Yes Dave, it's time to raise the issue again

[Rich]

Well, Obama and Romney have both weighed in on this issue now:

In one of his most direct statements on gun control since his election, President Barack Obama Wednesday called for a "common sense" approach to assault rifle sales in light of Friday's mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., saying no "mentally unbalanced individual" should be able to get their hands on such weapons.

"I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms," Obama told the National Urban League convention in New Orleans. "I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation. That hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage."

Obama continued: "But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals. That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons, and we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller."

The president called for new restrictions barring mentally unstable people from purchasing weapons.

"These steps shouldn't be controversial," Obama said. "They should be common sense." Source

So the President is basically calling for more restrictions on the mentally ill possessing weapons, more thorough background checks before purchase, and he seems to be hinting at reinstating the assault weapons ban. All reasonable ideas to consider, and most of which have been discussed in this thread.

So what does Romney propose?

[Brian] Williams asked Romney about Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes' reported access to an assault weapon and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

"Well, this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices, and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already," Romney replied.

"But he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't. Changing the heart of the American people may well be what's essential, to improve the lots of the American people."

Law enforcement officials have said repeatedly that Holmes had legally purchased four guns, including an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, a high-capacity clip and the ammunition they said he used in the theater slaughter, which injured 58 people in addition to those killed. Andrea Saul, a Romney spokeswoman, said that when the candidate was referring to illegal items, he meant the bombs and other devices that authorities say were set as ****y traps in Holmes' apartment. Source

Romney sidesteps the issue of the theater massacre and instead focuses on the bombs in the guys ****y-trapped apartment, basically saying that stuff was already illegal and the guy had it anyway, so what can you do? *wrings hands in anguish* The unspoken theme is that you do nothing.

In other words, Romney completely punted on the issue. The same Romney that signed into law an assault weapons ban in his home state (sound familiar? -- he was for Romneycare too, until he was against it.)

Does anyone think this man that plays it safe every chance he gets and takes positions directly opposite of his previous positions on important issues would make a good leader? He hasn't shown one instance of his ability to lead in a difficult time. He won't touch the gun issue for fear of ****ing off the NRA, just like he wouldn't admit that his own model of health care was a good one, just like he wouldn't support bailing out the auto industry (until after it was successful, and then he took credit for it). Does anyone really think that Mitt would have given the order to go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden? I think he would be much too concerned about the bad press if things went wrong and would have denied permission. He is just not showing us that he is true leadership material whenever he is faced with a serious issue.

 

[twich54]

Rich, I support Obama's 'common sense' approach, so long as his fellow Dem's don't lead us down 'the slippery slope'.

 

[timm]

Interesting. Isn't it obvious? Guns lead to porn! The debate is over!!

 

[Gordon Gray]

In response to the recent murder / suicide by a member of the Kansas City Chiefs football team, Bob Costas said that guns can lead to mayhem.

He was, of course, ostracized by the NRA.

 

[Kevin]

Guns can lead to mayhem, of course, so apparently can subway trains, as evidence to the recent guy getting pushed out in front of one. If it could be proven that the Chiefs football player, might have had his mind damaged by football injuries, I wonder if Costas would be in favor of greatly changing or perhaps ending football? Would he ever consider a rant about how professional athletes, being so used to getting things their way, don't seem to react well in situations where they don't get their way? Being how he makes his living off of professional sports, I would guess not.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Kevin,

My point is very simple and very narrow.

If this individual did not have access to a gun, would this incident have occurred?

Don't know but I would guess that was BC's point.

Best,

Gordon

 

[timm]

In response to the recent murder / suicide by a member of the Kansas City Chiefs football team, Bob Costas said that guns can lead to mayhem.

He was, of course, ostracized by the NRA.

Here is the REAL issue - and it is where the NFL doesn't want to go... Lets talk steroids.... Lets talk mood changes and steroids....Lets talk guns, violence and steroids.... I can't believe that baseball went thru the steroid scrutiny and we have the entire NFL weighing in at 3 bills with biceps 20+ inches... I've never seen a guy get that huge without steroids... but... lets not talk about that..... In fact, lets have more testing for steroids in baseball than in the nfl.... So, even if this guy registers clean - I'm guessing at some point he juiced to get large just to compete... What impact does that have on one's psyche? tough questions.... Let's talk guns - it's easier...

 

[Gordon Gray]

timm,

I don't know how to take your last post. Not trying to argue with anyone here.

Don't know about the NFL and steroids but your point seems to make sense.

Suffice to say again that my point is very simple and very narrow.

Gordon

 

[Kevin]

I'm not sure what Bob was exactly thinking either, because he mainly quoted Jason Whitlock, but I'm guessing he was endorsing that opinion. Here is a transcript of that opinion.

****"Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions, and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows?"

"But here," wrote Jason Whitlock," is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today."****


I don't believe handguns tempt 'us' to escalate arguments. Some perhaps, but not the greater majority of responsible gun owners. If that were true, I would have polished off my wife long ago. Also, Jovan might be alive today, but I'm not so sure about Kasandra. OJ certainly didn't need a gun to nearly decapitate Nicole. Long before guns, people were burning, poisoning, stabbing, strangling, hanging, beating, drowning and using many more methods to get rid of people they wanted dead. Guns might make the process of killing easier, but I don't believe the desire to kill would disappear in the absence of guns. I think poor Kasandra was with the wrong man. Simple as that.

 

[timm]

no anger at you gordon!! I just think that yes - guns are an issue when they get into stupid peoples hands...and there are a lot of stupid people out there.. I just find the NFL ludicrous with the outrage at steroids and the use of HGH to be for 'cheaters' .. yet you have walking roid monsters and the nfl just looks the other way.... and then they bring up the gun issue.... yet everyone wants to pretend that this doesn't seem to be a pattern... violence with nfl players....not just with guns, but with battered wives etc....

Then there is the gambling... Pete Rose is admonished for betting on games.... and in the NFL, teams come out and announce injuries on Thursday??? for games on Sunday... so the line can be set in Vegas...betting is abound... fantasy teams etc.... Why do I bring this up.... because I feel it is the same mind-set.... We ignore the steroids...we ignore the gambling...we ignore the social risks and message that it sends.... and now Costas brings the gun issue into the mix (not on his own mind you) by quoting another writer.... What a wimp - he couldn't even say it in his own words....My point was simply a 'here we go again...' ..pretending that someone's actions don't have consequences... and looking at the 'gun' as the reason for it all....

 

[twich54]

Bob Costas said that guns can lead to mayhem.

let see....what network was that ?........

alot of things can 'lead to mayhem'......perhaps since Mr Costas is in the sports world he should try and educate himself in that world..........example...........soccer fans = 'mayhem' !

He was, of course, ostracized by the NRA.

I do agree the NRA at times get carried away...but, as I stated before they are one of the guardians of my second amendmnet rights.

You know Gordon, rarely have I ever had a conversation with any one advocating gun control that ever knew anything about guns and that bothers me.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Dave,

First off, I will admit that I'm one of those individuals that know little about guns.

There are various advocacy groups that are passionate about safeguarding rights granted by law.

I'm not going to repeat what I have posted in the past except to say that I'm in favor of responsible laws that protect reasonable rights.

What I do know is that numerous innocent individuals have died as a result of automatic (aka assault) weapons that would have been unlawful to possess had the ban on said weapons, which was passed during the Clinton era (with a ten year sunset) and was not renewed under the Bush Administration, even though GVW initially supported the extension (during his re-election campaign) because he subsequently withdrew his support.

Why wasn't it renewed? Gee, let me guess.

I'm sorry but, to me, the NRA is way too powerful and their advocacy for firearm extends well beyond anything I would call reasonable. To wit, the non-extension of the assault weapons band. What is the problem to limit the "clip" load to eight to ten bullets?

A local Wyoming story. An individual sued Casper, WY because guns weren't allowed in City Council chambers during an official Council meeting. Apparently, this individual felt his Second Amendment rights were being violated.

And nationally, when another tragic incident occurs because someone has an assault weapon and used it to kill numerous, innocent folks, there's nearly a whimper heard throughout this country.

Even though Obama has done nothing regarding legislation on gun control, gun / bullet sales have gone through the roof under his administration. What does that say?

To your point, I don't believe that one has to have personal knowledge about guns to comment on the obvious, negative impacts of this country's current policy regarding gun ownership.

As Sony and Cher said, the beat goes on.

Take care my friend.

Gordon

 

[Kevin]

I've never been into assault weapons. I have guns for hunting and a couple of pistols for pleasure shooting. For home protection, God forbid I should ever need it, I think given most circumstances I would grab one of my shotguns. Someone else may correct me, but I think the major qualifier for a gun being labeled an 'assault' weapon is its appearance. I don't think it can fire rounds any quicker, as they are still semi-automatic. I think that even guns not necessarily labeled as 'assualt' can still accept the larger clips holding additional rounds, but I'm not sure of that. But the average pistol holds 10 rounds, and with just a bit of practice you can change clips in seconds. Given that most of the mass shootings seem to occur at close range, with a few exceptions, I'm not sure that an assault weapon really offers that much more of an advantage for commiting a horrendous shooting. But I could be wrong.

If a new regulation(s) can reduce the number of deaths by shootings, while not putting an unfair burden on responsible gun owners or make it unneccesarily harder for one to defend himself, I wouldn't be against it. I do wonder if it would put any actual dent in the number of shooting deaths a year. I think I have read that the majority of deaths by gun (not including suicide) are criminal on criminal or police shootings. In light of the death of the Dallas Cowboy player earlier this morning, who was a passenger in another drunk driving accident. I wonder Gordon. Would you be in favor of a regulation, that made all vehicles be able to test for driver alcohol, before being able to start the engine? Given that more innocent people die each year from being struck by drunk drivers than in shootings, if the idea is just to save lives, wouldn't this be just as important? In the Cowboy incident, people are discussing the stupidity of the person for driving under the influence. But in shootings, it seems the gun always gets more attention than the shooter.

I have a young daughter, and I worry about the time when she is old enough to go out with her friends in vehicles. I know we will be having more than one serious discussion about this when she is of age. But I have never given a minutes thought about the possibility of her or another loved one being shot. Just some thoughts. Like many issues, I don't think there are any easy answers that would satisfy everyone.

 

[Rich]

Given that more innocent people die each year from being struck by drunk drivers than in shootings, if the idea is just to save lives, wouldn't this be just as important?

Citation to back up this "fact"? According to this article, the number of people killed by guns is close to, and in many states exceeds, people killed in ALL auto accidents (not just DUI related ones). The difference is that auto related deaths have been dropping for years due to safety improvements driven by regulation, whereas gun deaths haven't been dropping at all due to complete lack of safety regulations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/gun-deaths-exceed-motor-v_b_1536793.html

 

[Gordon Gray]

Kevin,

I would be in favor of some type of system that would test drivers for alcohol content before being able to drive.

Just as I'm in favor of making it unlawful for any person to use a cell phone, in any manner, while driving.

Both laws would help prevent folks from driving impaired, and risking other innocent peoples lives, by their actions.

Gordon

PS: And I'm also in favor of eliminating the sale, possession and use of assault weapons to anyone (except for military and law enforcement personnel) whose sole purpose is to discharge numerous bullets in a very short period of time and kill innocent people as witnessed by the ever increasing tragic incidents that have occurred in this country over the years.

 

[Kevin]

Citation to back up this "fact"? According to this article, the number of people killed by guns is close to, and in many states exceeds, people killed in ALL auto accidents (not just DUI related ones). The difference is that auto related deaths have been dropping for years due to safety improvements driven by regulation, whereas gun deaths haven't been dropping at all due to complete lack of safety regulations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/gun-deaths-exceed-motor-v_b_1536793.html

The key word there being "innocent". The article I was looking at last night, (I'll see if I can find it again) excluded guns deaths to criminals, gang members, suicides, police shootings, etc. Think about it, a family of four sitting at a traffic light that gets rear ended by a drunk driver going full speed, which happened not far from me just a year ago, isn't quite the same as the gang banger that gets popped in the head as revenge for the rival gang member whom he killed two weeks prior. In Chicago, 80% of all homicides are gang related. Wether or not it is fair to compare the stats that way I guess is open to opinion. It goes back to what I said about my fears concerning my daughter. I guess if I thought she might move to DC and become a member of the Cripts, perhaps my greater fear for her would be different.

 

[Len44]

I guess if I thought she might move to DC and become a member of the Cripts, perhaps my greater fear for her would be different.

I'd be careful here. As I understand it, The Crips don't like it much when folks carelessly misspell their name...

 

[Rich]

The key word there being "innocent". The article I was looking at last night, (I'll see if I can find it again) excluded guns deaths to criminals, gang members, suicides, police shootings, etc. Think about it, a family of four sitting at a traffic light that gets rear ended by a drunk driver going full speed, which happened not far from me just a year ago, isn't quite the same as the gang banger that gets popped in the head as revenge for the rival gang member whom he killed two weeks prior. In Chicago, 80% of all homicides are gang related. Wether or not it is fair to compare the stats that way I guess is open to opinion. It goes back to what I said about my fears concerning my daughter. I guess if I thought she might move to DC and become a member of the Cripts, perhaps my greater fear for her would be different.

By that logic, you should remove from the DUI death statistics any of the drunks themselves that are killed by their own actions. Of the 10,839 people who died in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes in 2009, 7,281 (67%) were drivers with a BAC of .08 or higher. [Source] The remaining fatalities consisted of 2,891 (27%) motor vehicle occupants and 667 (6%) nonoccupants. So the percentage of people who are killed by drunk drivers is less than a third of overall DUI fatalities. Two-thirds of the fatalities are the drunk drivers themselves. If you want to make the comparison, then compare apples to apples. I'm betting when you do that comparison, you will find that the number of innocent people killed in the US each year by guns is much higher than the number of innocent people killed each year by drunk driving.

But I am not even sure what the subjective concept of "innocence" has to do with this argument. Deaths are deaths. And I hope we as a society would like to prevent the senseless death of a decent person who happens to be an alcoholic just as much as we would like to prevent the needless death of a poor stupid teenager who has turned to a gang to find acceptance. It should give us serious pause that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined. Something is wrong with this picture. I do agree with your conclusion that we should have some reasonable regulations in place to protect our citizens from gun violence, as well as drunk driving.

 

[twich54]

I'm betting when you do that comparison, you will find that the number of innocent people killed in the US each year by guns is much higher than the number of innocent people killed each year by drunk driving.

perhaps, regardless both are senseless, I agree

It should give us serious pause that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined.

Rich, as a 'legal beagle' do you believe that the judicial system in this country does an adequate job with respect to gun violence ?

Something is wrong with this picture. I do agree with your conclusion that we should have some reasonable regulations in place to protect our citizens from gun violence.

Rich, they tried.....many years ago !



For the record, Taurus as well as Smith & Wesson have adopted both passive and operator saftey devices to many of their firearms in recent years.

 

[timm]

very funny Dave!!