Local officials weigh in on gun control issue

Following last week's carnage at a Connecticut elementary school -- where a man used an assault rifle to blast his way into the building and gun down 20 children and six adults -- the Obama administration has already placed the gun debate front and center.
Emil Whitis
Dec 21, 2012

 

So far, the conversation seems to circle around three points: assault weapons; high-capacity magazines; and more extensive background checks for hopeful gun owners.

The Register asked a number of local law enforcement leaders to weigh in, specifically on these three issues.

Here are the responses on assault rifles. For what the officials said on magazine capacity and background checks, pick up a copy of Friday's Register.

Perkins Police Chief Ken Klamar
Assault Rifles: "I can't say banning them completely would be the answer. It's kind of a knee-jerk reaction. These weapons have been around now for decades and now it's a matter of playing catchup. Who could say that those incidents would have ended differently if they had a pistol or shotgun?"

Vermilion Police Chief Chris Hartung
Assault Rifles: "We tried it in 1994 and I don't think there's any empirical data that showed it worked. There are 300 million guns in the country and it took 200 years to put them there. They're not going away overnight. I could teach you how to build an AR-15 from spare parts in 30 minutes. Talk of banning assault rifles is more political grandstanding than it is an effective response."

Erie County Sheriff Paul Sigsworth
Assault Weapons: "All guns in irresponsible hands can kill people. You can have somebody with a single-shot .22-caliber rifle, and if their mindset is to kill somebody, they're going to kill somebody. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible."

Huron Police Chief Robert Lippert
Assault Rifles:"Personally, I'm not in favor of a total ban on assault rifles."

Ottawa County Sheriff Steve Levorchick
Assault Rifles: "I'm not completely against restrictions on assault rifles. If putting a ban on assault rifles were the one thing that could save the lives of these murder victims, then it needs to be done. But if it's a band-aid or some sort of political move, then it's a bad move."

Norwalk police Chief Dave Light
Assault Rifles:"If I could click my heels together three times and make all the handguns and weapons just disappear, that would be great. The problem is we have millions and millions and millions of guns in our country. It's our society. It's like everything else -- unless they put some thought into it and carefully have some gun experts involved and do it the right way, there are so many loopholes and ways around everything."

Sandusky assistant police Chief John Orzech
Assault Rifles: "I can't see any good that comes out of owning assault rifles. I think (someone) could do just as much damage with the weapons (they) have. As far as handguns and shotguns go, that's what our constitution is founded on. Most people who have guns are responsible."
 

Comments

reporter54

The guns are not the real problem. If someone is hell bent on killing someone, they will use whatever means they have available. I think people are forgetting the mental illness component in most of these shootings and the lack of resources available to deal with people that have mental illness.

rickross2

word!

bama

Putting a ban on so called "assualt" weapons is just one of those feel good terms that will make people feel all warm a fuzzy inside and is a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy that took the lives of some many innocent children. Having a gun ban on any kind of firearm is not going to stop someone with the mind to kill someone with a gun whether it is a semi, single or pump action firearm. You want gun control, send in the military into the cities across this nation and seize all of the illegal firearms in the possesion of criminals first then maybe a discussion on gun control could be meaningful. A few other people in history liked gun control. Hitler, Stalin, and Castro just to name a few. I am reminded of a quote by Isoroku Yamamoto who said " I would never invade the United States. There would be a gun behind every blade of grass."

Otis B. Driftwood

@bama


You fail.

Hitler had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. German firearms legislation under Hitler was far from banning private ownership and actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens.


Gun control worked in Cuba because cubans were just to poor to buy guns.

Just Thinkin

I see SANDUSKY and NORWALK have two barney fife types

Contango

"Most Mass Murderers Aren't Actually Mentally Ill":

"Actually, statistically mass murderers possess some common characteristics.

The most common characteristics are social isolation, introversion, withdrawal and a relative deficit in social skills and relationships.

At the same time, signs of paranoia can also be observed. These people often believe that people are after them, bullying them or ignoring them."

http://www.businessinsider.com/m...

So who again are authorities supposed to be looking for?

Train

@Just Not Thinkin...You must be Otis the Drunk then...

SmartCapitalist

If you look at the majority of the comments from our area's esteemed law enforcement they indicate that the vast majority of people are responsible gun owners. While the events at Sandy Hook, Colorado Theater, Virginia Tech, and Columbine are horrific and inexcusable they stem from one common thread. An unstable youth or set of youth that display anti-social, paranoid delusions. The only way to fix the situation is to place more emphasis on mental health and social development. It must be a combination of efforts from local health services, law enforcement and most importantly parents. People must learn to be honest with themselves regarding the mental stability of their children. Parents must be open and realistic about their children's interactions with the world. If they show signs of antisocial behavior they need to seek help from the right source. Not shrug their shoulders and say "Oh, that's just John. He's a quiet kid." It is irresponsible to the child and now we are seeing it is irresponsible to the community. To put it in perspective in 2010 there were over 10,000 DUI related deaths. If we carried the same "fix" over to that social issue we would either be talking about banning drinking or banning driving. I think we can all appreciate that a knee jerk reaction usually fails to work as it is planned. Be sensible and focus on the problem not the instrument. You'll save more people and more money that way.

deertracker

I just don't agree that because a person is quiet and not a "social butterfly" that makes them a candidate for concern about his/her mental stability.

dontcare

I would suggest we start by screening this comment section.

wiredmama222

I think it goes further than just the "quiet type", much further. These kids have few to no friends. They tend to spend all their time alone. They seem to enjoy their own company to that of sharing even the smallest of thoughts with anyone in their own family.

They have a tendency to stay in the shadows at family reunions or social events. They don't socialize with anyone and tend to stay in their own rooms more than anything else. They like video games that are wild and mostly on the "edge" type of things that are more aggressive than they are. It is an outlet of their feelings (so says the literature I have been reading this week). Most parents think their kids will grow out of it, but they don't. So they ignore it. THOSE ARE THE WARNING SIGNS.

Take heed. If your kid is doing this, watch him or her. Start talking to them. If you cannot draw them out, get help for them. They need it.

You are right, smart, it isn't the weapon in their hand as much as the weapon on their shoulders. The next time, it may be a bomb someone uses, and God help us all. The directions for that any kid can find online and make it with stuff right out of your kitchen.

Banning the assault rifles is my idea of a good idea until I started reading about the mental health questions at hand. Then I found out you couldn't stop these kids who do this no matter what they used. Not unless you got them before they went off just like the guns they use. Its pointless.

ladydye_5

There are laws about NOT carrying a weapon at a school.....that law did NOT stop this....why would ANOTHER law stop it? This is EVIL. You cannot stop EVIL with a ban or a new law.

Contango

Speaking of DUI:

Many new vehicles contain black boxes; eventually all will.

As they become more sophisticated, they could be used to detect texting, drunk driving, etc.

If OnStar can unlock your car remotely, there's potentially no limit to what can be done with these systems.

SmartCapitalist

Contango,

You bring up a great point. Toyota was developing a car that could determine a persons alcohol level through a specialized steering wheel. They indefinitely shelved the project based on the reports from their marketing and sales team. This team reported to the designers that the US market would not appreciate a car telling them whether or not they were capable of driving. The technology exists and it "might" be put into place but there has to be a market for it.

Contango

@ SmartCapitalist:

If one had a teenage son or daughter and could save a few bucks on ins. - THAT would be the incentive.

deertracker

Assault weapons need to be regulated better but not necessarily banned. I just don't see why a regular "law abiding" citizen needs one. It's purpose is to mass kill. Regardless of what was intended when the 2nd amendment was written, fact is you have the right to bear arms. I don't subscribe to the mental illness factor either. Most murderers are not mentally ill so that's just not the cause. There is no easy answer if there is an answer at all.

The Bizness

I dont really get why anyone needs an assult weapon either, I have heard people saying that violent crimes are stopped when a person shows their hand gun....ok let's keep it at those kind of weapons not at military grade machine guns, and automatics.

Randy_Marsh

Machine guns are automatics and they have been banned since the 60's. To buy a fully automatic there are so many laws and hoops to jump through it isnt funny, Let alone the extra 600 bucks to license just that weapon. (Unless you have a actual sellers license which is a struggle to get and cost extra per year just to have those weapons)

Dr. Information

I have 2.... .22LR guns. Both semi automatic. But because one has a wood stock and looks like a regular gun its not deemed an Assault Rifle. My other .22 is the same gun, same caliber, same semi automatic firing mechanism, same 10 round clip as my other gun, but because it has a military look to it, its called an AR (assault rifle). Makes absolutely NO SENSE.

Also handguns at a close range are just as effective, just as deadly and can be reloaded even faster.....AND lets not forget they can be concealed easier as well.

So whats next...attack handguns?

wiredmama222

I disagree with the part about mental illness. Do you think a sane person would walk into a school filled with children and start pulling the trigger? I think it takes one sick son of a gun to do what he did, up close and personal on some of those kids. No, I disagree. I think this guy, like so many before him, had his brain-wires crossed. The problem with these people is they shoot themselves and leave before answers to the burning questions are ever obtained. All the world wants to know is WHY?

beepx22

I've been told by many local cops they're glad people CCW, they can't be everywhere at once, nice to see it in print.

wiredmama222

Could you shoot another human being in public? I don't know that I could. I could if they were in my house but not out in public. I just don't know if I could live with myself taking another's life. I guess it would depend on the situation, but then again?

beepx22

if i needed to shoot someone in public to save my life, or someone else's life, then yeah, no questions asked. After the fact would suck, but you shouldn't carry if you're not prepared to do the deed if that's what it comes too, that goes for Civilians and LEO

rottnrog

The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee access to any and all "arms" just as the First Amendment doesn't give people the right to say anything whenever they want...

Doubt me, go scream "fire" in a movie theater or "bomb" in an airport.

If your argument is that passing laws against assault weapons doesn't mean people won't get them anyway...then why pass laws against rape or murder? They're going to happen anyway....so what's the point?
...
If your argument is that making them illegal just means only the murderers and the psychopaths will have them...then why, in most of the countries with much stricter gun regulations, aren't armed psychopaths taking over these nations as they face unarmed civilians?

If your argument is that a killer will kill no matter what, then why aren't there mass stabbings? Mass murders by rock? Mass death by baseball bat?

Seems logic would dictate that mental health, mixed with an ease of access to dangerous weapons, is what makes a killer.

Not everyone with access to a gun will kill, nor is everyone who suffers from mental health issues a killer, but when you mix the two, it increases the odds.

I'm not advocating the ban of handguns or hunting rifles, but you're ignorant if you feel civilians need access to military grade assault weapons and the ease of access to these weapons has nothing to do with these mass murders like we've seen in Connecticut and Colorado.

Randy_Marsh

Can you point out in the constitution where it states what kind of weapons should be allowed? The insurance against a abusive centralized government is in the hands of the citizens, Not as some would believe, Through trust of the words of our leaders.

dontcare

Randy, would you please voluntarily turn in all your guns?

rickross2

Have you ever shot a assault rifle?? I'm betting not, military has fully automatic weapons. The rifles sold to civilians are semi-automatic. Big difference.

sandtown born a...

They throw the Assult rifle TITLE to add wow factor and cloud the minds of the truth. Nothing more than a dressed up semi auto rifle, Ive had a semi auto 22 since my 13th birthday to squirell hunt with my father. A opinion without fact is just that an Opinion

wiredmama222

No matter what you want to call it, it shoots bullets out faster than a hand gun, correct? If that is the case, why do you need to have something like that? Because squirrels run fast?

The gun this guy used, was it the same as what you had? I just wondered? Why would someone need something like that in their lives and why with a clip that held that many rounds? It makes my mind spin to think someone needed something like that. Sounds like pure fear to me, but of what?

vicariouslyAlive

You ma'am obviously have no idea as to what you're talking about and should stop while you still have a bit of dignity... whether its a semi-auto hand gun or a semi-auto riffle the bullets come out at the same pace. Fully autos are pretty much impossible to own legally already... so your comment is not only false, it clearly shows your ignorance of the subject matter. Clip size doesn't matter... if they reduced it down to 5 round clips the average exchange time to drop a. Lip and reload is less than 3 seconds... mute point number 2. And lastly, if you have to ask so many questions on the subject matter you probably ly shouldn't be forming an opinion just yet.

wiredmama222

That is not the case. I listened intently last night to the discussion on Pierec on according to the experts that is EXACTLY what he said. These semi automatics DO shoot faster than the normal handguns and they do exit bullets at a faster rate than the normal handgun. So my point is exactly what I was saying. No one needs the "faster" guns. The "bushmaster" that this gentleman had has a cyclic rate that can exit 60*100 bullets per MINUTE. Why does anyone need something that fast with which to HUNT? What are you hunting? No, the so called "assault rifles" are nothing more than a fast gun and they shouldn't be sold. They are sold at Walmart and there isn't much of a background check, as the CEO of Walmart admitted.

As for my credibility, that is in the eyes of the reader. If you feel you don't believe what I am writing, that is your right. I am backing up mine with facts. What are you backing your writing up with?

beepx22

completely incorrect madam on the issue of how fast they shoot, they are mechanically the same as other semi-auto rifles, and pistols.

Randy_Marsh

How can a semi auto rifle shoot faster than a semi auto pistol? Do rifles have a magical ability that makes your finger faster? Heck a double action revolver cycles just as fast as a semi-auto if you have a fast finger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M... With a pump shotgun no less!!

BW1's picture
BW1

"No matter what you want to call it, it shoots bullets out faster than a hand gun, correct?"

No, it doesn't, and that type of rank ignorance is the problem. There is really no such thing as an assault weapon - it's a term made up by politicians, with a legislated definition that boils down to "scary looking gun." Most legal definitions specify that it has 2 or more of a list of features, a list which includes a bayonet mount. Wasn't it our illustrious president, about whom the left waxes messianic, who used an allusion to the lack of tactical value of bayonets to mock his opponent just a few short months ago?

If you do not understand:

-the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic,

-that the term "assault weapon" is a legal artifice designed to evoke a visceral emotional response, and has no bearing on firepower or lethal potential

-that references to "military ammunition" are a scare tactic, because such ammunition is actually LESS lethal, because the hollow points used by police and for personal protection are banned on the battlefield by the Geneva Convention.

-that many "varmint rifles" sold for dealing with coyotes are functionally equivalent to the AR-15, but simply lack the high tech look

-that, with a little practice and a few rigging strategies developed by the military, there is almost no tactical deficit for small magazines, and that the 30 and 40 round magazines tend to be unreliable

then you are not qualified to make intelligent comments on this topic.

Mr. D

@wiredmama. . . Not trying to be mean here but your knowledge of guns is very minimal. Consider this. . . take a CCW class to help you gain knowledge of guns and types. Even if you never carry, what you learn and experience will give you a greater understanding of what guns are.

Dr. Information

@wiredmama.....what do you think a handgun is? Its a SEMI AUTOMATIC GUN. ALL SEMI AUTOMATIC guns fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. Doesn't matter if its a handgun or a rifle.

Assault Rifle is nothing more than a fancy looking rifle. You can get the same type of rifle that looks just like an old fashion wood gun. Same caliber, same magazines, same firing rate.

Here is a good comparison. You have a car...a Prius......everyone thinks thats a non fast, safe car with good gas mileage. Take a dodge viper body and switch it out and put it on the Prius. Same car, with just a different look right? Same engine, same transmission, same everything, except how it looks......right? That is the difference between a standard semi rifle and a assault rifle.

jes1413

In my opinion, the reason for laws is to discourage those who abide by those laws from doing whatever the law is against, but also to allow punishment for those who break the law. Unfortunately, those who break the laws often think they won't get caught, and those who turn the gun on themselves before being caught don't have to worry about the punishment.

And as far as "mass stabbings", you should probably check out the latest China news. I suggest you start here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wo...

And as far as military grade weapons, those are not readily available to citizens. Maybe you should stop into the local gun store and ask for an automatic rifle, I bet they'll tell you they don't have any for sale.

fiddledee

Only good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. Always has been that way, always will be that way. Take the guns away from the good guys and see what happens. We just need to strategically place more good guys with guns like Officers or former Military who are trained and know what to do. If they're not around, then let's hope there is a Concealed Carry permit holder in the crowd who will do what they've been trained to do.

dontcare

Right, you mean the training they received in their 12 hour course

Dr. Information

How many CCW people are out there killing people randomly? I can't think of any off the top of my head. Those that get the CCW are responsible gun owners.

looking around

@ fiddledee Trained to do? CCW holders get class room briefing on safe gun handling and gun law. They might take a trip to the range but that is not training in the use of a weapon in a tactical situation. Just merely getting a CCW does not mean you are now a qualified protector of the masses. As a matter of fact you could be shot by friendly fire just because you are not distinguishable from the aggressor.

Contango

H*ll, we can't even keep illegal drugs out of this country.

Might as well keep some control and have the sales of AR-15s and the like out in the open.

Makin' 'em illegal would just drive them into the black market.

When the SNAP and welfare checks dry up, you'll see why AR-15s are needed by inner city store owners.

SR watcher

Contango has a good point about inner city store owners needing AR-15s and the like. Didn't Korean store owners successfully defend their businesses against looters with AR-15s during the LA riots of 1992 (after the non-guilty verdicts for the cops who arrested Rodney King)?

goofus

What about the preferred weapon of the Mexican Drug Cartels, the AK-47.

goofus

http://www.infowars.com/communis...

You all remember Obozo bowing down to the chinese leader, be a good little child Barry!!!!!!

Kimo

Re: Concealed Carry permit holder in the crowd who will do what they've been trained to do.

What is it that they are trained to do?
Police officers are "trained to do" but that doesn't stop one that was shooting at a dog from shooting a woman in the foot.
Who is going to foot the bill???

Nothing is bullet proof, more guns more mistakes.

jes1413

Maybe we should outlaw cars too. More cars, more accidents.

So a CCW holder/officer may not be "trained" to do anything, but at least they stand a chance. A croud of unarmed civilians certainly isn't going to be a whole lot of use.

BW1's picture
BW1

things that make you go hmmmmmmmm:

Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).

nosey rosey

There is absolutely no positive reason for anyone to own an assault rifle.

dontcare

@nosey rosey. I have to disagree, paranoid schizophrenics need them to protect themselves against the government. First women get the right to vote, a black president, and then after 20 kids get slaughtered the government has the audacity to discuss gun control.

SR watcher

I used to own a Ruger Mini-14 with two (2) 30-round magazines. That thing was fun as heck to shoot. I used to set up targets on my hunting land to practice my rifle skills with it. It also came in mighty handy to shoot groundhogs and other varmints on my property.

Yes, it would be considered an "assault rifle" according to Diane Feinstein and her minions. Amazingly, it never crossed my mind to take it to a local school and shoot children. I also never thought to take my pump-action shotguns, bolt-action rifles, or double-action revolvers to schools and shoot children, either.

It's not the weapon. It's the person and their mindset. I'm all for tightening up the background checks. But I'm not for taking away my inalienable right to own weapons that provide me with: (1) protection from varmints (four- and two-legged), (2) opportunities to hone my shooting skills as a responsible American gun owner, and (3) fun and innocent entertainment on my property or at properly maintained shooting ranges.

I am so sorry those children, and those brave adults who stood their ground to protect them, died. I used to be a first responder and I grieve for those fire/EMS/police personnel who had to respond to that scene and witness the carnage of that horrific event. I fervently hope that we can find a reasonable solution for the prevention of these tragic events. However, I also hope that cooler minds prevail and can find this solution without infringing upon Americans' Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

The Big Dog's back

How far does that gun's bullets travel? What if they ricochet and hit someone else on their property?

beepx22

if a bullet ricochets, it loses most of its energy in the strike, and drops quickly to the ground

wiredmama222

I don't think anyone is saying you can't bear arms.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say you can own an oozie, an assualt rifle or a clip that holds fifty rounds. All it says is that you have the right to BEAR ARMS. It isn't specific.

I believe when it was written, all they had were muskets if I am not mistaken! So at this point, every American with anything over that really is pushing the constitution at this point.

I am so sick and tired of hearing that the Second Amendment is being violated because someone says you can't own a semi automatic handgun or an AK 14 or an AK 57 or whatever the heck it is. Big deal, if you have a gun, your constitutional rights have been met.....live with it.

Why on God's green earth does every gun owner start yelling at the top of their lungs that their Constitutional rights are violated when someone wants to limit the gun laws in this country.

26 people were slaughtered in Newtown by a man with FOUR GUNS and a lot of ammo. He had his constitutional rights and he systematically REMOVED 26 people's constitutionals rights of life, liberty and the pursuate of happiness with his constitutional rights to bear arms.

Most of those whose rights he removed were children.....America's future. Who knows what they could have been capable of?

But no one from the NRA today mentioned that little tidbit. Shame on them for missing their chance to even mention it. All they cared about was selling another gun.

SR watcher

Actually, wiredmama, it's called an "Uzi." And while Constitutional scholars have long debated the intent of the Second Amendment, I doubt if any of them would go so far as to suggest that "muskets" would be the only type of firearm that today's Americans would have the right to keep and bear. Even Justice Antonin Scalia would have a hard time arguing that the Second Amendment meant muskets only, regardless of his originalism position in Constitutional interpretation.

However, if that's your argument, i.e., original intent of the Constitution, it must also follow that you agree with the Three-Fifths Compromise of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. After all, it's in the Constitution. And, by golly, it was pretty specific. Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3.

BTW, I wasn't yelling. I believe I typed my previous comment, as I did this one, in standard sentence case. Oh, and the NRA doesn't have to sell guns. Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, CNN, and the rest of that bunch are doing a fine job of doing that all on their own.

BW1's picture
BW1

Actually, SR, anyone who understands the three-fifths compromise does support it. Contrary to the rants of the ignorant, it didn't make anyone 3/5 human. It diluted the power of slave states with the intent of limiting and eventually eliminating slavery. Or do you disagree with the compromise because you're a fan of slavery?

dontcare

BW1 it meant their status in the electoral college was 3/5th that of whites, you are correct in that it would drastically reduce the status of southern states.

wiredmama222

@SRwatcher.....thanks for the correction on UZI...you can tell I don't own one or even want to. Yes, I believe, as many do, that you and people like you, are yelling that your constitutional rights to bear arms would be affected if a ban on assault weapons were to be placed into affect. I think many of you should examine that stance. Especially in the wake of what happened at the school. I DO think, given the statement by the NRA this week, is a self serving and obvious attempt to sell more guns. It is a statement that gun violence should be met by more gun violence. That is a fact that MANY Americans held and by which many Americans were appalled given the Sandy Hook massacre.

In the coming months, I think you are going to see those twenty six families march or descend on Washington in mass to state their complete and total anger of the NRA statement and wishes that the ban be in place and that Mental Health Issues in the form of deeper and more extensive forms of background checks be put into place for gun sales. I think you are going to see person to person sales of guns become a thing of the past if they cannot do deep background checks right then and there.

This is just my idea given watching the personal interviews I have watched with the families on Anderson Cooper360 and the CNN news reports throughout this tragedy. They have a grassroots group who have said as much. But I think this is what you can expect. The families have a justified reason for their wants and desires to be heard.

So I wouldn't be surprised if places like Walmart and KMart and other stores who sell Bushmaster and other fastcyclic firing guns pull them from the shelves in the near future.

BW1's picture
BW1

First of all, they had far more than muskets, and by your reasoning, the First Amendment shouldn't apply to anything more effective than a soapbox on the vilage green or a quill and parchment - so much for radio,TV, and the internet, eh? At the time the Constitution was written, civilians had access to every weapon that the military did, and they used that access to create this nation through armed insurrection. Thus, it's obvious they intended it to include whatever the current effective weapon was.

wiredmama222

@BW1....Do you think they ever intended the "right to bear arms" portion of the constition to ever mean anything but a protectional right to mean the right to protect their own homes???? I don't.

Randy_Marsh

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
I seriously do not think someone is going to break into your house and "Enslave" you. He Co-wrote the amendment so now you know why he did.

dontcare

Randy please get help.

Randy_Marsh

@Wiredmama
Lanza tried to buy a weapon and was turned away. http://www.latimes.com/news/nati...
The law worked till he stole his mothers guns, Thats against another law. Then he killed his mom (Also against the law), Took the weapons to a school (Against the law), Broke into the school by shooting the lock off (Against the law), Proceeded to kill almost 30 people including children (This is a biggy, He again broke the law), Killed himself (Pretty sure this one is illegal too but do not quote me).
So thats 34 laws broke. Please explain how the one law you are yelling for is going to make a bit of difference in this guys choice of action?

looking around

@BW1 How about national standard gun laws instead of state by state pertaining to the sale, use, and ownership of guns of any type. How about a bill which would enact law to hold the gun owner fully responsible for approved storage of all guns and ammunition. Make it clear in this law that the gun owner has the soul responsibility of making sure those weapons do not fall into the hands of those with criminal intent by unauthorized access. Now this could have and will save lives.

wiredmama222

@Randy Marsh. What you are saying has NOTHING to do with the second amendment rights to bear arms at all. This is somewhat far fetched from the arguement at hand. All of what you are saying is true, but has nothing to do with the second amendment right to bear arms. Sorry, but you are far afield from the discussion on this one. Nice try though.

Randy_Marsh

@Wiredmama
It does have alot to do with 2nd amendment rights. The shooter had already LOST his right to own a weapon in the governments eyes so he was turned away from buying one. He broke multiple laws on his spree and to even suggest that it would not have happened by passing more laws he would have ignored does not make sense at all. The 2nd amendment is there as insurance against individual threats and domestic threats. To attack the rights of the citizens to own firearms because some nut is bent on killing is throwing the blame on every law abiding gun owner for exercizing their rights to own instead of the actual perpetrator. You notice the drug dealers and gang members never chime in on gun control debates? Thats because they do not care and will do what they want anyways.

Dr. Information

@wired.....I failed to read in the 2nd amendment anywhere where it said the right to bear arms is mean't only for "home protection"..........Lol, more liberal spin for you. Do you know how many people that own guns sport hunt or hunt for food or sport trap shoot........let me tell you, that is the vast majority of gun owners right there.

bored reader

wiredmama222
Fri, 12/21/2012 - 7:11pm
Why on God's green earth does every gun owner start yelling at the top of their lungs that their Constitutional rights are violated when someone wants to limit the gun laws in this country.

Why on God's green earth do liberals yell at the top of their lungs that their Constitutional rights are violated when someone wants to limit their right to free birth control and access to abortions?

SamAdams

No, the Constitution doesn't mention Uzis (in point of fact, machine guns have been largely banned and VERY strictly controlled since the 1920's and cemented into law in 1934). It also doesn't mention "assault rifles" (a politically-generated term that's meaningless, generally referencing cosmetic features rather than any material mechanics).

I'd also point out, however, that the Constitution makes no mention of radio or television. Do you suggest that there's no freedom of the press, then, applicable to the nightly news? It makes no mention of the Internet. Can we thus ban your ability to make comments, ignorant or otherwise, on Sandusky Register stories without violating your right to free speech? The Constitution fails to predict tracking technology. Does that mean the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to GPS tracking devices used without warrant or just cause?

Unfortunately, some gun owners DON'T yell at the top of their lungs when there's talk of infringing Constitutional rights. They seem to think that losing their rights in increments is somehow acceptable when they'd never tolerate an outright ban on anything. They're wrong. Most evil is done in stages, not all at once else we'd know it outright for the evil that it is.

Yes, people were killed in Newtown. Yes, the crazy man used guns to do it. But crazy men have used bombs, knives, poisons, fire, and pretty much anything else you can think of to wreak havoc as well. That's part of being "crazy," don't you think? And since we can't make a law against "crazy," we need to avoid making laws that would prevent decent and SANE people from PROTECTING themselves and others against the nutjobs.

Meanwhile, Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said that those who would give up liberty for security deserved NEITHER liberty nor security. I'd add that such a bargain is particularly egregious when you consider that any security achieved with further gun bans or restrictions is merely perceived rather than real. Just ask the folks in England or Australia where strict gun laws resulted only in INCREASES in violent crime, including gun crime! Ironically, both countries enacted those strict laws following school shootings. Those who don't learn from history...

Dr. Information

@everyone above arguing about the constitution. Nor does the constitution mention the internet, nor iPads, or gaming consoles but it protects them. The constitution and the 2nd amendment doesn't end with muskets or old civil war rifles. The men that wrote our constitution knew there would be change and wrote it to protect us exactly in that fashion.

For those of you that argue that the 2nd amendment has limits, let me give you a good example of how dumb that argument it. It would be exactly like saying that the 1st amendment shouldn't protect freedom of speech on the internet.

dontcare

Are you implying that the 2nd and 1st amendments don't have limits? Please think before you respond.

Dr. Information

Tell where and when the limits are spelled out in it? As much as I hate seeing or reading about the Baptist church that protests army funerals....it is their right. Again, proof please before you speak.

dontcare

For the second time, you have a 1st amendment right to the freedom of speech, but you cannot threaten to harm someone, you cannot yell fire in a theater, you cannot slander or defame. The second amendment gives you the right to have arms, you cannot have an automatic, flame thrower or grenade launcher. Please think before you speak. No right is absolute that should be obvious. I have embarrassed you twice on this very point, you clearly don't think before you post.

BW1's picture
BW1

Actually, although it is in every way functionally equivalent* to the AR-15 (and when the US Special Forces conducted side by side tests, they preferred the Mini-14) it would NOT be considered an assault rifle under any current or past legislation. The definition required 2 or more from a list of primarily cosmetic features that included a bayonet lug (because, after every drive by shooting, gangbangers fix bayonets and run in for the mop up, right?) The Mini-14 has none of those features. This just goes to show that the entire term "assault weapon" is a legal artifice made up by politicians to scare people.

* actually superior - it doesn't need a stupid forward assist to make it feed properly.

goofus

Haven't been woodchuck hunting I see. Shoot one and ten more come to it's funeral.

rjoh

All I can say, the school shooting might not have happened if his mother kept her guns locked up in a gun safe where her son could not have gotten to them.
I read somewhere he tried buying a gun and they turned him down on the background check.

wiredmama222

He's 20, you think he couldn't have gotten to them? I doubt it. I couldn't help but wonder if that isn't why she ended up being shot. He fought with her about the guns and getting them.

Dr. Information

@wired......Unless he is a safe cracker or knew the combination.....if they were locked up....NO he wouldn't of been able to get to him.

rjoh

All I can say, the school shooting might not have happened if his mother kept her guns locked up in a gun safe where her son could not have gotten to them.
I read somewhere he tried buying a gun and they turned him down on the background check.

jon491
Kimo

The "shot in the foot" drug raid turned up an arsenal of guns. Who bought those and where? What "background checks" were conducted for those weapons?
You can background check from now until hell freezes over and it will amount to spit. There are millions of "Kill people fast" guns on the street. People with money will buy one, people without money will steal one.
The cows are out, all this panic will do is sell more guns and put more guns on the street.....

Cowboy

Just lock the damn things up if you own them and if you don't lock them up and they are used in a crime, you get the same sentence as the perp.

KURTje

attn: Chief Light - remember me? The guy who helped you take out that piece of garbage years ago? Did not know you felt that way on weapons. Oww.

TheScientist

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.co... A WONDERFUL albeit opinion piece. It's lengthy, but worth reading from an expert.

luvblues2

I perused it, Scientist. A VERY good article that all posting in here should read. The logic is astounding. Thank you.

SamAdams

Thank you for posting this. It's EASILY the best I've seen! Only one argument with you, and that's calling it an "opinion piece." Oh, it is. But when it's an opinion registered by a bona fide expert (acknowledged as one by folks from ordinary citizens to various police agencies to state politicians), it's got serious validity. As an added bonus, the thing is also just bursting with facts. Of course, we all know how those who already know what they think don't like to be confused by facts...

tk

I am tired of hearing about gun rights. How about these children and their unalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe they were just denied all three. Think about these beautiful children that were slaughtered. Think about the traumitized children who witnessed this atrosity. Think of the lives that are changed forever by this horrible event.

herbie_hancock

"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." Ronald Reagan.

BW1's picture
BW1

AMEN!!!!!!

Dr. Information

@herbie.....Amen.....Quite possibly the best post on here in the fewest words.

herbie_hancock

If we allow the government to get rid of our firearms then why don't we let them get rid of tobacco, cars, ladders, hammers, nailguns, bears, rabid dogs, ex girlfriends and reality TV, or anything else that might cause us harm? Focusing all the attention from the recent events on the "tools" used to carry out the attacks is like focusing souly on the symptoms of a disease instead of cause of the disease. A gun at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.

Restless1

Reading the comments, I concluded that half the commentators don't know what they're talking about but feel the urge to comment. (1) the general population cannot own "assault rifles". That is a term created by the anti-gun crowd and dutyfully adopted by the anti media. Civilians can only own semi-auto (one trigger pull, one shot fired). You cannot fire 10 shots from an AR-15 any faster than you can from a semi-auto handgun. Semi does not mean auto. (2) Because they're black and intimidating to some does not make them dangerous. Why do you think that over the years police depts changed to black uniforms? Because they're intimidating! And yet, all police wearing black are not bad people.

fiddledee

When there is a gun pointed at me or someone else's life is threatened & bullets are flying with no authorities around, I would much rather have someone who is carrying and has had 12hrs of training than no hope of living through it. 99% or more of CCW holders have no desire to play vigilante. They just want to even the odds for living should the situation occur and it is occurring more often. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

2cents's picture
2cents

Ditto!

rottnrog

Following the example set by the NRA, Alcoholics Anonymous will now suggest more whiskey to cure alcoholism...

Kimo

Under the NRA plan to curb slaughter, every gun sale will include a bible.

BW1's picture
BW1

"If I could click my heels together three times and make all the handguns and weapons just disappear, that would be great."

So, Chief, would that include the GOVERNMENT'S guns?

No?

I thought not. In that case, forget it. See, that's what the 2nd Amendment is really all about - not allowing the government a monopoly on the means of effective force.

rottnrog

Gee, I guess that means we should legalize hand grenades, artillery, and even nuclear weapons !!!

Randy_Marsh

Thats only legal to sell to other nations bent on killing people or drug cartels.

rottnrog

What it really boils down to is the religious right wing wacko's are in a hurry to end the world anyway they can !!!!

Randy_Marsh

Kneejerk reactions to tragedys usually play into the hands of those who want more power. Think of all the great leftwing wacko's accomplishments. You had Stalin, Mao,Che,Pol Pot,Castro ect ect. They surely didnt want the world to end, They just wanted to kill everyone.

vicariouslyAlive

yes, you've proven you can name past leaders of nations, but let's try to at least know what you're talking about before you try to drag someone's name through the mud... Che and Castro didn't want to kill everyone, it was quite the opposite. they tried to handle things civilly, and the government resisted. those 2 men led a revolution of the people, by the people, and for the people... they took down a tyrannical dictator. yes, they may have replaced it with communism, but it was better than what they had before.. and really... with all of the trade embargo's sanctioned against them for decades now they seem to be doing quite well considering the world was, and still seems to be, against them.

Randy_Marsh

"Executions? Certainly, we execute! And we will continue executing as long as it is necessary!" Che.
They didnt want to kill everyone, Just those that disagreed with his ideology. So replacing a bad government with another is good for you? Defending a known murderer is good for you as well? Please, Defending the death totals for the leftist movement is somewhat idiotic. Over 130 million dead in one century due to that ideology.Che doesn need me to drag his name through the mud, He is a murderer, He has did that for me, He has put his name up there with Stalin (His hero) and Mao.
“What we affirm is that we must proceed along the path of liberation even if this costs millions of atomic victims.” Che.
Then again he might have wanted to kill everyone.

vicariouslyAlive

how many british did george washington have to kill before we were liberated from england? how many people has george bush killed with his misinformed bombings? how many innocents dies when the us government was informed about the lustentainia and pearl harbor? we all defend murderers under you're ideology. call one an execution and another casualties of war, doesn't make a difference... what makes a difference is in the cuban revolution the people of that nation were behind the change, unlike most of what the united states has stuck it's nose in. without the help of the cubans themselves they would have never succeeded. so explain to me how a murderous despot could attain the help of thousands os locals if he was going around killing people all willy nilly for no reason?

and those executions that you took the quote from were for people that had committed crimes, not innocents. something the states seem to be having a problem with when even murderers are spared these days.

Randy_Marsh

When your revolution starts off with book burnings, arrest of those who wrote the books and then their executions, I would consider that not a revolution worth anything. You are right in a way, Stalin, Mao and the rest would have never came to power either without the help of the masses. Their Ideology however does set them apart from the rest of the worlds revolutionarys. The pure numbers of deaths under that Ideology staggers the imagination were not committed during war, They were committed on their own populations NOT those they were fighting against. They were all leftist bent on domination of the country they were proposing to "Save" THAT is the common denominator between them. Washington revolted to create a country with individual freedoms,(He quit killing and fighting at the end of the war itself) The leftist fought for pure power over a mass of "useful idiots" That they cared nothing about, To put them in the same catagory is not even close historically speaking.

2cents's picture
2cents

And the so called progressive left want to give it all away to anyone or any nation. They just say "be nice" while the other people and countries laugh at them!

vicariouslyAlive

What the NRA is trying to do is even out the duality of guns... for people that didn't understand that, they're trying to keep the number of guns in the hands of the people that can do good with them even with the number of people that will choose to use guns to harm others. just because something is against the law that doesn't mean it will stop anyone from doing it... our failed war on drugs is the most prime example of that flawed ideology. most of the drugs available have been illegal for decades now... not just 1 or 2, but some for more tan 50 years, and yet, they are just as prolific today as they were the day they were banned... so please tell me how this mentality is going to do any good against guns? the only thing banning guns will do is make things worse. in every massacre that has happened in the past decade they've all happened in gun free designated zones... which means the culprits knew that they didn't have to worry about return fire... so you think it's a coincidence that it happens this way? do you think that it's luck that these mass shootings don't happen right out side of a police station or a firearms store? making gun illegal is just giving criminals the keys to the kingdom. if someone already isn't worried about spending time in jail when they are going to commit a crime, how is adding jail time making their punishment any worse? premeditated murder already carries the maximum penalty you can hand out to someone, so how is tacking on time for doing it with a gun going to effect the person plotting to kill someone?

the truth of the matter is this. the only people seeking to regulate or ban guns are those that have never been in a position where they've felt they've needed one. they aren't hunters nor have they ever felt threatened a day in their lives. they've never been in a situation where having a gun on hand could have made a difference...

the average police response time when a crises occurs is 6 - 10 minutes. thats 6 - 10 minutes of someone doing what ever they please before they have to worry about anything. the average time it takes for someone with a CCW to draw their weapon and put down an assailant is a split second... which one would you rather have?

and let's keep in mind folks that not all crimes are committed with a gun... on septemper 11th 6 men killed thousands of people in just a few minutes and the only weapons they used to kick things off were box cutters... so please tell me how guns are always the biggest threat.

man4451

HOW about, GROUND sensors? How about PAID guards where the Security can't be dangled over the publics head over teachers raises. HOW about like they have at Divis Bessie FENCE is sencors, HOW about CAMERAS. LETS be LEADERS here for once.

Just Thinkin

@ Train, I dont play kiddie word games GROW-UP, I stated my gripe in a polite manner, Guns are not the problem laws not used, and our video game culture is. These cops think gun control works, they need to be looking at these murderess video games that make killing fun and cold blooded.And our leader's that turn a blind eye. we have laws and safe guards use them.Get rid of plea bargains and stop the slapping of hands. also make jail time hurt no fun and games .so Train when you can speak as a person with something to say then I'll listen, Until then go and try to bully someone who can be insulted because frankly my dear I don't give a care. later you childish little person, Thanks for the lol I needed that

2cents's picture
2cents

(and our video game culture is)
I found it sad how that boy in CT could drop four rounds in his moms head without blinking, that had to be very messy, then move on to his next mission unaffected by what he did and saw. Desensitized by the games???

Dr. Information

@2cents. I think that is a very small fraction of the problem. Every day millions upon millions of young boys are playing violent games, 99.9999999999% of them will never shoot anyone or anything REAL in their life. I do however think that violent games need to be monitored a bit better by parents. Kids at 8-13 years old have no business playing really violent games.

gilamonster

Banning assault weapons; that will surely reduce crime seeing that they are used in just 1/5th of all crimes. Feinstein and her minions want to ban evil looking rifles, she couldn’t even tell a reporter what a heat shield was.

Liberals always exploit tragedies. Fact is your kid is way more likely to die on the way to or from school, look at the number of youth deaths each year during school transportation hours. Last stats I viewed had the number one cause of death for kids as being vehicle-accident related. Obviously we need to ban “assault station wagons” ask yourself when was the last time someone pointed a gun at you, then ask yourself when is the last time some idiot almost crashed into. Vehicles and driving are subject to many laws, and every year become safer, but there is still the human element. Even bicycles kill and injure more kids than firearms. Don’t believe it, look it up. The world would be much safer if we just banned bicycles, think of all the lives we would save and injuries we could prevent.

I have AK’s and many other guns, the military taught me to love my guns. I believe in being a responsible owner and keep them locked out of sight. The assault ban is nothing but a backdoor attempt to kill the second amendment. Don’t believe it, why are guns such a lever action 30/30 hunting rifle and bolt actions also listed? My shotgun is much more deadlier with that heatshield..lol.

Hey how is that gun ban working out for the UK? Crimes have soared and one stat said over 30% of their population will be a victim of violent crime. Several UK newspapers even did reports on how the UK purposely records artificial data to keep numbers low; this after interviewing police officers which were sick and tired of how they had to record crimes. Criminals love this; gun crime in England has increased steadily over the last decade. In 1996 Australia made it illegal to use a gun for defense, works great; armed robberies rose 50%, unarmed robberies rose 30%. Criminals love gun control.

On a different note I am so glad to see that many are brainwashed into turning murders and oppressors such as Che Guevara into heroes. Keep up the revolution Comrade!!

I agree we need to change the culture, and use existing laws and actually punish criminals

goofus

Vicariously Alive, have you ever been to Cuba???? And I'm not talking Gitmo

Contango

@ goofus:

All I can say is "YIKES!" vA needs to check out a copy of "The Black Book of Communism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The...

After WWII, many Germans believed that Hitler just had bad advisors.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Mi...

jes1413

If President Obama wants to ban assult rifles from the citizens, I do think he and his family should no longer be followed around by a possy of armed guards. He thinks he should be able to take away the personal protection of civilians, then he should be willing to give his up as well. And I'd bet he isn't willing to do so, what does that say?

dontcare

nothing

SanduskyNow

So he "blasted" his way into the building?... I didn't know that!

2cents's picture
2cents

(Blasted) Is this MSNBC? One round into safety glass and it shatters to the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7...

Contango

Lest we forget the Chardon HS shooting earlier this yr. A .22 handgun was used.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/...

goofus

I'm having a problem with people who claim they are experts in a country without ever being in said country. It really irritates me, contango, how obtuse some people are!!!!!

Contango

@ goofus: I lived in FL briefly during the early 70s and met a few Cuban expats. Wonder why they fled if Maximum Leader is such a great guy?

Looking forward to him and that other POS Chavez croaking.

I was in TX last wk. Stopped in a sporting goods store. They were three deep at the gun counter.

vicariouslyAlive

what bothers me most is in every revolution there are good guys and bad ones. just as in the gun argument. no matter which way you play it it's all games of semantics. the people that win down play the people that lose, and the people on the outside looking in are free to say what they want. the point is change can only happen if the vast majority wants in. back in 1700's we wanted it, back in the 60's cuba wanted it. success of a revolution comes from the people, not the weapons. that's why the war on drugs is failing, there's too many people that don't want it to win for either the fact that they are users, or the fact that they want something to complain about. and if che was really as bad as people make him out to be how is he still an icon almost 40 years after his death? not even castro or our beloved fore fathers can say the same. so he must have been doing something right. anytime anyone does something to initiate change you're going to have nay sayers, just like full grown adults badgering children about dress codes...

hand gun crime rates account for more than double the crime rates with every other weapon combined. this whole assault weapon ban is nonsensical.

the saddest thing is we're not even worried about real issues anymore. we're all so sidetracked about this gun thing that everyone's completely forgotten about the economic state of things... the gun industry is a multi-billion dollar industry. is the government ready to foot he bill from all of the gun store owners that will be found without a job if they ban firearms? because we all know it's not going to stop with "assault riffles" if it's successful...

why are we blaming weapons instead of the cause for their use? lack of education and poverty are the leading root causes for crime, and yet we're trying to blame the tools instead of the cause for their use.

and i don't buy the violent video game crap... video games have been a part of millions of people lives for the last 30 years, and out of the millions of people that play them less than a fraction of a precent of people actually have mental breakdowns and light up a town... so to blame video games or violent movies is an invalid argument... to many people are subject to them with very, very little small amounts of people acting out in their fashion... yes, the number of violent crimes is on the rise, but so is the human population... so with an increasing number of individuals you'll have a relative increase in areas the involve them. it's not a social or emotionally crippling problem due media, it's the laws of statistics. acts of hate like this have been carried out long before games and movies, and they'll continue to happen long after if they are banned as well.

jas

Gun control alone is not the solution to the bigger problem. It only treats a sympton and not the real cause. The cause of incidents like Newtown is our society's widespread belief that might makes right and violence is the solution to our problems. We must change our society so that non-violent solutions to problems are encouraged and personal vigilantism is discouraged.

Our society must also deal with the rampant paranoia that causes too many people to believe that everyone is out to get them including the government. This kind of paranoia causes people to stockpile arsenals of guns to make them feel safe. Paranoia is a mental illness that needs to be treated. If you think an arsenal of guns is going to keep you safe, then you have a mental illness that needs treated. Just like alcohol. A few drinks may be OK but excessive drinking leads to alcoholism. A few guns for protection or hunting is OK but an arsenal of guns to make you feel safe is paranoia.

Many people own guns, play video games, drive automobiles, and do all kinds of things that some people think lead to incidents like Newtown. They are wrong. The real cause of such incidents is the mental health of the individuals who commit these horrible acts and our sick society that has too long accepted violence as an acceptable solution to personal problems. Dealing with a handful of individuals with mental health problems isn't enough. We must treat our sick society that condones violence as an acceptable solution to personal problems.

Contango

"Sick society"? Condemning everyone is pure sophistry.

Better start where the vast majority of gun violence occurs: Black-on-black in the urban areas.

When are the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Pres. Obama and other so-called black leaders gonna come up with realistic solutions instead of "feel good" nonsensical measures?

Know your history: Marijuana essentially only became a problem when whites started smoking it. When it was just in the black community, the govt. didn't care.

Chicago has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the country and is on track to be the 2012 murder capital. Obviously, more gun laws are NOT the answer.

The Big Dog's back

Ahhhh winnie, always the strawman argument.

rottnrog

This is essentially the stance of the NRA:

1) Armed guards ...everywhere. Schools, grocery stores, movie theaters, libraries, hotels, motels, Chuck E Cheese...you get the idea. They want an armed guard at every public location in our country.

2) Anyone with a mental disorder must be put on a registry. Battle ADD? Yup, they want you tracked. Depression? Yup, you'll be tracked as well. Serve our country at war and suffer from PTSD? Yup, you're definitely someone to watch out for as well.
...
*Oh, they oppose ANY AND ALL tracking of the people who buy these guys, no no...they want to track the people who suffer from any kind of mental health issue.

3) Blame video games and movies. Because other nations such as Canada, Australia, Japan, Italy, Germany...they don't have access to these same violent movies or video games (yet don't even have a fraction of our gun violence), but still it MUST be the movies and games! What a joke.

So while Republicans like to throw out Nazi references at will...The NRA, one of their biggest lobbyist groups, has essentially taken a stance for tracking people they feel are mentally unstable AND instituting a police state where we have armed guards ...everywhere.

Watching that joke of a statement from the NRA I couldn't decide if I should laugh or be angry. It was simply ridiculous.

goofus

I'm so sure that PONG and BREAKOUT inspired serial killers and shooters!!! The 30 year old video games are no way near what has emerged in the last ten years!!!! Che and Castro are legends in your mind only, mostly adored by all left wing kooks!!!!

Jas, try telling a moonshiner in appalachia who is trying to feed his family, that the government isn't out to get him over stupid taxes.

goofus

Another expert on foreign countries has opined. I'm sure his extensive travel to Canada, Australia,Japan,Italy, and Germany has led to his expert testimony!!!!! Why haven't you traveled to Brazil? They have the strictest gun control in the world and they have more firearm deaths per capita than the USA

Steelerfan7272

Hey just a thought here but if your gonna be in law enforcement and especially a chief of police. Shouldn't you know what a so called "assault rifle" is?? The ignorance of the Norwalk Police Chief and the Sandusky assistant police chief is sheer disgusting! How are you gonna weight in on a conversation when you don't have the first clue what type of gun your actually talking about and what it does?!?! Now the guns THEY USE and HAVE for police use and I am sure some of them have them in their personal collection that you will never hear about, but those ARE fully automatic and REALLY ARE assault rifles! I am glad I don't live in Sandusky or Norwalk with that kind of ignorance in charge! It makes you wonder what else they don't really understand about laws and such but yet are in charge of enforcing them???!@?! God help us all if that's the case!

wiredmama222

I don't believe that the Federal Government intends to get rid of the Second Amendment at ALL. I do believe that the right to bear arms was written into the constitition for the protection of their citizens to protect their own homes then and forever more and is for that reason a staple of the constitituion.

It is NOT meant as a caveat for people to take it further than the confines of their homes. It isn't something that is the God given right to take beyond the confines of protection and food gathering for their families.

Only man can make this into something it isn't. Look at how they lived back then. Do you HONESTLY believe that the founding fathers meant this to be what it means today??? Come on now, think about that and be honest with yourselves.

Today's society is much different than that of Adams, Jackson and Jefferson. We should be more respectful of the written words of our founding fathers and a little less disrespectful of them, less twisting of what we want than of what they wrote.

We have exploited their words to fit what we want to do with the second amendment to fit our needs. We have made it fit for today.

What a shame that we have done so. We no longer hunt to eat, no longer fight out foreign or domestic enemies in our homes and no longer have to defend our home soil against enemies of foreign envaders right in our back yards. The most we fight in our homes are break in now and again and we can all call the police who get their pretty quickly.

Each of us has the right to bear and arm for protection but we don't need assault weapons for our own protection. So what have we to prove with them? Not much. I think we should be respecting that which was written so long ago, not exploiting it for personal gain like the weapons industries do, with their big league hit men known as the NRA.

formeremployee

What you don't understand is that the reason we "no longer fight out foreign enemies in our homes" is because we are an armed nation. Armed Americans make up the largest Army in the world. Our enemies know that to attack us in ground combat on our own soil would be suicide.

How come you don't see signs in peoples yards that say they support a gun ban? I'd answer it for you, but you're intelligent, i'll let you figure it out.

2cents's picture
2cents
2cents's picture
2cents

(So what have we to prove with them?)

Nothing!!! What do we have to prove with a bunch of guys ramming into each other on a 100 yard long piece of dirt, guys jumping up and down on a wood floor tossing balls, guys scratching themselves out in the grass looking into the sky? I could go on forever, some of us enjoy plinking, shooting, and we like all kinds of different toys. We may have a one shot muzzle loader to shoot trap with, put that away only to get out an AR and outline a target with a quick finger.

Wired, I never disrespect your opinion; firearms and yes semi-automatic firearms are not just for killing as so many like to say. The idea of placing a projectile downrange, hitting a target accurately can be a lot of fun. Anything can be a deadly weapon and that would include a baseball bat that one of those guys above uses, he practices hitting that little ball very hard, over a hundred miles an hour. Place one of those guys crazed out of his mind in a closed classroom of six year olds with a death wish and I bet none of those kids would come out alive either. Tools are tools, use them the wrong way and they become weapons!

luvblues2

I can see that no-one is reading the comments that say that a handgun is no different than any gun available to most people. Look at an AR-15:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

and an M-16:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16...

Same gun. Only, the M-16 is capable of 3 round bursts and fully auto. THAT is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is just like any handgun. Another difference? Harldy ANYONE can carry an M-16 legally.

Is this getting through to you anti-gun brickheads at all!?

When you think of assault rifle, think Tommy Gun. When you think what is legal, think your hand held pistol with a long barrel that just looks mean.

luvblues2

Dammit. Got the whole freakin' internet out there which is a library "plus" and you don't even have to leave the house, but y'all come in commenting on stuff you don't have a clue about.

vicariouslyAlive

i think before being able to comment on gun rights and regulations you first have to have some sort of experience with one... or at least be educated about them.

the media is using scare tactics to get into the hearts and minds of the uneducated... this nonsensical ban on riffles... you can't hide a riffle... you cant just slip it in a pocket and carry it in a school or office, the riffles that are easy to get ahold of from any sporting goods store are around 3ft in length... and yet somehow the media and it's mindless followers have us more scared of something you can spot at a hundred yards and not the pistoles that you can hid in a pocket... this how stupid this whole argument is... not to mention that it would take 5 - 6 years for riffles related deaths to even compete with the about of deaths from pistols, and yet somehow the media has gotten people to fight for such an illogical ban... it's quite amusing to see just how fickle and and easily persuaded the general public is. for god's sake more people are killed each year by knives than by riffles. there are around 10,000 homicides (murders) caused by firearms in each year... some years higher and some lower.. around 4-5% of those deaths were caused by a rifle of any kind (semi-auto, full-atuo, bolt action, single shot) thats around 400 deaths per year (some years more and some less)... in 2010 around 4600 people died in work related accidents where OSHA had strict safety regulations... so going by these numbers people are over 10 times more likely to die in places that are OSHA regulated than they are to be killed by a rifle of all combined makes and models. yet somehow, rifles are such a big threat?

if you put rifle related deaths up against just about any death related statistic you'd see that arguing against them would seem pretty silly... just looked up choking deaths per year... turns out that's just as dangerous as working for a place with safety standards regulated by OHSA... with around 4600 deaths per year... in 2003 nearly 2000 children at the age of 3 (and only counting children at the age of 3) died by choking on their toys or food, that same year nearly the same amount of people at any age were killed by any gun that wasn't a pistol (which includes all riffles and home made guns as well as shotguns)... so does that mean we outlaw children's toys and refuse to let them eat solid food? the media has people arguing against statistics and logic... we have equally and bigger things to worry about than something that only results in a fraction of a precent of all non natural deaths... people need to get a grip. i think the only things rifles don't beat out are shark attacks and death by coconut and other equally rare and bizarre circumstances... hell, you're even more likely to die in a plane crash than to be killed by a riffle...

goofus

Nice stats, where's the documentation or are you publishing what you heard!!!

vicariouslyAlive

goofus... try using Google to look stuff up. it's nice and has helped graduates for near a decade. i guess you haven't heard of it though.

but in case you're really that inept...

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun...

http://news.consumerreports.org/...

http://www.osha.gov/oshstats/com...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avi...

Dr. Information

Bottom line is more innocent lives are taken each year by drunk drivers and car accidents. More people are dying each day from obesity...etc. We all understand this tragedy and have a lot of sympathy. Thats not the point.

The point is most of you have no clue about guns and are on here spouting off about controlling this and that. Guess what, there are already gun control measures and plenty of them. You will never stop private sales of guns, you just simply can't. Private sales do not require background checks on purchases.

Also like I stated earlier all an assault rifle is, is a military LOOK ALIKE, nothing more nothing less. You can buy the exact same gun minus the military look with the same caliber, same mag capacity.....the only difference is the look...nothing more nothing less. Just because its called an assault rifle and looks military grade doesn't mean it is, because its not.

The term assault rifle is a joke. I could shoot the same amount of bullets from a handgun or a wood stock semi auto rifle and do just as much damage. Should we now call all rifles that are semi's assault rifles? How about handguns? I can fire off plenty of rounds in 10 seconds to do plenty of damage control.

Learn and educate yourself before you start spilling information about guns that you have no clue about.

luvblues2

Freakin' Dumba$$

Dr. Information

@ahhhh, the typical liberal response to the facts. Can't argue ehhhh, have to resort to name calling. Well chump, what do you have to say......lol

luvblues2

No. You are just regurgitating what has already been said. If you had taken the time to read former posts, you'd know why I called you that.

Dr. Information

dont like it dont read it chump.

EdgeOfTheH20

F.Y.I. ~ C-SPAN National Rifle Association Briefing 2:30pm ET

Dr. Information

Facts are.....the VAST majority of gun owners are responsible. Are there people who have guns that shouldn't.....sure. Just like there are people that drive cars that shouldn't. There are people who shouldn't have the internet but do.....

Horrible tragedy, but you cannot go on an anti gun rant because .000001% of our population kills someone or people.

The Big Dog's back

Not anti gun, anti weapons of mass murder.

Dr. Information

anti cars then? They kill more people than guns do each year. Anti fast food? Kills more than guns.

Any gun could be a weapon of mass murder. handgun, shotgun, rifle....etc. So you are for no guns.......typical liberal mindset.

Dr. Information

Massive car wreck kills 7......http://www.caradvice.com.au/1445...

Teen kills 8 in China with a Knife.......http://online.wsj.com/article/SB...

6 killed with baseball bat........http://whatreallyhappened.com/co...

Just a bunch of mass murder weapons. Ban them all according to Dog.

The Big Dog's back
The Big Dog's back

Pages