery. Facts matter not to tyrants when they have an agenda to push and are constrained by the Constitution. Thank GOD he gave the founders enough wisdoms to see this day coming.
jawkneemusic on December 19, 2012 at 3:34 PM
Not to mention how many Jews might survived the Nazi oppression had they still had their right to defend themselves.
jawkneemusic on December 19, 2012 at 3:36 PM
New Yorker, that explains a few things..
They can’t answer the question because they know that there is no definite description of said phrase and thus it could mean just about anything.
It’s like if someone wanted to ban Possession properties – the words are so closely related that the phrase could mean any property you could possess and thus the danger to Liberty.
Galt2009 on December 19, 2012 at 3:41 PM
It is a sad state of affairs.
In order to protect ourselves, our families, the Constitution, we will also protect these fools of the loon liberal left.
The duty of we “sheep dogs” is what it is.
In fact these ones, these small minded usefull fools who vote in power mad people such as Obama would be the first to be consumed by the power mad elite of the commie Democrats.
They will I am sure never understand even enough to say thank you once we rescue them and our freedoms.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 19, 2012 at 3:43 PM
All deterrent policies like everything we do in life has positive and negative effects. We choose to have deterrent policies if those positive effects out weight the negatives in a free country.
For example with prohibition it created a massive rise in crime, including murder, across America. Organize crime gained lots of money and thus lots of power, which it used to corrupt public institutions and Americans in general. It destroyed whole communities as well. Did it produce some good, yes, but clearly the negatives won out. Therefore it was done away with.
The same goes with our war on drugs. For some drugs the deterrent policy might be worth, for some it is not.
In the case of firearms, it is clear that in order to secure a free country for the future, it is important to have an armed population. History is loaded with examples of how the power resides with those who have the weapons. In Europe for example, it has mostly (although not always) been governments that had the weapons, and the civilian population or commoners had none, or nothing sufficient as a check to government. This led to some of the most horrific governments humanity has ever seen and has led to body counts that make the murder rates in America (with a gun or not) look like nothing.
So of course most Americans don’t want guns falling into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill, in fact most Americans don’t want criminals either, but any deterrent has to take into account that order to secure a free people, the law abiding and mentally sane population have the right to be armed.
William Eaton on December 19, 2012 at 3:44 PM
It comes down to a risk / reward ratio. If a drug user is caught with a banned substance, odds are he or she will go to jail. Only addicts find that an acceptable risk. With guns, most armed criminal activity is already committed by someone with an illegal gun. And in most prosecutions, if ever, the gun aspect is dropped (even though it’s the easiest to prove) to get a plea deal to the other offense. To that criminal, the risk is acceptable.
When you reverse it, decriminalizing or legalizing drug use will not depress their use as users won’t care who around them has drugs and who doesn’t. While an increase in CCW, will depress armed crime due to criminals not knowing who has a weapon who could possibly kill them. The risk / reward for that situation results with a depressed number of armed offenses.
Mitoch55 on December 19, 2012 at 3:44 PM
Well, if Bloomers wants to cut down on the madness quotient, he should just resign, STFU and go away.
Marxism is for dummies on December 19, 2012 at 3:55 PM
Six ways to stop gun madness? How about six pulls of the trigger when said madman shows up to do grievous harm?
One correction on the “gun show loophole”, though: you *can* “evade” a background check by making a non-commercial purchase from an individual, rather than from someone who engages in the sale of firearms as a business. And, that is as it should be.
GWB on December 19, 2012 at 4:04 PM
This is not true. It depends upon state laws. In Maine, for example, where I live, if you, as a private citizen, own a firearm you can legally sell it to anyone of appropriate age in a cash transaction. It’s considered a used item no different than a tractor or snow blower. Maine requires no permits or registrations to purchase a weapon. The only time a background check is done and the firearm registered, is when you purchase through an FFL holder.
Age limits in Maine are 16 years of age for rifles and shotguns, and 21 for handguns. You may openly carry weapons, and Maine is a “Shall Issue” state for concealed weapon permits.
Just thought I should point this out. These rules vary widely from, state to state but the one constant is that the MOST draconian and restrictive laws will be found in those states run by democrats.
V/R
TKindred on December 19, 2012 at 4:11 PM
and those states will tend to have the highest CRIMES COMITTED BY GUNS
unseen on December 19, 2012 at 4:14 PM
RIGHT ON!!!
Let’s ban crazy people and those who cannot relate to logic from public office, and we’ll be rid of the whole subject.
…and the Democrat Party as well!!
landlines on December 19, 2012 at 4:17 PM
Because Bloomberg is a liar, and because Obama is a liar. And because if you try to push this ‘no background check at gun shows’ crap, you’re a liar as well. I’ve bought firearms from a gun show on two different occasions, and each time I had to wait for my background check to go through before they would sell them to me. Furthermore, when I purchased my handgun through a gun show, I had to wait several days after I passed the background check before I could pick it up, and it had to be transferred from the seller to a local FFL gun dealer just so that I could pick it up after I’d already owned it for a week.
So, ernesto, I’m perfectly willing to have an open and HONEST discussion about gun control. Are you?
James on December 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM
Would they have stopped the shooting in CT?
ddrintn on December 19, 2012 at 4:36 PM
^ That is to say, I thought the anti-gun laws in CT were already rather stringent.
ddrintn on December 19, 2012 at 4:36 PM
It’s pretty much settled that the term “assault rifle” was coined by Adolf Hitler himself. Shouldn’t someone ask the Mayor if he’s really comfortable promoting an Hitlerian term? Maybe suggest a certain softness towards antisemitism?
Fight fire with fire, after all.
PersonFromPorlock on December 19, 2012 at 4:38 PM
If only we had a single way to stop Bloomberg madness and libturd absurdity.
stukinIL4now on December 19, 2012 at 9:18 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3