Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
In 2004 the NRA Called the Assault Weapons Ban Nonsense, Here’s Why They’re Wrong
When the assault weapon ban expired in 2004 as part of its “sunset provision”, Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president and chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, said the ban was nothing but a cosmetic law.
LaPierre told Jim Lehrer of PBS, “It’s not a question of harm. It’s a question of it was a meaningless ban. It involved only cosmetics.” He assured us that these guns were no different than any other gun. “The same guns, there’s no difference in the performance characteristics of the ones that they ban, this ones they didn’t. There’s not a gun going on the market tomorrow that’s more powerful than what was there a week ago.”
And yet, here’s a video of what a “Bushmaster” (one of the weapons used in the Sandy Hook massacre, whose design, the police say, can be traced the M-16 which was developed for U.S. troops in Vietnam) can do:
(Video was removed by user — go figure)
The Chiefs of Police disagreed with LaPierre then, to no avail.
Here’s an edited for brevity/topic snip of the interview Jim Lehrer did with LaPierre and Gil Kerlikowske, chief of the Seattle Police Department, on September 13, 2004 (emphasis mine):
WAYNE LA PIERRE: It’s not a question of harm. It’s a question of it was a meaningless ban. It involved only cosmetics.
JIM LEHRER: But I mean if it only meant cosmetics, then what was the problem in keeping it on — if the police chiefs of America thought it was a good idea?
WAYNE LA PIERRE: Well, because I think it’s just a meaningless, cosmetic nonsense law. I mean it was lied into law in the first place by giving the people the impression you were talking about machine guns and when a lie is discovered, it doesn’t get renewed…
There was so much misinformation talking about machine guns, weapons of war, rapid fire. I mean, they probably thought that that’s the type of gun they were talking about and they weren’t. I mean, we really talk to rank-and-file officers every day. I don’t hear this…
GIL KERLIKOWSKE: I am shaking my head. Number one, the International Association of Chiefs of Police represents something like 16,000 police chiefs.
When we were at the Dirksen Senate Office Building last week to talk about this, let me tell you, there were police chiefs and elected sheriffs from very, very small police departments across this country…
Machine guns have been banned since the 1930s. Nothing has changed. We haven’t made any attempt to remove guns. This weapon ban has been in effect for ten years. I have not heard one thing from any of my colleagues, big city or small, that says, look, we need to do something more about handguns.
This is a narrow and specific law to deal with military-style weapons that are not only used to assault police officers, used by gang bangers but also used to assault people in our communities. And, you know, we’re the ones sworn to protect those communities.
JIM LEHRER: Mr. LaPierre.
(LaPierre avoided the question until Lehrer asked again)
WAYNE LA PIERRE: He’s calling it an assault weapon bill – the same way they’re calling this. He’s using the same rhetoric to describe it as this.
What it bans is the 1187 pump shotgun that he was holding up in West Virginia.
JIM LEHRER: But I mean you just disregard or do not put credence in what the chief and he says 16,000 other police chiefs say about this elected sheriffs.
WAYNE LA PIERRE: I talk to rank-and-file police everyday. I’m just telling you, I had three of them stop me yesterday and they pulled me aside and said, Wayne, you guys keep going because those guys don’t speak for us.
The same guns, there’s no difference in the performance characteristics of the ones that they ban, this ones they didn’t. There’s not a gun going on the market tomorrow that’s more powerful than what was there a week ago.
END TRANSCRIPT
How wrong LaPierre’s absurd talking points turned out to be. Sadly, it was obvious then, but his rhetorical specialty of hyper-reactionary moving-of-the-goal-post to gun banning sufficed to silence discussion over the necessity of the assault weapons ban. Of note, LaPierre’s hysteria regarding assault weapons not being any different from other weapons and all weapons being banned was addressed in the the 1994 ban, which provided specific protection to 670 types of hunting rifles and shotguns.
Furthermore, the Brady campaign clearly lays out the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and military-type assault weapons (among other weapons):
Q. What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic, military-style assault weapons?
A. Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile to kill an animal, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to kill as many people quickly, as would be needed in combat.
Opponents of banning assault weapons argue that these military-style weapons only “look” scary. Assault weapons look scary and are scary because they are equipped with combat hardware. Combat features like high-capacity ammunition magazines, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns, are designed specifically to facilitate the killing of human beings in battle.
In September of 2004, in spite of urging by police chiefs, the Republican majority refused to bring the assault weapon ban up for a vote, saying there were not enough votes. The 1994 law had been endorsed by President Reagan, President Carter, and President Ford. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms.
Additional source: Mass Shootings in the United States Since 2005, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Mass Gun Violence in the United States Since 1997, Washington, DC: major-shootings pdf.
Related Posts :
Like many of you, I've been the recipient of angry gun nuts' talking points. Yesterday a real gun nut to ...
Dick's Sporting Goods has removed all of the guns from its store closest to Newton, Connecticut and is s ...
When asked today during his daily briefing if President Obama would reinstate the assault weapons ban, White ...
Sen. Dianne Feinstein shot down the idea that people armed with assault weapons could have kept themselv ...
President Obama delivered another blow to the NRA by zeroing in on background checks and banning high ca ...
74 Responses to In 2004 the NRA Called the Assault Weapons Ban Nonsense, Here’s Why They’re Wrong
Public Service Advertisements
djchefron
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 8:27 am
1. Ban on sale of automatics, semi-automatics and conversion kits
2. Ban on sale of high capacity magazines
3. Ban on sale of cop-killer ammunition
4. Prison for gunsmiths and others converting weapons to auto fire
5. Insurance for guns owned as for pools
6. Ban on body armor except for law enforcement
7. Closure of gun show, private sales and other loosely regulated trading venues
8. Grandfather existing weapons but to remain on premises; high capacity magazines and cop-killer ammunition to be turned into police with 90 day grace period.
9. Internet notice of persons owning grandfathered banned weapons as per child predator safety notification
10. Bi-Annual recertification of gun owners with inventory
11. All weapons to be stored under lock and key
12. Very Regressive tax on Ammunition
These are things we should do as a country and for those who will say we need our guns to protect against the tyrany of government,just think about this.Do you think you can stand up to a firefight with a regular squad of infantry or even palookaville swat team?
harris stein
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Let’s start with this.
“Insurance for guns owned as for pools.”
My homeowners insurance already covers this.
Now this.
“Grandfather existing weapons but to remain on premises; high capacity magazines and cop-killer ammunition to be turned into police with 90 day grace period.”
The Ruger Mini-14 is a semi automatic 223 with a 5 round magazine and conventional wood stock. It is a varmint or deer rifle. In about 15 minutes it is convertible to an assault rifle with a readily available plastic folding stock and 20 round magazine. Very few law abiding citizens who own these guns will do what you are proposing. In fact you will create overnight a very lucrative black market. Better to ban high capacity magazines and folding stocks going forward than kicking in doors of law abiding citizens.
“Bi-Annual recertification of gun owners with inventory.”
No way djchefron. Police are paramilitary forces trained to be suspicious of everyone. I won’t allow them in my house without a warrant. This can only work if conducted by non law enforcement personnel.
“All weapons to be stored under lock and key.”
I like this one.
“Very Regressive tax on Ammunition.”
Unenforceable. You will create a black market. Also many gunowners reload their own ammo by recycling brass cases and buying bullets, powder, and primers. I know people who make their own bullets.
Retroactive laws won’t work here. Turning law abiding citizens into criminals overnight will only make things worse. Any gun control, and I’m all for meaningful regulations, must be going forward.
A Walkaway
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
FYI, automatic weapons are already against the law, unless you have a special license with all sorts of restrictions.
I remind everyone who thinks gun bans and gun control is a good idea, that it was the law of the land with regards to American Indians for a LONG time… my tribe didn’t even have the right to defend ourselves until 1980 in Georgia (and while I don’t have copies of the laws making it so – I understand the same applies for Florida and Alabama). My people had to hide their identity and suppress their own culture and religion (done in hiding if at all) until it became legal to exist in 1980.
That’s not a way to live – in fear for your lives because you’re a minority. Having to find ways to suppress your children from blurting out the truth… and even teaching or being taught to be ashamed of who you are so you’re not killed or shipped to Oklahoma.
We have a saying in my tribe: “In black yards they burn crosses, in Indian yard they burn FAMILIES!”
I’ve talked with elders who mentioned portions of their kin – entire families burned alive by the Klan.
That is the reality where this could head… and I don’t want to return to the past. Again, remember WHY said laws against our rights were passed.
Plus I’d add that I live in a hellhole dominated by the types that have created most of the misery… and believe me, the “authorities” would come after my own guns first – leaving us defenseless against the “Good Christians” who have already torched my workshop, poisoned our kitties, and done other things which I’ve mentioned before.
They attack in secret because they know if I catch them I will defend home, family, and self.
A Walkaway
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Correction – I HAVE copies of the Georgia laws making it so, but not for the other states where I understand the laws were the same.
(And I might add that a person I met from my tribe – a decorated WWII vet, was hunted for a good portion of his life because he was Indian – to be sent to Oklahoma (because they were “wild Indians” – refused to go to the churches). When he served, his papers had specific orders that he was to be returned to Oklahoma when he was released from the military, with strict warnings to not return to the Southeast. Because of the heroism of that man and the impressive records of American Indians during that war, the orders were lifted – but the laws were still on the books and the death threats remained.)
Yellow Dog Yankee
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 9:40 am
You should add childproof locks to your list and I will bet, in this day and age, there are also fingerprint identification locks like many laptops have which would limit the use of the gun by other than the owner.
Reynardine
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 10:15 am
Actually, DJChefron, there are those of us out here more worried about a firefight with loony neighbors and church members.
Most of the proposals are good. Understand, though, that as far as ordinary firearms go (such as a hunting gun, a varmint gun, or a common sidearm for home or business), rural areas are in a very different situation from suburban ones, and one urban area is different from another. We need to revive the principle, even if by Constitutional amendment, that states, counties, and large municipalities can enact their own laws, with the proviso that these have equal effect on all classes of qualified residents, and that persons in transit are not affected so long as any otherwise lawful weapons they carry are either locked or unloaded.
djchefron
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 10:30 am
This is how insane this debate has become about gun rights.I can go online RIGHT NOW and buy a Barrett 50-caliber sniper rifle. This gun has a range of 5 miles, can shoot through practically anything and can bring down a freaking helicopter. Now why does Joe and Jane Public need such a weapon? They dont. It and other militarized weapons must be banned.
Reynardine
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 10:59 am
So they should be. I am just thinking of my poor old bolt-action Mossberg, never fired by me, though drawn a couple of times when varmints got chickens.
Lyda
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
No one you cannot. One, you cannot afford one. Two, you are probably a felon and would not pass the NICS.
If it is effective at 5 miles than you are effective at deductive reasoning (Hint: It doesn’t shoot 5 miles).
Andrew Carvin
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 10:33 am
Criminals don’t care about gun laws, just like rapists/murderers continue to rape/murder even though rape/murder is illegal. When you make it harder to obtain a gun all you are doing is creating a disarmed public that is easier to victimize. Individual crazy people that commit evil acts with guns are not representative of the vast majority of gun owners, and if you actually thought for a second you would know this. I made a video about it, and it’s at my YouTube channel Zarrakan, and here’s the name:
2012 12 16 ZOC Shooting For Reponsibility Part 1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=X...
Watch it, share it, and join the fight against the evil anti-gun movement.
djchefron
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 10:50 am
I was watching a favorite movie the other day.Get Shorty.There was a scene where Balboni was in the directors office asking about his money.Well after some physical persausion he pulled his gun.Enter the other man also asking about money and being the tough guy insulted Balboni.Never mind that Balboni had his gun out already tough guy #2 proceeded to show his concealed gun still in his pants.Balboni ask him was he a quick draw,man hesitated,look at his gun and Balboni shot him dead.Ended his role right there.Now what tactical situation do you fancu youself in where you going to get the drop on someone thats already have you in his sites.Unless you support stand your ground laws where you only feel you in danger and shoot unarmed people and then say ol well let their god sort it out.
Reynardine
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 11:24 am
Shit, Carvin, we have lawmakers in favor of legalizing rape, and even murder, with the proviso that the perp is white (and maybe that the victim isn’t).
Paws
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 11:29 am
So since we can’t stop all gun violence from happening, we shouldn’t bother trying to at least stem the tide of blood?
Sorry but that’s ridiculous. There is no reason on the planet why any individual citizen needs an assault weapon or some kind of gun that can shoot a million bullets a second. If you have some reason why a person should have those types of weapons, please share it with the class.
The truth of the matter is that there is NO legitimate reason for that. If “responsible” gun-owners do not believe there is a reason for those types of weapons, as recent polls seem to indicate, then why not support legislation that will at least regulate those types of weapons/ammunition? It would seem a more reasonable and logical thing for a law-abiding gun owner like yourself to do.
Of course, you are too busy trying to distract and deflect from the real issue with your specious arguments about other crimes and while I do believe most gun owners are not out to do violence, it is absolutely unconscionable that they stand by and do and say nothing that would bring about sensible laws designed to at least make it a little harder for a madman to get his hands on weapons and ammunition that are designed for one thing and one thing only: to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible.
Gaggi
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 6:19 pm
No reason? I can think of one. Terrorist attacks at multiple cities in US including police and fire stations have swamped police and relief effort. Hospitals cannot deal with the casuallyies, causing a breakdown in the rule of law of this country. Terrorist Attacks are still ensuing with terrorists shooting in the public like they did in Mumbai.
I need my weapon to protect my life. There, you have a reason…one you pray never happens, but in this crazy world…anything is possible now.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Nice try. Do you write for SNL?
Lyda
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 11:51 pm
Do you really think these rifles shoot “a million bullets a second”?
Semi-automatic rifles have been in use since the early 20th century, long before the meaningless phrase “assault weapon”. Home invasions are a very real threat and unfortunately have led to thousands of robberies, kidnappings, homicides, rapes and assaults over the years. There are a few reasons rifles are preferred to handguns. One is that these rifles shoot bullets much smaller than those used in handguns and subsequently pose less risk to innocent bystanders should they pass through an interior wall.
Luckily for this family there was no “assault weapon” ban: tinyurl.com/bmn7fab
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 11:57 pm
In any case thank god they will be gone soon.
Lyda
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 11:59 pm
Apologies, this is the correct story: tinyurl.com/c35zdfy
Manuel Bottine
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Just how many of the kids killed at Columbine or Virginia Tech or Newtown were killed by criminals? Quit acting like gun violence is reserved to people that obtain the guns illegally!!!!
ProtectTheKids
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 10:50 am
My opinion is that there is such a huge business on selling, trading, servicing, shooting and converting these assault rifles … that unless our government just trumps all that bs and bans assault weapons that this will get no where. You cannot negotiate with the radical gun crazed people that think semi automatics are needed for hunting or bragging that about the guns they have. There are a lot of uneducated, alcohol/drug consuming, angry people in the world… having military assault weapons in their possession is not acceptable. Our society in the US needs to setup up and not tolerate this anymore. I am a Republican and I am *not* for big government or giving out benefits that we cannot pay for. But I am for “proper” laws to be declared and enforced to allow hunting sport but not allow the ownership/use of assault weapons outside of our military and police forces. Think about this… it took *1* shoe bomber to cause us all to have to take off our shoes to get on planes. It’s been 10s of dozens of assault rifle killings in our communities and we let the NRA and their lobbiest and the radical nut community which is probably .00005 percent of all of us CONTROL the government. People, step up and support the leaders that will take on this ban enforcement of assault rifles.
Lyda
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 12:15 am
If you consider them military weapons, then why do we as civilian police forces use them everyday?
James Threadgill
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Yes, Andrew, we’ve all heard about the criminals in Britain and Europe armed with semi-automotice weapons and all the carnage happening there becuase only criminals have them….. Wait a minute, we have heard about it becuase it hasn’t happened. You should demand La Pierre and the NRA give back your brain so you can do your own thinking.
ALL GUN OWNERS SHOULD BE REQURED TO HAVE AN APPROVED GUN SAFE IN WHICH GUNS MUST BE STORED WITH ACCESS ONLY AVAILABLE TO THE DULY REGISTERED OWNER. Violators should do serious time.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
none of the people who quote crime in Britain and Canada have ever taken the time to look at the criminal statistics from those two countries. They are fed a line of bull from the conservatives, Fox news, Breitbart, and the NRA that none of them take the time to look up
ibwilliamsi
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Here. I looked it up. We’d be way safer without guns like in the UK. FWIW, long guns are permitted for hunting purposes with a license in the UK, and the owner must submit to a police check on the weapon without notice.
There were a whopping total of 724 homicides per 100k people in the UK in 2009, with 138 per 100k being committed with firearms.
Conversely, in the USA there were 15,241 homicides per 100k people in 2009, with 9,146 per 100k being committed with firearms.
I think that YOU and people LIKE you are the ones that need to educate yourselves.
www.gunpolicy.org/
Lyda
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 12:22 am
Great Britain is an island. America shares a border with Mexico. Mexico has very strict gun laws.
Concerned Citizen
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 5:02 pm
There’s no relationship to gun laws and violence in the UK… or anywhere else in Europe… EU has always had little gun violence (they have more now after gun control)… Although the incident in Sandy Hill was horrible… the rifle was in the kids trunk… Regardless, rifles are used very little in crimes in the US… 300 or so homicides from rifles in 2011 700 or so from hand and feet. Try to be more informed and less opinionated.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Wrong. The guy used the bushman rifle on all of the kids. Try to be better informed. He left a shotgun in the trunk of the car. Every one of those people was killed with that bushman rifle. You’re obviously not informing yourself and using fax from some unsecured website.
www.nydailynews.com/news/...
Responsible Gun Ownwer
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
This is a very sad day indeed – today I find myself re-evaluating what my role in “protecting my daughter” is. It changed from protecting her from the evil in this world, such as that which manifested in the form of a broken, damaged, malformed human mind such as Adam Lanza, to protecting her from a much more dangerous, much older evil – that which is a government disarming it’s population of the ability to stand up for itself and its freedom.
This is no new story. The disarmament of the law abiding population (which are the only ones affected by laws) has been the first step in any communistic military campaign throughout history.
In today’s America, we do not want to stand up and take any real responsibility, because that would require that we may have to make some sort of personal sacrifice and possibly suffer some hardship in the process – so we stay locked in our Hollywood perception of what “being kept safe” is.
The reality here is quite clear to me. No words written on paper have ever prevented a mentally unstable, or truly evil mind from committing unspeakable acts of violence against his/her fellow man. If it weren’t “assault rifles” it would be knives or spears or arrows, right down to rocks – the weapon that was used in the earliest recorded murder in Christian history.
The real, unspeakable danger here is that anyone would buy into the ideal that curtailing the sane, law abiding, and civically responsible citizen from having weapons capable of discharging “a million bullets a second” would in any way change how insane, evil people harm others. The bad guys WILL ALWAYS HAVE THESE. ALWAYS.
“Assault Weapons” are simply what is available today, so are the current weapons of choice. Change that, and all you have done is change what they use to kill us with.
The reason we need these weapons is fundamentally simple. We need them to protect ourselves from the bad guys. Anyone that supports banning weapons to keep us safe…
Reynardine
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
My ancient Mossberg could not have done that kind of carnage in that amount of time, and neither, when I had one, could my .44 snub revolver, which chambered six shots only. When my co-author Joe was policing the mean streets of New York, police officers carried .38s, and that was enough. Now Glocks won’t handle what’s out there, and every charter county in Florida has a SWAT team. As for New York City, you ask Joe or any of his colleagues what they think about the shit that’s floating around the Five Boroughs these days.
Lyda
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 12:26 am
You must be mistaken. New York City has very strict gun laws. Are you saying criminals are not abiding by the law?
harris stein
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
It sounds like you have read your history books Responsible Gun Ownwer. Yes, monarchical and totalitarian governments are always going about disarming certain groups of citizens to enslave them as forced labor. Just look to the ancient Greeks and Romans who kept slaves in deplorable conditions. And the slaves in most cases outnumbered the citizens. The same was true in the southern US prior to the Civil War. The situation today is much different. Meaningful regulation is necessary, disarming law abiding citizens is not necessary.
I personally believe that high capacity magazines for semi automatic pistols should be banned going forward, not retroactively. Gun manufacturers are already designing semi automatic pistols that can hold 15 rounds with a legal magazine. Why do you need a mazazine that can hold 30 or more rounds? Why do you need a semi automatic rifle with a magazine that can hold 100 or more rounds?
Paws
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
No one is trying to disarm citizens, that’s a crock. I’m sorry, but it is. No one is saying you should not be allowed a hunting rifle or a gun in your home to protect you. That’s not what this is about and honestly, you know that.
A Walkaway
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Two words answering your question – ban guns (and yes, those two words are starting to pop up here).
That’s disarming people. INNOCENT people, who may have good reason to be armed. (Read my response above.)
I won’t ever go conservative again, but gun control is a binary issue with me… and the one thing that will force me to stop fighting the dominionists and conservatives and withdraw from the company of liberals, with whom on every other subject I agree.
Why don’t we all tackle the REAL problem here… discover the reason why the idiot killed all those kids… and find ways to stop THAT!!!
No reason for violence- no violence. No threat, less guns because people will only keep them for other reasons.
Doesn’t that make sense to everyone?
sandppppr
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
The fact is that these ‘incidents’ of mass shootings by a serial gunman/killer are happening in this country about on the average of every 90 days. Now is the time to take steps to stop/limit these massacres. The assault rifle makes it very efficient to accomplish these acts and it is easily available and relatively easy to use. The opponents will say you can accomplish the same thing with a bomb, but bombs aren’t that accessible and are difficult to make to be successful and reliable. People kill people with guns. You can kill people with knives, but it is certainly not efficient as an assault rifle.
A Walkaway
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
If you found a truckload of dominionist “warriors for God” showing up at your front door, demanding that you convert or die (and they’re all armed), how are you going to defend yourself and have even a chance of stopping them?
Seriously, that could happen and soon. They’re already committing violence and I expect to learn that the nutcase who killed those kids is somehow connected to “Good Christians” and the “Religious Right”.
After all, it was a public school that was attacked, and they consider public schools to be evil “centers of Satan” (or some such crap).
Reynardine
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Actually, Walkaway, a breech-loading, repeating 12-gage with double aught should handle them and their vehicles both. I imagine even my old Mossberg could be tolerably intimidating, because, unlike my heroic co-author, they aren’t trained to keep going when someone shoots back. And you do want them subject to stop and arrest if they are seen proceeding down the streets with a truck-mounted bazooka or machine gun.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
There is a quick difference between being emotionally disturbed and belonging to a fundamental religious group. I don’t ascribe to the theory of blaming either one until the cops come out and tell everyone what was going on. I have read a lot about this mother and there was absolutely no indication that she was overly religious or anything of the sort
Responsible Gun Ownwer
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Why is it up to you, or anyone else for that matter, what I, as a law abiding citizen have access to for protecting my family and myself? How do you know I don’t need 30 rounds in my magazine to accomplish this? How did my friend know that he and his family would fall under full-scale attack while camping in the mountains of New Mexico, and that their attacker would ultimately fire over 300 rounds at them, with over 100 of them penitrating their RV? Once the state police and rangers got the crazy man subdued, it was found that he was armed with an illigally obtained military “assault weapon” – one that he sent home piece by piece from active duty, then later assembled here stateside.
It is not up to you, or any of my lawmakers to decide what evil may be visited on me and mine, how I should be allowed to meet that attack, and when and where and how it will happen.
The simple thing is, as others have posted, find out why the sicko flipped his lid and use that to prevent others from carrying out similar horrors in the future.
There is nothing that could happen to me that would cause me to use my firearms in a way that even remotely resembled what Adam Lanza did. I feel confident that the overwhelming majority of “gun fanatics” as some have labeled us are of the same mind as I am on this matter.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
I’m going to assume that you are a absolutely normal person(and I believe that), but I would never say never. That’s like a kid of 25 saying he is healthy and doesn’t need healthcare who gets cancer two days later. I’m not being critical of you, but I would never say I would never do something when we never know what could happen.
We can’t stop people from getting guns and shooting people, but we can make our best efforts to limit the amount of people they shoot at one time
harris stein
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Please provide a link to this incident you speak of. If it is as heinous as you say then there must be a record of it somewhere. Otherwise, go away.
The mental health care in this nation is miniscule to non existent. People fall through the cracks every day. Why? Because the rulers of our inverted totalitarian system ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inv... ) don’t want people to get help. Ultra wealthy people like the Koch brothers and their ilk want us to blow each other away in senseless violent confrontations while they count up their treasure.
I am a Vietnam Veteran and a gun owner. I deeply resent your insinuation that I would not defend your constitutional rights to defend yourself in any way you believe is correct. If you believe you need a 30 round magazine for your Glock or whatever semi auto pistol you have, go get one. If you think you need a 100 round magazine for your AK or whatever assault gun you have, go get one. But don’t spew your venom without providing some proof to your accusations.
Responsible Gun Ownwer
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Shiva:
I couldn’t agree more. The best way to limit the number of casualties in these situations is to meet force with force.
We cannot stop the crazed gunmen of the world from trying, but limiting our ability to protect ourselves from threats that we cannot even begin to predict is not the answer.
If ONE citizen in that theater in Aurora had been legally carrying concealed, that event would have ended up dramatically different.
If ONE citizen in the shopping mall in Oregon had been legally carrying concealed, ditto.
If ONE school official in the administrative office complex had been armed, and trained on how to react to just such a situation, NO children would have been lost.
I will be the first to say that we are in some very difficult times. Curtailing the majority of us to defend ourselves and each other from the occasional criminal nutjob is not the answer. Recognizing that the world is not such a nice place after all, and taking the necessary responsibility to protect ourselves against it is our duty.
Legislation, lawmaking, debate, “big brother” passing laws that limit the effectiveness of the vast majority to protect ourselves and each other against this kind of thing are a smoke screen. No Law is going to thwart a criminal – including the criminally insane.
Time to expand the TSA into our schools, and require that a certain percent of school personnel are trained and have access to deadly force to protect our most precious commodity against this kind of insanity in the future.
harris stein
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Nobody is limiting you from defending yourself if you feel you or your family is under threat. However, your solution of turning this country into an armed camp is not the answer.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
What I was referring to when limiting the amount of people they can shoot, is not adding more guns and the mix but limiting the amount of rounds that they can shoot. If the killer had walked in that building with a rifle that he had issued and cock he would hardly have killed the amount of people that he did.
Your assumption that other armed people in the malls and schools would’ve made a difference has little evidence to back it up and that is to be expected. Someone could’ve got a lucky shot off and killed him certainly. But I think about a darkened theater full of smoke was some wise guy in the 20th row who pulls out his pistol to shoot a guy in a Batman outfit and ends up killing other people. How often does a man with an assault rifle have the jump on a teacher when he walks into the room and she goes for her weapon?
Other people having weapons is no more than a 50-50 chance. Let’s remember that this guy had to break into school, he didn’t just walk in. Let’s remember if a armed person were at the door he would have a 50% chance of being shot. I am all for secured schools, but I’m not sure I want to have some teachers with guns in a classroom of children. Here in the malls in Knoxville they have police walking through them constantly I don’t know if that’s normal in other states or cities.
But the only real way of stopping the amount of people who get killed is to limit what type of artillery a person can carry. It’ll take time before all of the assault rifles are gone, but in time they will be gone
Responsible Gun Ownwer
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
When faced with the choice of armed camp vs. laws that tell us we can only have a few bullets in our ancient guns to fight whatever may happen, the unfortunate truth is, yes it is the answer.
I have a responsibility to my family, myself, and my country to be prepared to rise up in order to defend our way of life, even if it means giving my own life in order to do so. I will continue to carry out my responsibility, even if you would make me a criminal in doing so.
I will continue to maintain a personal armory equipped with weapons that are at minimum equal to those of who I may have to fight against. I will do this regardless of any laws that are passed that would prevent me from doing so, because I know that it is the right thing to do, and to do anything less would truly be the end to a free America.
Signing off,
Responsible Gun Owner, Responsible Free American
ps. Please, when you run out of your 10 rds, don’t stand behind me for protection! LOL
1voice1vote
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
“I will continue to maintain a personal armory equipped with weapons that are at minimum equal to those of who I may have to fight against.”
Truly disturbed thinking Gun Ownwer(sic) – get this dude’s IP address to the FBI – apparently he’s got nukes
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Part of the reason 84 people have died by the gun just since Sandy Hook
1voice1vote
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Yes, Shiva. Among the 84, another 3-yr-old tot murdered by a “responsible” gun owner:
newsok.com/boy-shot-and-k...
Gaggi
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Yes and since the shooting, 132 people have died as a result of drunk driving. Let’s ban alcohol.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
So, we step aside if the issue and introduce another? This will scare you, I am all for banning drinking. Or at least mandatory life in prison for drunk driving an killing someone
The issue is still mass murder with a weapon
Gaggi
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 8:14 pm
No shiva. The problem is we have a right to carry guns as per the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights. The intent was to arm the public from a tyrannical govt that took over. They wanted to give us protection…from them!!! Therefore it is important the public is armed with weapons that you only feel big brother should have. To say the 2nd ammendment limits the firearm a person can own, is akin to saying the 1st ammendment limits the type of religion a person can practice.
If you don’t like what the ten principles this country was founded on, I will buy you a one way ticket back to India.
Gaggi
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
And don’t say, we’ll do you think the public should have stinger missiles and nukes as well? No I don’t. Those are already illegal. In 1934 explosive devices and automatic weapons were made illegal already so don’t even go there
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Not true. I do not call for the ban of all guns. Onply assault rifles of the type used in Sandy Hook.
Secondly the intent was not to fight your own government. Thats pure bunk. And better yet, seeing as though you and others have not thought this through, how long would you last fighting the govenrment? More than 15 minutes before you and family were dead? Or less
Drop the fight the government thing, thats BS and you know it
Inez
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
What armed camp are you talking about. Are you in Afghanistan or Syria? Your “armory” is not one of a collector when you talk about weaponry to DEFEND yourself. Where in God’s NAME DO YOU LIVE? ARE YOU defending A TOWN city, OR JUST YOURSELF and or family.? With that kind of fear., I would move, if I were you!
harris stein
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Obviously Mr. Responsible Gun Ownwer you are afraid to face the truth about our inverted totalitarin political system. So you make claims you can’t back up, then make insinuations about a person’s patriotism instead of having a meaningful discussion.
You’ll notice Mr. Responsible Gun Ownwer that when I post something on the net I use my real name so you can look it up if you are so inclined and discover where I live. Then if you are so inclined to engage me you will find out that I have a few more than 10 rounds.
Responsible Gun Ownwer
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Shiva,
Please explain to me how writing down some words on paper is going to limit what a madman can do in the real world? It will do nothing to stop him, or any other criminal, from having multiple 30 rd or whatever magazines in his weapon – it will only limit those of us who repect the law.
In the case of the school in Connecticut, prior to entering any classroom wings the attacker visited several offices in the administrative wing, any one of which he could have been stopped at had anyone been other than a benevolent, sitting duck.
Regardless, the fact that ALL of our schools are just sitting there unarmed and waiting for such an attack is unacceptable to me. Let’s keep the “assault weapons” only in the hands of the criminally insane and law enforcement officials. Oh, did you see all the AR15s on the swat guys swarming all over the school campus and the neighborhood after the fact? All of them put together can’t keep you safe. Recording a bunch of data after a slaughter and filing it away on some server can’t keep you safe. Only you can keep you safe. I choose to take my responsibility to do that for myself and those who I am responsible for. I encourage anyone else to make their own decision and carry it out accordingly. However, I will not allow anyone else to make my decision for me.
Oh, and 1voice1vote: Your fear of the fact that so many responsible americans maintain personal armories with weapons that are at least equal to what the bad guys all have, and you feel that is somehow sick or strange or should be illegal – I feel sorry for you. I hope your $27 deadbolt lock allows you to sleep well at night – mine is only there to alert me to the fact that I need to reach my gun to protect my family when someone kicks it in……
1voice1vote
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Tell me all about it, weapons of death fetishist: how did that “personal armory” work out for Nancy Lanza?
Hint: 4 bullets to the head while she slept
Lyda
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 12:05 am
She could have just as easily been suffocated or stabbed in her sleep. She was not killed because she owned firearms.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
No, not all of our schools are unsecured. As I said this guy had to break into the school in order to get in.
It’s not hard to stop the immediate cessation of manufacture of clips that hold more than X amount of bullets. It’s not hard to stop the sale of assault weapons. Both semi automatic pistols and rifles. There will certainly be a period of time in which these weapons are available, but in time they will be gone. Nothing will happen overnight
As I have said in previous threads you can’t stop a person from shooting people if he’s going to do it. But you can find ways to limit the amount of people he can shoot. There’s absolutely nothing you or anyone else needs an assault weapon for. You will never meet an enemy at your door that you are going to need to spray the entire neighborhood in order to get rid of them unless you’re a complete loon. Which I doubt so all this talk about having the perfect sized armory in your home is just nothing more than BS.
Responsible Gun Ownwer
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Harris,
I have no need or desire to “engage” you. Unless you are physically threatening me or mine with deadly force, then your whereabouts are of no concern to me.
One might have to wonder, using one’s real first and last name, in combination with issuing a challenge for me to come “engage” you to find out how many rounds you have in your maginzine…… might just be a nut job. Better take away all of the rest of our guns so you can’t hurt us……..
Responsible Gun Ownwer
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Personal armory worked out great for her. She was an irresponsible gun owner.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Yes, her personal army worked out real good for her didnt it. That is a line of BS. I’m sure you can tell us how her personal army worked out great for her
harris stein
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
This human (I use the word loosely) is putting words in peoples mouths and is obviously a troll out trolling for left leaning, free thinkers. As a free thinker I am honored to be able to voice my opinion on this blog.
The woman Nancy Lanza was a responsible gun owner until she enabled her son to gain access to her guns. I read the story about the 3 year toddler in Oklahoma who gained access to a gun at the home of his uncle who happens to be a state trooper. He was a responsible gunowner. Will he be disciplined by the state? Probably not. But now he will have to live with his mistake the rest of his life. Many people will have to live with Nancy Lanza’s mistake but she won’t. Is that good or bad? I can’t speculate on that.
I live in Arizona, a right to carry state. I know many gun collectors and actually have cordial relationships with many nra members although I’m not a member since I don’t like the way the nra does the bidding of the Koch brothers. My neighbor taught the gunsmithing class at Yavapai Community College in Prescott. He is retired now. He toes the nra line but is able to have meaningfull dialogue with me. He knows that 100 round drum magazines are unnecessary and are merely for show. But when the wrong person gets a hold of these things anything is possible. I had a friend who bought one of these and then he wasn’t my friend anymore. I realized if someone needs one of these 100 round magazines to feel like a man he isn’t man enough to be my friend.
1voice1vote
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Look, RGO, “responsible” is far too subjective a term for the current level of this discussion. Here’s a/the problem:I know many gun owners. Each and every one of them claims to be “responsible.” They run the gamut from “personal armory” to a single hunting rifle. Some (most) have sturdy gun safes. Some of them keep at least one weapon out of their gun safe for “quick access” (nightstand/under the bed/on their person…). And each of these folks will defiantly proclaim “responsible gun owner” status. Responsible? Some more than others.
I do not now, nor have I ever begrudged a hunter appropriate gun(s) with which to provide protein for his/her self/family/community. None of the hunters that I know use the AR15 or the lmnop27… They don’t get their jollies by destroying the meat.
You can have your guns, RGO, hell have as many as you feel you “need” to be free/protected. But if you want to use military-grade human-hunting/killing machines – then, at least for the time being, take yourself to a “club” that rents/stores/(?) them, instructs the “well trained militia” on use/responsibility and IS HELD RESPONSIBLE for the weapons.
I don’t have the answers to this multifaceted problem, but until we see fit to provide acceptable levels of mental health care in this country, the very least we can do is to lessen the allowable death-projectiles-per-second in the civilian population.
Tap Duncan
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 4:24 pm
where’s the link to the camping shooting? Still waiting to read that story, or is it just BS?
BTW, I’m also a gun owner and former Marine, but I don’t peddle in BS to make my arguments, so, please give us a link
harris stein
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
You’re wasting your time trying to engage Mr. Responsible Gun Ownwer. The story about the incident in New Mexico is exactly that, a story.
He finds it necessary to put words in a person’s mouth. I never issued a challenge to Mr. Responsible Gun Ownwer. The word engage has many meanings but obviously for Mr. Responsible Gun Ownwer it means only 1 thing.
ruger380
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
I guarantee that if the principal and/or a few teachers in this school would have been armed, this would never have happened. Such a radical idea for you gun control freaks I know.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Its so typical of the gun nut to be totally unable to give an opinion without an insult.
No, you cant guarantee anything.
Responsible Gun Ownwer
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 10:53 pm
For you link hungry poo pooers – this incident happened in 1981 in the Gila National Forest in New Mexico. It barely made the local paper in Mimbres, NM. Reality check – there was no internet to speak of in 1981. There was however, a real threat to individuals rights to protect themselves.
Responsible Gun Ownwer
Dec. 17th, 2012 at 11:02 pm
1voice1vote:
Why do you believe that the only reason one should own firearms is to hunt with? I was raised with guns in my life from earliest childhood. Before I was born, my father hunted with his friends. He never pushed me to do that unless I felt compelled to do so, which I never have.
I believe that as long as there is a grocery store and I have gainful employment, hunting is neither necessary nor a “sport”, but rather a passtime of those that feel the need to compensate for whatever shortcomings in life they may otherwise have.
I maintain my cache of firearms not to hunt inocent animals, but to protect me and mine from the real animials – the criminally insane and evil. My entire reason for even taking my time to post here has been to attempt to shed some light on the futility of passing “laws” that regulate crimials. Especially laws, that while failing to do so, inhibit the rest of us.
Time to deal with the Ninendo baby, no active parents, video gaming little kids playing M for Mature withour a parent to stop them generation that is now growing up to come back to haunt us all colletively as the society who bred them.
Enough bullshit. Enough talk about politicians taking away our clips and using the horrible tragedies of late as a platform to do so, even though anyone with any sense at all can clearly see that that isn’t there real purpose in doing so.
Time to put them all aside and us, as a responsible people, even against our elected officials, deal with this very real and prevailent issue.
1voice1vote
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
What she says, RGO: “Replying to my pro-gun friends”
…”I just wish you loved the First Amendment as much as your reading of the Second Amendment. Instead trying to bully people into submission, let us speak freely. Most people aren’t calling for a ban on guns contrary to your knee-jerk reactions. We want better regulations on something that is already regulated. We just want improvements. To quote my friend Jim Sanches, there’s a difference between regulating and banning.
“Respect that America needs to talk about this massacre considering many factors including gun control. So, stop making wild accusations, calling people morons, and trying to shut down discussion.”…
www.coffeepartyusa.com/pr...
Concerned Citizen
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Folks… Violent crime is on a steep while gun ownership is skyrocketing… You’r letting the media create a false narrative… I’ll say it again… Violent crime and murder are WAY down while gun ownership is WAY up..
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 5:14 pm
The United States slaughters more people by gun than any other country. What is your point? Crime is not way down it is down in some areas.
What you are saying is it’s okay to slaughter people as long as crime is down. I’m sorry but that doesn’t cut it
Don Dionne
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 5:49 pm
Once a statute is passed into law, it is binding on the citizens under that government’s jurisdiction. So, if a statute requires the surrender of ammunition, for instance, there may be legitimate options that exist to protect your property or other rights, however, failure to comply with the law moves you from the class of “law abiding citizens” to that of a criminal, whether you agree with the law or not. So, those of you sing the song about law-abiding citizens doing this or that seems to miss that critical fact: Once the law becomes applicable to you, your failure to comply with it moves you into the category of criminal. Now, whether it ends up being enforced against you is another matter.
DonB69
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 10:16 am
If you notice it has been a certain age group that has perpetrated most of the mass shootings. I believe it has been the way these people have been raised in a political correct atmosphere with them being coddled from birth into the teen years. Being sheltered by the schools and their parents from anything negative happening to them. When they get into the real world the first time something negative in their life happens they can’t handle it. My sons were in school in the eighty’s and I don’t remember things like this happening back then. The anti gun people blame it on guns but my dad had as many as a dozen guns in the house when I was growing up and my sons had the same when they were growing up and there was never any problems. The pathetic thing is gun haters of the world will use this as an opportunity to try and take honest peoples guns away and it won’t solve a thing. In fact in each case of mass murders if someone would have had a gun besides the bad guy the outcome might have been very different.
One question, if our legislators and the present administration is sincere about protecting or school children why did they cut most or all of the funding for school security in 2011 and 2012?