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: 1 2 3 Next »
I’d rather read “Six ways to stop Michael Bloomberg from pontificating on anything”.
Bitter Clinger on December 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM
Is there any serious objection to these provisions?
ernesto on December 19, 2012 at 2:19 PM
Disarming his own security detail one of them?
Dingbat63 on December 19, 2012 at 2:20 PM
So what was this designed for, you turd?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WncsterCatMod97trench.jpg
BTW you keep getting questioned, and refuse to answer, what sort of weapons does your personal security detail carry; I’m guessing NOT Derringers.
Bishop on December 19, 2012 at 2:21 PM
But Mikey, you failed to mention about Fast & Furious, Benghazi or what kills more human life per year than anything.
reddevil on December 19, 2012 at 2:21 PM
Cell phones that only dial 911, of course. I’d have thought you knew that.
platypus on December 19, 2012 at 2:23 PM
I wonder if Bloomie can identify what era these came from.
http://www.cowanauctions.com/itemImages/ww1574.jpg
Bishop on December 19, 2012 at 2:24 PM
He’s lying ( I know, what a shock) about online sales. They have to go through FFLs and background checks just like in the store.
juliesa on December 19, 2012 at 2:24 PM
Yeah. Who exactly does he mean by “others”?
Bitter Clinger on December 19, 2012 at 2:25 PM
#1. Bloomberg retires and shuts up.
WannabeAnglican on December 19, 2012 at 2:25 PM
1. Pass a “madness law” then “enforce that law”. ie
If your mad as a hatter no guns for you.
2. Tape Bloombergs mouth shut.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 19, 2012 at 2:26 PM
Then what is the justification for the ban…..?
JohnTant on December 19, 2012 at 2:27 PM
Don’t most of those provisions already exist?
UltimateBob on December 19, 2012 at 2:27 PM
He obviously means right wing militia members.
ernesto on December 19, 2012 at 2:28 PM
What he’s calling for, I think, is to make those provisions comprehensive. He implies that there are loopholes and opt-outs that are keeping the database incomplete and preventing background checks of every gun purchase.
ernesto on December 19, 2012 at 2:29 PM
Another way to shut the two of them up is to pass a law that prevents the use of the word “I” by Bloomberg or Obama.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM
Huh, I thought he meant outraged liberals who advocate shooting people in the head after a mass-shooting incident.
Bishop on December 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM
Soooo, still no proposals from him that would’ve actually prevented this Newtown attack if they had been in effect. It’s pretty ballsy to use a tragedy this way.
juliesa on December 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM
Yep. Lanza stole the guns. Background checks don’t stop people who steal the guns.
In fact, Lanza tried to buy a gun on his own and the system worked in prohibiting him from buying one.
This is not about Lanza and all about outlawing the private sale of a legal product.
JohnTant on December 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM
That we might lower the number of mass shootings that occur annually? If we could go from averaging more than one a year to less, would that justify it?
ernesto on December 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM
Step 1. Strip Bloomberg of his tax payer funded bodyguards.
Step 2. ?
Step 3 Victory!
Iblis on December 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM
The second amendment isn’t about duck hunting and a shotgun can be used for self defense. The second amendment exists because the founders didn’t trust guys like Bloomberg, Bush, or Obama.
sharrukin on December 19, 2012 at 2:31 PM
The number has held fairly constant even since before the 1994 ban.
When the guy agitating for a ban concedes that it won’t stop what it’s supposed to address, that’s a rather big hit from the cluehammer.
JohnTant on December 19, 2012 at 2:32 PM
You mean other than the fact that it would not have prevented Newtown?
2lbsTest on December 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM
“Bloomberg! Ixnay on the ungunningray! You know…*Fast and Furious*?”
-Bark
Bishop on December 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM
Mike Bloomberg likes to impose his lifestyle choices on everyone else.
Oil Can on December 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM
Not really, but it is the other ones that trouble me. I would be willing to make a deal with gun control folks like you. I will give you those provisions you listed if:
(1) You do not push for a ban semi-automatic weapons no matter what they look like. After all if those provisions you like are so wonderful you don’t have to worry about the more scary looking semi-automatic weapons (the ones that look like military weapons) falling into the hands of bad guys..right?
(2) You side stops trying to prevent honest, law abiding gun owners to be able to carry their weapons concealed or not concealed outside their home.
(3) You agree that schools should have armed security or police. They are prime targets for lunatics, jihadist, and gangs. Lunatics and Jihadist see them as wonderful targets because you can get you name in the news and get lots of attention for attacking a school. Look how much attention this guy got. You have whole round tables of experts discussing him, why he did it, who was he…etc. Schools need to be protected the same way water treatment plants, nuclear power plants, military bases, government building are. They deserve to be protected just like Mayor Bloomberg is.
If you agree to those three we have a deal…:)
William Eaton on December 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM
It’s true, there’s only one policy that would have prevented it: making it illegal for the shooter’s mother to buy any guns in the first place. The shooter was no hardened criminal – teenage white boys from rich families do not travel in the circles that one must to acquire a black market gun.
But aside from that, is there not also a deterrent effect at work? We are constantly told that if drugs were made more readily available then more people will use them. Is that not the same for guns? Is it not true that at some (as yet unquantified) level, gun violence could be affected simply by the ease with which one can acquire a gun? If not, then why make the argument with regards to drugs, which is something most conservatives (especially here) do?
ernesto on December 19, 2012 at 2:34 PM
You might say that it is just feel good legislation. The country is headed for bankruptcy. We have serious foes, such as Iran and North Korea, around the world that are on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. I am sorry that 27 people died in schoolhouse shooting, but there are more important things for our leaders to be doing.
SC.Charlie on December 19, 2012 at 2:34 PM
Bloomberg etal:
Most effective “assualt thing” the Apache had aginst the Blue Coats where the embers of the last camp fire, used to set a brush/grass fire once the Apache got the troops up the correct gulley with the wind high out of the Southwest.
Ban fire too fool.
Ban Fedx trucks too as they could be taken by nut jobs and rammed into the first grade class room and kill 40 at a time.
Dam crazy ass liberals.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 19, 2012 at 2:35 PM
Can we then apply this lens to other laws? If making drugs illegal doesn’t prevent their use, why are they banned?
ernesto on December 19, 2012 at 2:35 PM
Twenty minutes with only one armed man in the building: 28 deaths
How many would have died in those twenty minutes if someone else had a gun?
agmartin on December 19, 2012 at 2:35 PM
Why even link to this mini tyrant?
jawkneemusic on December 19, 2012 at 2:36 PM
A lot would depend on the definitions of what a domestic abuser is, what is ‘serious’ mental illness, etc. Currently being a boy and not paying attention is class is considered to be a disorder (ADD) and I would want clearer definitions before signing on to anything like that.
sharrukin on December 19, 2012 at 2:36 PM
Did Obama inherit four of those six years from Bush?
*facepalm*
Christien on December 19, 2012 at 2:36 PM
The Brady Bill – Assault Weapons Ban – was named for James Brady who was shot by John Hinkly during the assassination attempt on Reagan. He wasn’t even shot by an assault weapon. He was shot by a .22 revolver.
MoreLiberty on December 19, 2012 at 2:38 PM
I particularly enjoyed the part where Bloomberg recommends the Justice Department enforce and prosecute laws that are already on the books.
Xavier on December 19, 2012 at 2:38 PM
And I’m sure Bloomy is including those sold to the HHS, IRS, Dept of Ed. and assorted administrative offices…. right?
The whole point of this gun grab is not to keep people from owning revolvers and shotguns but to keep the government BETTER armed than most Americans.
We need to be equally well armed as our overlords or we can consider ourselves completely defenseless!!
katy on December 19, 2012 at 2:38 PM
Because the right to be a dope head isn’t in the Bill of Rights jacka$$.
jawkneemusic on December 19, 2012 at 2:38 PM
I’d take that deal. I understand the absolutely silliness of blanket semi-auto bans, I’ve no personal objection to concealed carry (though I would put money on it taking big cities some time to get used to bar fights turning into shootouts), and where I live we already have armed peace officers in most schools. In return for a truly comprehensive national background database, and a truly comprehensive policy for enforcing the use of said database with every sale, I do believe we’d have a compromise, sir.
ernesto on December 19, 2012 at 2:39 PM
How would any of those restrictions stopped what just happened?
darwin on December 19, 2012 at 2:39 PM
No kidding. Bloomberg’s #3 and #6…F&F and Benghazi, not necessarily in that order.
Christien on December 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM
Punishing the mother for the sins of the son is kind of fascist, isn’t it….? I seem to recall an underlying principle in our government against corruption of blood.
JohnTant on December 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM
So? We’re not talking about whether or not it’s constitutionally sound, we’re talking about whether it’s logical, given the logical assertions being made about the futility of gun control laws.
ernesto on December 19, 2012 at 2:41 PM
This little guy needs to clean up his own house before he gets on his step-stool.
NYC has very high levels of gun crime relative to the rest of the country. Alas the vast majority of shootings involve people of ethnic minorities who are criminals engaged in criminal activity.
He clearly doesn’t care if minorities kill each other. If he did he’d have stopped the wanton slaughter of innocent civilians and innocent gang members.
CorporatePiggy on December 19, 2012 at 2:41 PM
In other words, the midget is a racist and a hypocrite.
CorporatePiggy on December 19, 2012 at 2:42 PM
In the same way that you keep insisting that by banning drugs fewer people use them. In some real sense, a potential drug user must at some point be deterred by the law, or no one would argue in their favor.
ernesto on December 19, 2012 at 2:42 PM
Point me to the broad guarantee of that specific right in the Constitution and the clear SCOTUS ruling on it, and you may have an argument.
However, you’re making a drug legalization argument, not a standard capacity magazine ban argument. Try to stay focused. Bloomberg concedes his ban won’t do any good. So if it won’t, why have one other than to punish his political enemies?
Oh….guess that’s why.
JohnTant on December 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM
Step #7: Laminate all “Gun Free Zone” signs.
From what I understand the sign at Sandy Hook said “Gun Free Zon” because a recent rain had washed away the “e”. A simple lamination process would have kept it intact and Savage Lanza would have walked away.
Must be the liberal in me creating all these stupid ideas.
Bishop on December 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM
Oh, of course it would be. I’m not arguing that we should do it, only that it would be a policy that prevented this incident.
ernesto on December 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »