The American gun culture in the last few years has been to buy more guns and
ammo because they are preparing to fight the government. These are
the supposed mentally stable of the gun aficionados so when you throw in a
little mental instability what did you expect to get?
@ Screwdriver. I need guns because there are people in America who do not obey
our laws against murder, rape, robbery nor they obey any future laws banning
guns. A gun in my hand is better than a cop on the phone for me and my family!
The government can not, will not protect you either! I hope this helps you!
Blaming guns for crimes is about as logical and blaming spoons for obesity.
Dr. Oman,One point of correction. Fully automatic weapons are not
easily purchased and were not part of the recent tragedy.Fully
automatic means pull the trigger and the weapon keeps firing until there is no
more ammunition. Semi-automatic means pull the trigger and the weapon fires
once and reloads itself.
Google "Assault Weapons: Evil Black Rifles (or perhaps not)" to find out
virtually everything the prof thinks he knows about guns is wrong. And yet HE
thinks he is qualified to tell others how to run their lives. This is the type
of "common sense" that those with no sense seem to want to influence the
First of all, let me explain my political views. I classify myself as an
independent. I have more liberal views than conservative views. However, I am a
staunch defender of the second amendment. Just yesterday I read a headline in
one of the liberal outlets. It read, Obama faces obstacle to gun control. The
article did not mention it but the main obstacle is the constitution. I am
getting a little tired of politicians ignoring the constitution.The fact
is that we already have laws prohibiting criminals from buying guns legally. Gun
shows have to follow those same laws. Private citizens do not have to follow
those laws. And I, for one, do not need the government intruding more on private
citizens.I shed tears for the children in Conn. It was an awful thing.
Guns were the least of the issues involved in this. Divorce, mental illness
violent video games all played a more significant role.
The only arguement I have with this op-ed is that you can't buy a fully
automatic rifle at a gun show unless you have the proper Federal Class III gun
license. Or anywhere else for that matter.
I was sickened and infuriated again last night as I watched an interview with a
teacher at the Sandy Hook school. She said she huddled with her class and just
listened to the spaced and steady "pops" continue for 20 minutes or
more. There is no way it took 20 minutes to get a cop to the school! When did
the first responders arrive? No one wants to criticize the police response but
what were they doing? Crouched outside the doors till the shooting stopped like
they did at Columbine? “Instead of going into the school and searching
for Harris and Klebold, they set up a perimeter and waited "for the assault
to end." William Erickson, chairman of the Columbine Review Commission. If
only there had been an armed teacher at Sandy Hook I think at least some lives
would have been saved. In Israel every teacher is armed. They would not have
sat and listened to children being murdered for 20 minutes.
I wonder what Nancy Lanza would be saying today about her hobby (and introducing
Adam to it) if she had not been the first victim. Utah ranks #8
nationally for most suicides and #21 (highest-lowest) for number of deaths per
100,000 by firearms. Researchers at the Harvard School of Public
Health found that suicide rates among children, women and men of all ages are
higher in states where more households have guns. They controlled for measures
of poverty, urbanization, unemployment, drug and alcohol dependence and abuse,
and mental illness. The study appeared in the April 2007 issue of The Journal of
Trauma. Among persons less than 30 years old, suicide is one of the top three
causes of death.More than 90% of all suicidal acts by firearm are
fatal. By comparison, individuals who use drugs to attempt suicide, which
constitute 75% of all attempts, die in the attempt less than 3% of the time.
re:CommontwitConservative Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in
Heller v DC:"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not
cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions...Also, the sorts of weapons
protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at
the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in
military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be
banned." The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone engaged in
the business of selling guns to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and keep a
record of their sales. However, this law does not cover all gun sellers. If a
supplier is selling from his or her private collection and the principal
objective is not to make a profit, the seller is not "engaged in the
business" and is not required to have a license. Because they are
unlicensed, these sellers are not required to keep records of sales and are not
required to perform background checks on potential buyers. Prohibited purchasers
can avoid required background checks by seeking out these unlicensed sellers at
The author paints American gun owners as "frightening and dangerous". At
first, he avers that this is a perception by non-gun owners. But afterward, he
states it as given.As to the NRA, it is not a radical organization,
unless one believes that the adamant protection of a fundamental right that many
wish to eviscerate is "radical".The plain fact is that
keeping and bearing arms is a constituttionally-protected natural right.Heller held that the people have an individual fundamental right to keep
and bear arms for lawful purposes not dependent upon militia service, that
holding has been incorporated to the states, and Justice Scalia (in the Heller
holding) clarified what the U.S. v. Miller (1939) decision actually said (small
arms "in common use" that "bear[s] some reasonable relationship to
the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" enjoy
constitutional protection).So let's just stop all the nonsense.
The current media hype and statist pronouncments of the administration do not
alter the truth.
Quite discouraging that gun owners' response to the shooting of children is
"Nothing we can do about it. That's the way life is. Accept it."
ban all guns and all alcohol!! No more gun related deaths and no more alcohol
related deaths. Right?? Just ask Bob Costus. Yes prohibition worked really well
after all we wouldn't have moon - shiners today were it not for
prohibition! For heaven sake look at Chicago for a wonderful success story of
gun banning. Violent gun crime has all but disappeared in Chicago now...right?
And those silly folks in Switzerland who thought they could reduce violent crime
just by arming and training their citizens. How dumb is that. Liberals are so
smart. As a side note the day after the Connecticut shooting I
signed up for NRA membership and bought a .40cal semi-auto. My wife and I are
now set to take concealed weapon training. I sure hope I can restrain myself
from shooting up a Wallmart after I get my gun and permit after all it's
the gun that kills not the person. Right?
Re: "Let's make it more difficult for the bad guys to get guns."If that's what we were talking about, most gun nuts would be right
there beside you.Unfortunately, that's not liberals' real
aim.The writer admits as much when he says, "I am not talking .
. . about laws banning . . . handguns. I am talking about . . . mak[ing] it
harder for the bad guys to buy large-magazine, semi-automatic assault weapons at
gun shows."He then goes on to note, however, "I honestly
don't know if such laws would have prevented the killings in
Connecticut."They certainly would NOT. The size or shape of the
gun reduces the evil not a whit.But, it WOULD bring us closer to the
ultimate liberal goal of banning guns.We can NEVER trust liberals to
say what they actually mean. This is just the latest in a series of disingenuous
liberal nostrums intended to lull those they consider ignorant hayseeds into
accepting an innocent-sounding, absolutely worthless, incremental step toward
their ultimate goal.Now's the time to stop them.
patriot said:As a side note the day after the Connecticut shooting I
signed up for NRA membership and bought a .40cal semi-auto.Can you say
knee jerk reaction? of course not. "I sure hope I can
restrain myself from shooting up a Wallmart after I get my gun and permit after
all it's the gun that kills not the person. Right? "No
it's the person who sells the gun remember what you've been saying for
months about the fast and the furious, and how Obama Killed a Border patrol
Agent, probably not as your completely inconsistant.Fear and Paranoid
people rushing out to buy yet more guns. Really pretty sad as moderate pointed
Re: "Quite discouraging that gun owners' response to the shooting of
children is 'Nothing we can do about it. That's the way life is.
Accept it.'"No gun owner I know suggests that.On the other hand, ALL liberal "response" to this tragedy indeed, DOES
amount to a suggestion we accept insufferable violence as the new normal.Literally NOTHING they are suggesting will make our kids the slightest
bit safer.The only measures that have a chance of actually
increasing safety involve training willing teachers and staff and permitting
them to carry the tools -- guns -- necessary to actually respond to crazies and
criminals. And, these measures, in addition to providing a meaningful response,
would also present a powerful deterrent to the cowards considering monstrous
evil.EVERY measure being suggested by liberals will have only one
effect -- increasing the size of the defenseless victim pool currently being
provided, by law, to the criminals/crazies.Discouraging, indeed.
When are we as a society, our politicians and our policy makers going to have
the courage and integrity to address the real questions at hand instead of just
treating symptoms. 1. Why do we have so many who do not honor and
uphold the rule of law ie it is only wrong if you get caught?2. Why
do so many have so little regard for human life? 3. Why are so many
of our children and young adults without a properly developed conscience and
empathy for their fellow men?4. Why do so many have a sense of
entitlement and a lack of respect for being as self reliant as possible? 5. Why do so many people have children and put less thought or
preparation into bringing a child into the world than they would getting a new
pet?6. Why do children and young adults value and seek notoriety and
15 minutes of fame (even if is evil) above being respected and respecting
others? It is time to treat the disease not the symptoms.
Good guys and bad guys aside, no gun control as a policy is insane.
@ Hutterite, We have all seen Obama's gun control policy, its called fast
and furious and it is very defiantly insane, including his executive order
Some of you talk like the 2nd amendment was written by God himself. It
wasn't, and it has clearly been made obsolete by time and technology. Even
the term "militia" is outdated. The 2nd amendment needs to repealed and
replaced with language to protect legitimate uses of guns by law abiding sane
citizens while giving Congress the power to reasonably prevent weapons designed
for military and police use from being sold and used by the general public.
Those that oppose this badly needed public reform will have innocent blood on
A gun is the manifestation of the designer's and manufacturer's intent
for it's use. So I can say a gun does kill and still be referring to
it's designed purpose and it's creators.After all, if a
loaded guns fall off a table and kills the owner who killed him? The gun of
course. In a court someone may sue the manufacturer for a faulty trigger design
in such a case.Buy all the guns you want. If your gun is used in a
crime because you didn't secure it you better hope I'm not on the
Assault rifles are for, well, assaulting. Good for our military, but with no
civilian purpose. You collect them? The next thing you'll tell me is that
my mustard gas collection is a danger to the public.
Today I took care of a man shot 4 times in a carjacking and robbery in Texas.
His life is forever changed. I have helped take care of one survivor from the
Trolley square shootings. Both these men are confined to a wheelchair and have
terrible, chronic medical complications from their injuries.I am
also a gun owner. All 3 of my guns are locked tightly in a steel cabinet. They
won't protect me in the event of a home invasion, but I recognize that they
are far more likely to be used in a homicide or suicide within my home. Locking
up my guns is part of protecting my family. My children don't have access
to the guns. In fact, as a responsible gun owner, I am willing to follow the
European lead, and would be willing to lock these guns up at a shooting range.
Are there any other responsible gun owners out there willing to do their part to
reduce gun violence in America?
Lledrav, when you are waiting for the fire department or police to arrive, time
slows down dramatically.But dispatch records in Connecticut indicate
the first officers entered the building less than five minutes after the call
was received.The entire shooting incident took less than ten minutes
-- allowing time for someone to make the initial call.Someone firing
and semi-automatic weapon can get off more than one shot per second.The officers who first entered that school knew full well what they were up
against. DO NOT denigrate their courage with a post like yours.
Re:Hutterite"Good guys and bad guys aside, no gun control as a
policy is insane."Fortunately for us, that condition does not
exist.Re:One Old Man"DO NOT denigrate their courage
with a post like yours."You missed the point.
Re: "Are there any other responsible gun owners out there willing to do
their part to reduce gun violence in America?"Millions of us.We and our kids/grandkids are safe with and around our guns, but they
are reasonably available to protect our families in our homes. We are trained
and ready to use them as protective tools -- many, like myself, during long
military or police service. We often carry them with us [concealed, of course]
into places where, though we hope it will never be required, but where we could
protect ourselves -- and you -- in the face of a monstrous evil like Newtown.We ask no thanks or permission, but we do wonder at the curious
motivation of one so personally affected by monstrous evil, who would so
willingly surrender to it and invite others to do the same.
No, Grundle. I didn't.
To "Nathan B. Oman" since you are a smarty pants lawyer, explain to us
why making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to buy guns keeps them out
of the hands of criminals? Japan has the laws you are asking for, yet their
criminals find ways to get guns.While you are out thinking, tell us
how many violent crimes are committed by people who legally purchase and use
their weapons.To "4601" what good is a sports car that can
go 150 mph? It has no purpose other than driving fast. Should we ban cars that
go more than 75 mph from everybody except for race car drivers driving on a
track?Why can't citizens have something like a semi-automatic
rifle (Assault rifle is a meaningless term because it is justa semi-automatic
rifle) that they can go and shot targets or varmits for fun?
I spent 12 years in the Military.He were all trained in using all sorts of
"assault" weapons (they are not 'guns').We all passed
extensive background checks.We all were "fit for duty" - including
"mentally".Guess what? M-16 were all secured in safes under
lock-and-key -- 24/7/365.MPs even had a SAFE in the chowhall at
breakfast/lunch/diner.The problem is the irresponsible Joe-Q-Public
citizen.Leave weapons (they are not guns) only accessible to those
responsible enough to have them.Why do "citizens" have
$1500-$2000 for a Bushmaster XM-15, but can't afford $399 for an 18
gun safe?They are called SAFEs for good reason!In the
seerve, we were held personally responsible for any and all crimes or accidents
for the weapons in our possession.That’s what the mindset and
responsibilities he had as soldiers.Kind of goes the lines of all
those yahoo's who insisted Pres. Obama was responsible for Fast and the
Furious?Why the DOUBLE-Standard about-face now?
To "Open Minded Mormon" tell me what the difference is between the
Bushmaster XM-15 and a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch. Why should one be banned and the
other remain legal? Just because you were trained doesn't make you an
expert. I could buy a Cabela's 50th Anniversary Citori Shotgun by Browning
for $2200 does that mean that it should bin included in your gun ban?Your closed minded attitude shows that you live a double standard. You want
to ban a gun based on appearance or cost.Also tell us, how many
people commit crimes with guns that they legally own and are permitted to
carry?If it is all about being responsible, should we also require
"breeding" permits for people to have children? I would hate for people
to be irresponsible with children and for any crimes or accidents that the
children may commit. What about vehicles, should we make it tougher for people
to get a drivers license? Look at the number of deaths due to cars.You may have been in the military at one time, but it does not seem like you
learned much while in training.
I am a 5th grade teacher and a retired Deputy Sheriff. I am tired of the word
(Assault Weapon) when ever their is a debate on guns. First of all in the two
shootings the one in Conn and Oregon the shoot used hand guns. Not assault
weapons, but the media wants to get the big ban for the story so they lead with
the term Assault weapon. The Constitution is clear and that is why
Assault weapons have not been banned as of yet. Guns kill, people kill. It
doesn't matter the type of weapon. I just wished everyone would get off the
ban assault weapons when someone gets killed. When the police were
called they all showed up with Assault weapons ready to use. No they showed up
with guns and were prepared to use them to stop the threat before them. As far as banning looked what happened when the Brady Bill went into
effect, all everyone did is run down and buy the gun that they were going to ban
and when it was all said and done the guns were not banned because the
constitution said they could not ban them.
re:RedshirtWhy don't you pose your questions to Justice Scalia? He
believes the proper reading of the 2nd amendment would allow banning some
firearms--such as those used for military purposes. How could a gun
ban help? Yes, the U.S. is awash in guns. Perhaps we should ban/restrict
certain kinds of ammo. Eventually, if firearm restrictions were inacted and
stayed in place, certain guns would be more difficult to get, more expensive
etc. Perhaps it wouldn't be so easy for a criminal to obtain one.
I am quite curious as to the mechanism of making it harder for criminals to
obtain guns. Please tell me how enacting another law on top of the existing
laws would be more effective in restricting criminals from obtaining guns. If
it is currently illegal for a felon to have a gun, and it is, then how is making
another law prohibiting a felon from having a gun going to be more effective?
Hint: they are criminals already because they broke the law, so breaking another
one doesn't matter. Refer to Oregon and Connecticut, one stole the weapon,
the other killed to get it. So? How is this going to work?
JackAurora, COI am quite curious as to the mechanism of making it
harder for criminals to obtain guns. =================== Do you know what a gun "SAFE" is?Read the comments.Even the Police and Military keep then under lock and key 24/7/365.You guys all want your guns (aka, assault rifles are weapons, not
guns)but don't want to take or accept ANY of the responsibilty they
To "LDS Liberal" but according to the FBI, most deaths caused by
homicides where a gun was used involve hand guns, not rifles. See Washington
Examiner article "If you want to end gun deaths, don’t start with
rifles" Apparently handguns are used more tha rifles. In fact, according
to FBI statistics, more murders are committed with knives OR hand and feet OR
other non-gun weapons than are committed with rifles.Again, the
statistics and data show that rifles are not the weapon of choice for crime.
They are blamed the most, but not used the most.According to FBI
statistics we should ban hand guns if you want to blame a gun. However, when
you read "MILLER: Gun ownership up, crime down" in the Washington Times
you find out that we need more people with CC permits and handguns because that
helps to lower crime rates.You want to take away people guns, but
don't want to take responsibility for the increased crime that comes with
"These also are not the kind of people who start shooting innocent children,
nor does their culture encourage such things."I totally agree
with everything stated in this op-ed except that staement above. Unfortunatelky
we ALL live in a culture that encourages such things. Look at the most popular
video game sales. Look at the most profitable movies. Look at virtually
everything about our culture and it equates to a culture where might is greater
than right and the meek and peaceful are not only subject to the harm
perpetrated by the bad guys but are typically ridiculed by the good guys as
well. Until we return to a peace loving culture that values reasonable
discourse over paranoia and false images of John Wayne heroes we will continue
to see tragedies like Newtown occur more frequestly.
I keep seeing comments about robbery. Please remember that if an unarmed burglar
is stealing your stuff and not threatening your life, and you shoot him, that is
@SchwaYou need to figure out what you are talking about.Robbery: The felonious taking of personal property from someone using force or
the threat of force.A "robber" uses force to commit theft.
Using like force against a "robber" is justifiable.Burglary:
Entry into a building illegally with intent to commit a crime, esp. theft.A "Burglar", usually tries to commit their theft when no one is
around. So shooting an unarmed burglar IS murder. But using a gun to stop a
robbery is likely justifiable
Mr. Oman is spot on. Thanks, Desnews, for printing this one.
Redshirt, I would have to question your gun ownership and "expertise"
simply based on your reading comprehension.You might take note that
Open Minded Mormon did not advocate banning a gun simply based on its expensive
price tag. His question was, if someone can spend SO much on a weapon, why
can't they also spend a fraction of that amount on a safe to secure
them?In your subtle name calling at the author of the article, which
makes me question how you handle situations, you use cars as a comparison point.
With cars, we require training (driver's education), testing (DMV), and
licensing (by the state through the DMV), and periodic renewals. We also
require the owner to insure their vehicle. I'm not advocating banning all
guns, but I certainly think that we would could put more training, testing, and
licensing in place. If nothing else, this places better trained individuals in
place to use a weapon when it is needed. And maybe a requirement of owning a
gun should be some form of insurance (I.e. owning a gun safe).
We should point out that Connecticut has had one of the most restrictive sets of
gun control laws in the United States since 1994. Do you see exactly how much
it helped at Sandy Hook?We should also point out that contrary to
media reporting absolutely none of the guns that were used in killing 26 people
in Sandy Hook would qualify as an assault weapon. None. And every one of the
weapons used were legally registered.Please consider that after the
assault weapons ban that existed from 1994 to 2004 a commission studied the
effectiveness of the ban and determined that it had absolutely no effect on
crimes which used such weapons. None. Criminals simply don't care about
such laws. That is why they are criminals.So we are left to ask what
exactly is the best thing to do about violent crimes such as Sandy Hook. May I
suggest that we begin in Hollywood by eliminating all the movies that glorify
mass murders and violence? Or would that tread on yet another culture that has
become more mainstream? And is there a connection? ...