Most gun owners far more reasonable than the NRA
Judging from the results of a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, a wide spectrum of Americans of both parties has reached consensus on the need for specific, common-sense actions to reduce the death toll taken by guns without intruding on Second Amendment rights granted under the Constitution.
The question is, how much power does an angry, paranoid and politically aggressive minority still wield over gun policy in this country? I suspect that we’re going to find that it’s an awful lot. The NRA’s grip on Washington is so strong that we can’t even get a director confirmed to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the agency tasked with enforcing federal gun laws. The ATF has gone leaderless since 2006, because under President Bush and now President Obama, Senate Republicans have refused to even allow a vote on the nomination.
You want another example? The ATF is forbidden by federal law to create a computer database allowing its agents to trace ownership of guns used in a crime. The search has to be done manually, in a time-eating process of phone call after phone call, and sifting through boxes of paper records. That’s because in its infinite paranoia, the NRA insists that a computerized system would violate the Second Amendment by making it easier for the government to go door to door, confiscating the 180 million weapons estimated to be in private hands.
Seriously, they think that’s going to happen.
According to the ABC/WaPo poll, most Americans don’t put much credence in that fantasy. It found that 71 percent of Americans support creation of a national gun database. That includes 61 percent of Republicans.
In addition, 65 percent of Americans — including 59 percent of Republicans — say they support a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Seventy-six percent would require a background check before a person is allowed to purchase ammunition, a figure that includes 69 percent of Republicans.
That strong bipartisan consensus breaks down only on the issue of a ban on assault weapons. Overall, 58 percent of Americans and 54 percent of independents would support such a ban, but only 45 percent of Republicans would do so.
But the most telling data in the poll involves the 44 percent of those surveyed who live in a home where guns are kept. Of that subset, 86 percent would support closing the “gun-show” loophole on background checks. Seventy-six percent of gun owners endorse a background check for ammo sales; 62 percent would back a national firearms database, and 55 percent support a ban on large-capacity magazines.
Such numbers confirm that gun owners, as a rule, are far more reasonable about common-sense approaches to gun safety than is the extremist organization that purports to represent their interests. But in the end, I’m not confident that will matter much.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,281 comments Add your comment
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
1:02 pm
MANGLER
January 15th, 2013
11:35 am
You’re not allowed to have certain things. I don’t see too many people upset that they can’t go to Boeing and buy a loaded F15, even if they had the money. It’s a military grade weapon. So are AK’s. Yet try to say you shouldn’t have THAT in your house and people lose their minds. Wanting something because it’s cool in your mind to have does not make it OK to have.
So are certain pistols….wanna ban those also?
Erwin's cat
January 15th, 2013
1:02 pm
Adam – Except that laws CAN reduce the incidences and body counts if done right. Not eliminate, but reduce.
what is it like 1%-2% of gun crimes and deaths are caused by these assault rifles and i cap mags….but we’ll feel so much safer….you’re gonna reduce these incidents to .09%-1.5%?
NOBODYYOUKNOW
January 15th, 2013
1:02 pm
I,m very conservative and in most cases will vote Repub. However come on folks why in the world does someone want a high velocity military weapon? I’m sure there are some who collect these weapons for a hobby. But there are some who may want to collect bombs for a hobby. There has to be reasonable thinking on this. I have NEVER been so sad as when I saw the report on those beautiful innocent school kids shot because of some nut. The first thing I did after watching that was to go and pick up my grandchildren, hug them and tell them how much I loved them. If anything like that were to happen to them (GOD FORBID) I just couldn’t handle it.
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
1:02 pm
America’s counterfeit conservatives are going to advocate on this issue what they do on virtually every major issue.
Do absolutely nothing and pretend that the problem doesn’t exist…
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
1:03 pm
Why are new gun laws necessary? Don’t we already have hundreds of them on the books already? I’d like an answer from any lib on here please….
We don’t, but the misrepresentation by the NRA and others here make it more and more difficult top make that argument.
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
1:04 pm
That linked blog above is incorrect. M16s and similar military weapons are chambered for 5.56 NATO round. It is similar to .223, but different enough that putting 5.56 in a .223 rifle just might get you killed.
True, but if you’re loading a weapon using a blog as a guide Darwin’s Law is your destiny in some form anyhow.
Uh Huh....We Are Gunning for Change
January 15th, 2013
1:04 pm
@Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
12:58 pm
Why are new gun laws necessary? Don’t we already have hundreds of them on the books already? I’d like an answer from any lib on here please….
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Being a “CHRISTIAN” you should now WHY we need new gun laws.
Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder.
LET US NOT FORGET: The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims:
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
That is why we need NEW GUN LAWS.
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
1:04 pm
I am not against keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, the insane and children. There are already laws on the books to enforce that. Start by actually ENFORCING the law. When is Obama going to start enforcing the laws on the books instead of picking and choosing what HE wants to enforce? He put his hand on the Bible and swore under oath to enforce the laws on the books – OBAMA LIED.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:04 pm
We can certainly believe an ABC/ WaPo poll on the public’s attitude concerning gun control.
Id believe them over a Fox News poll. How did they do predicting the election ?
resno2
January 15th, 2013
1:05 pm
Fred, where was it said that Chicago was obama’s birthplace? It said hometown, which is accurate. What’s the problem? And where is the bald faced lie?
Paul
January 15th, 2013
1:05 pm
indigo
“None of you cons seems willing to say what you truly seem to fear.
If I understand you correctly, you fear:
1. The Government will nullify the 2nd ammendment and then take away all your guns.
2. Then, jack-booted troops will come into every city and town and impose a harsh Obama Socialism.
Correct?”
Pretty much, that seems to be what all their fears boil down to.
PT Barnum had it pretty much right, didn’t he?
Tom Middleton
January 15th, 2013
1:05 pm
Worked with a lovely woman once named Maria, Jay, whose boyfriend moved in with her and her children, and when he did, he brought his gun.
She told him he could stay but the gun had to go; and when he told her he needed it for protection, she walked over, picked it up, and fired it at him twice.
He must have been in love because he decided to stay anyway. But needless to say, the gun left the house the next day. I mean, talk about getting your man card!
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
1:06 pm
Well cars don’t kill people, people operating cars kill people. So let’s get rid of all speed limit signs and car safety measures since cars don’t kill people.
Same. Exact. Logic. Fail.
Did someone post, “It’s the cars stupid.” ?
Your logic fails.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:06 pm
Towncrier — “If, as I believe, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms and form militias against, for one thing, a tyrannical federal government, then ownership of weapons like an AR-15 should be legal on PRINCIPLE alone.”
That’s a nice piece of reasoning, but given that Congress possesses the power to *call out, control and regulate* the militia (this being the same militia as that noted in the 2A), I think you’d have a hard time defending that position. When one also considers that advocating or conspiring to overthrow the government of the US by force is a Federal felony, I think your construction falls flat on its face. It’s rather hard to argue that there’s a Constitutional right to do something that’s a felony at the same time.
Erwin's cat
January 15th, 2013
1:06 pm
rightwingex – Wanting something because it’s cool in your mind to have does not make it OK to have.
I want one to defend from my neighbors (from the zombie apocalypse) who already have one
Don Abernethy
January 15th, 2013
1:07 pm
Jay, you seem to be an expert on guns. I assume you have a gun permit and a number of guns and that you are a hunter. I also assume you got training with guns while you were in the military. Most of the other liberals who are for gun control are just “desk jockeys” who have never owned a gun and don’t have a clue on how to use them. Obama is one of those “desk jockey’s”.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
1:07 pm
I have not seen anyone try to make the argument that the .223 Remington or 5.56×45mm NATO round is equal in lethality to a .22 rimfire.
But the Bushmaster is anything but JUST a .22
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
1:07 pm
“Being a “CHRISTIAN” you should now WHY we need new gun laws”
And what laws would YOU reccommend that would END such atrocities?
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
1:07 pm
Have a nice day! Smiley Face (patent pending)
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
1:08 pm
The new law passed in New York states that if you have a high capacity magazine you have one year to get rid of it.
How will this be enforced?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:08 pm
R. W. Extreme — “So are certain pistols….wanna ban those also?”
FWIW, I’m all for banning concealable handguns made from materials that don’t show up on x-ray.
When some little genius figures out how to make a ceramic or carbon-fiber or nylon handgun that is capable of seriously wounding or killing a person, you bet I’m going to be in favor of banning them from public ownership.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
1:09 pm
“Or they could be making the point that hunting is legal and murder is not, and therefore guns designed for hunting and not for killing people more efficiently should not be on the table as being restricted or confiscated.”
There is no explicitly guaranteed right to bear arms for hunting. Period. If such a right exists, it is an “unenumerated” one – guaranteed only and for so long as the SCOTUS says it is (should it one day decide the question). So it is pointless to mention hunting in a discussion of constitutional gun rights. If Obama doesn’t know that, he’s not all that smart. If he does know it, then he’s just playing politics and being (as I said) intellectually dishonest.
As to restrictions or “confiscation” (do you even hear yourself when you use that word?), refer to the bulk of my previous post.
King of Planet Kolob
January 15th, 2013
1:09 pm
.22 and .223 are the same except for the length of the slug, the black powder behind the firepower and the type of rifle discharging the round.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:09 pm
Erwin: what is it like 1%-2% of gun crimes and deaths are caused by these assault rifles and i cap mags….but we’ll feel so much safer….you’re gonna reduce these incidents to .09%-1.5%?
You know what? You’re right. We are absolutely helpless to stop gun violence. Therefore, we should create bigger and better weapons and make them easier to get.
Yup, makes perfect sense.
In all seriousness, a reduction of gun violence on the scale that other nations have had is admirable and enviable. We should aspire to reduce all kinds of violence, but especially violence that is more likely to result in intentional death.
How much of your statistics include intentional versus accidental death?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:09 pm
Fred ™
I was you would quit perverting my religion with your lies. You have done it again. You didn’t ask a “simple question: How will Oblama’s plan to ban assault rifles have an effect in urban area’s” you CLEARLY STATED:
How much will Oblama’s plan help to curb gun violence in his hometown of Chicago?
Which is a bald faced lie. Jesus would also be SO proud of the way you talk about our President. I remember reading all in the bible the cute little names he called the Romans and Pontius Pilot and others. Your perversion of MY religion sets a fine example for folks. It’s no wonder they think all Christians are liars and nutcases, look at what you give them.
Please, tell ANOTHER lie. Change your words again and say you didn’t say them. It must be sad to go through life having to lie because your ideas are so poorly thought out……..
Wow Fred no only is your response riddled with numerous grammatical errors it simply makes no sense… Please go back to bed…..
Steve-USA
January 15th, 2013
1:11 pm
I am all for limiting assault rifles and number of rounds but that is not going to eliminate mass murders. These people are mentally ill and are determined to cause carnage. Put an armed guard in a school (never mind some student taking the gun away from a retired aging cop) and then the shooter strikes as they get on the bus at school, put multiple armed guards there and the shooter will strike at the kids waiting for the bus on their street. If that doesn’t work they will attack a Chuck – E – Cheese, local park, soccer field, etc. The gun on every corner theory will never be practical and just teaches kids that you are not safe unless there is armed guns around.
“education and information campaigns” will have no effect on these mentally ill shooters. All the money spent on armed guards would be better spent on mental health facilities.
JMHO
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:11 pm
godless: You are proposing that we do not limit access for PEOPLE to have to guns, because guns do not fire themselves. That is a failure in logic. Limiting access to guns is one of the ways to help reduce the number of PEOPLE who use them in homicides.
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
1:12 pm
Id believe them over a Fox News poll. How did they do predicting the election ?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
I can still see the look on old Piggy Rove’s face vis a vis Ohio…
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
1:12 pm
resno2
January 15th, 2013
1:05 pm
Fred, where was it said that Chicago was obama’s birthplace? It said hometown, which is accurate. What’s the problem? And where is the bald faced lie?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So why does he go to HAWAII for vacation? His HOMETOWN…………..
Just another FOXBOT/Talkradio distortion of truth. A LIE. Another attempt to smear Obama that has FAILED.
Why do you Republicans have to lie so much? If he was so bad then the truth would be enough……..
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:13 pm
Uh Huh….We Are Gunning for Change:
Being a “CHRISTIAN” you should now WHY we need new gun laws.
Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder.
LET US NOT FORGET: The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims:
So we should ban cars to then if I use your reasoning. Guns are not just used for killing. Are you that dense or perhaps your just confused??? Christians believe in GOD and country. Its unfortunate that most of you left wing loons only believe in the latter…..
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:14 pm
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/flashback-charlton-heston-my-cold-dead-hands
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:14 pm
Morality: I am not against keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, the insane and children. There are already laws on the books to enforce that. Start by actually ENFORCING the law. When is Obama going to start enforcing the laws on the books instead of picking and choosing what HE wants to enforce?
Part of the gun commission recommendations are exactly that, which the President has the latitude to act without Congress on. Will you oppose those actions meant to enforce the existing law more strictly if they come from Obama’s executive powers?
And, once that is all done, are you going to say that’s ALL that needs to be done? Are you going to give him any credit for doing it, since right now you’re clamoring for it?
20 to 1 odds that you turn around and act like he’s overstepping his authority when he does EXACTLY what you suggest.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
1:14 pm
“We are absolutely helpless to stop gun violence. Therefore, we should create bigger and better weapons and make them easier to get.”
And once again that ever-present slippery slope makes it’s appearance.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:14 pm
what is it like 1%-2% of gun crimes and deaths are caused by these assault rifles and i cap mags….but we’ll feel so much safer….you’re gonna reduce these incidents to .09%-1.5%?
Its a start kitty.
The Saturday Night Specials can go next.
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
1:15 pm
Wow Fred no only is your response riddled with numerous grammatical errors it simply makes no sense… Please go back to bed…..
And yours is picture perfect? THAT is the best you can do? A grammatically incorrect response about my tyops?
Too funny. But typical. Southern Baptist right? First Baptist of……….. Snellville?
Paul
January 15th, 2013
1:15 pm
I notice none of the “guns don’t kill; regulations don’t work; we don’t need to do anything; Obama hates the Constitution and wants to take all my guns” crowd on here has somehow avoided addressing one of Jay’s main points: that their group is in the distinct minority and the majority of Americans support the measures they oppose.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:16 pm
Doggone: And what laws would YOU reccommend that would END such atrocities?
Saying we need to END the atrocities and that no law that does not have 100% success at ENDing the atrocities should even be considered is QUITTER TALK.
It;s also right along the same logic path as “We need common sens gun control laws” being the same thing as “OMG CONFISCATION!!!!”
Or that because the stimulus didn’t completely fix every economic ill in the world that means it never should have been done in the first place and is a 100% failure.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:16 pm
So we should ban cars to then if I use your reasoning. Guns are not just used for killing
What else are they used for ?
Absolutely ridiculous argument.
BTW you have to register your car. Why not your guns ????
Erwin's cat
January 15th, 2013
1:17 pm
In all seriousness, a reduction of gun violence on the scale that other nations have had is admirable and enviable
Russia has 1/10 the guns and 4 times the murder rate…admirable and enviable
you don’t need guns to kill..
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:17 pm
I asked a simple question and yet to find and coherent answer.
Why do we need new gun laws when we already have hundreds on the books that aren’t being enforced?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:18 pm
Doggone: That’s not slippery slope. It’s a hyperbolic representation of arguments made by gun nut conservatives.
How about this one, which is an ACTUAL argument: “We are helpless to stop gun violence. Therefore, we should arm teachers and have armed guards in schools.”
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
1:19 pm
“rowd on here has somehow avoided addressing one of Jay’s main points: that their group is in the distinct minority and the majority of Americans support the measures they oppose”
We’re too stupid to understand their “logic”?
DownInAlbany
January 15th, 2013
1:20 pm
Fred, what do you have against us Baptists?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:20 pm
Erwin: Russia has 1/10 the guns and 4 times the murder rate…admirable and enviable
you don’t need guns to kill..
And note that I said a reduction in GUN VIOLENCE is admirable and enviable. Changing the actual murder rate take a culture shift. Changing the rate at which those murders happen by gun doesn’t only take a culture shift. Again, see other nations for proof. That murders still happen does not diminish my point.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
1:21 pm
“Saying we need to END the atrocities and that no law that does not have 100% success at ENDing the atrocities should even be considered is QUITTER TALK.”
I already know YOUR opinion, I was asking for the opinion of the person whom quoted.
cyril
January 15th, 2013
1:21 pm
If I were Prez for the day, there are 2 things that I would do for gun control. I’m sure there are a lot of others that I would do if able, but these seem doable to me.
1) Accept that the 2nd Amendment allows gun ownership (which I think Obama does), but then realize it does not necessarily require that access to bullets be provided. So I would ban the bullets for assault rifles. Make them available only for shooting at a firing range and not allowed off the premises. There is no valid reason to own such a weapon, but if you must, then it should be allowed only in a controlled environment.
2) I’d institute a clip “recycling” program, similar to the old glass coke bottles from when I was a kid. Any given household would be able to have X number of ammo clips. They could then buy more ammo only by recycling their old clip. This would help prevent someone from developing a massive arsenal of ammo.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:21 pm
Russia has 1/10 the guns and 4 times the murder rate…admirable and enviable
you don’t need guns to kill..
But it sure makes it easier.
Come at me with a knife and I’m going to kick your kitty tail.
With a gun its too easy.
Compared to the other western countries with strict gun laws.
They dont have near the problem we do.
You lose.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:21 pm
Christian Conservative: Why do we need new gun laws when we already have hundreds on the books that aren’t being enforced?
Because even if we enforce all the gun laws with extreme prejudice, there are still legal loopholes that are very easy to use to legally obtain weapons, and enforcement of murder laws always happens after the fact.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:22 pm
C. Conservative — “Why do we need new gun laws when we already have hundreds on the books that aren’t being enforced?”
Because given the realities of budget and manpower limitations, many of those already-extant gun laws can’t possibly BE enforced in the way that they’re written.
Which leaves us a choice:
1) Continue in the same way
2) Increase budget and manpower for law enforcement, particularly with respect to gun laws
3) Pass newer laws to supersede the old ones; ideally laws that require less resources and manpower to enforce
I’m guessing that you don’t want #2, so that leaves us #1 and #3. Clearly #1 is unsatisfactory, which leaves us with only #3 — unless, perhaps, you have another option for folks to consider?
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
1:23 pm
I’m back after a Jay-imposed day-long exile.
I see that td is not here; if he were, I would apologize to him, specifically, for losing my temper yesterday.
However, I owe the rest of the regulars here a similar apology, and I hope you’ll accept it, along with my promise to steadfastly avoid name calling and personal insults in the future.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:23 pm
cyril: I’d institute a clip “recycling” program
Cue the It’s not a clip it’s a MAGAZINE!!!” semantic mud in the water argument.
Wilbur
January 15th, 2013
1:23 pm
Since the liberals are ok giving up our constitutional rights for no real improvement in security or safety, maybe they will be ok with registering their friends and associates with the government since bad company is a driver of crime. May be they will be ok only going to state approved churches since some churches might teach unhelpful doctrine. Maybe they will be ok with getting their language approved in advance so that they don’t run afoul of some one’s feelings and thereby create violence.
A crazy man shot up a school. It’s not a reason to deprive a hundred million Americans of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Seizing our rights by executive order is the action of a tyrant..
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
1:23 pm
Why do we need new gun laws when we already have hundreds on the books that aren’t being enforced?
Can you name one of these “hundreds” of laws that isn’t being enforced? There’s plenty of laws that don’t have a 100% or even a 50% enforcement rate, like ones against identity theft. That doesn’t mean additional laws to prevent that crime are worthless.
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
1:24 pm
Uh Huh….We Are Gunning for Change
January 15th, 2013
1:04 pm
@Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
12:58 pm
Why are new gun laws necessary? Don’t we already have hundreds of them on the books already? I’d like an answer from any lib on here please….
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Being a “CHRISTIAN” you should now WHY we need new gun laws.
Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder.
LET US NOT FORGET: The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims:
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
That is why we need NEW GUN LAWS
Connecticut has gun laws….didn’t stop a deranged killer…..and here’s a news flash. No law will ever stop a deranged killer.
Erwin's cat
January 15th, 2013
1:24 pm
That murders still happen does not diminish my point.
you have a point?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:24 pm
JHM: Don’t kid yourself. What they want is “Continue in the same way.” Because… Well BECAUSE!
Because to keep the status quo is conservative, consequences be damned.
resno2
January 15th, 2013
1:24 pm
Fred. Does he not own a home in Chicago? Was he not a Senator FROM Chicago? Did he not actually live in Chicago before he moved to DC? When did he last live in Hawaii? Does he own a home there? Where is the lie? And where/what is the attempted smear?
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
1:24 pm
“enforcement of murder laws always happens after the fact”
Think about what you just said. How do you enforce a law against murder…when no murder has been committed?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:25 pm
cyril — “2) I’d institute a clip “recycling” program, similar to the old glass coke bottles from when I was a kid. Any given household would be able to have X number of ammo clips. They could then buy more ammo only by recycling their old clip. This would help prevent someone from developing a massive arsenal of ammo.”
Perhaps you’re thinking about ammo *boxes?*
Usually, for a weapon requiring a clip or magazine, one or two are included with the weapon at purchase. You don’t receive more mags when you purchase ammunition.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
1:25 pm
You don’t need guns to kill. Wow. Really. You mean you could use a car or a hammer or even a ladder. Fine. Take away the guns and give the former gun owners one care, one hammer and one ladder and let them storm the schools.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:25 pm
Erwin: you have a point?
Yes and I’m not surprised you
missedpretended to miss it.Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:26 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
What else are they used for ? Protection, Target practice, sporting clay’s, marksmanship, training,
I think your logic is ridiculous
BTW you have to register your car. Why not your guns ????
Legal gun purchases are already registered. You think we’ll be able to get criminals to register their guns too?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:26 pm
Doggone: Think about what you just said. How do you enforce a law against murder…when no murder has been committed?
You don’t, and you missed my point. I was providing an explanation as to why simply allowing current laws to be enforced, such as those relating to murder, isn’t enough.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:26 pm
Gun Homicides 2012
Australia 30
Canada 173
Denmark 15
France 35
Ireland 21
Japan 11
U.S. 9,146
Wanna know the difference between all those developed non third world countries and us ?
THEY HAVE STRICT GUN LAWS
Class Dismissed.
Trolls Bane
January 15th, 2013
1:27 pm
Some rather inconveient facts :
The US has the most firearms per capita ( 88 per 100 people). However, our homicide rate where guns were used is 3.7 per 100,000. Almost twice as many people committed suicide using a firearm at 6.1 per 100,000 as murders. See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Additionally, according to wikipedia, the intentional homicide rate per year for the US is 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants — see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate. This is virtually the same as countries such as Cuba, Belarus, and Thailand.
So, can someone please explain, how the US being the most heavily armed nation doesn’t have more people getting murdered with guns than say Brazil with 8 guns per 100 residents?
Please keep in mind, a valid comparision is homicide rate per 100,000 and not the total number killed.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:27 pm
Adam — “JHM: Don’t kid yourself. What they want is “Continue in the same way.” Because… Well BECAUSE!”
Hey, if that’s what he wants, fine. Let’s just see him admit it.
Otherwise, if he says he wants improvements, then it’s either new laws or more resources. I bet I know which one he’d pick.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
1:27 pm
Cheesy Grits
[[ So we should ban cars to then if I use your reasoning. Guns are not just used for killing
What else are they used for ?]]
Wounding.
They’re used for wounding.
Which is why these mighty defenders need 30-round clips.
hey there, stands, welcome back!
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:27 pm
What else are they used for ? Protection, Target practice, sporting clay’s, marksmanship, training,
In other words.
Simulated killing
Gotcha
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
1:27 pm
You want another example? The ATF is forbidden by federal law to create a computer database allowing its agents to trace ownership of guns used in a crime. The search has to be done manually, in a time-eating process of phone call after phone call, and sifting through boxes of paper records. That’s because in its infinite paranoia, the NRA insists that a computerized system would violate the Second Amendment by making it easier for the government to go door to door, confiscating the 180 million weapons estimated to be in private hands.
Such legal proscriptions do not occur in a vacuum, nor are they solely the fault of the NRA. We have a representative government that is supposed to do the bidding of the people. The people, clearly, do not believe such proscriptions are valid, and it is shameful that any Congress or Administration allowed such things to exist in the first place.
But, it’s never too late to do the right thing.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:28 pm
TaxPayer: You mean you could use a car or a hammer or even a ladder. Fine. Take away the guns and give the former gun owners one care, one hammer and one ladder and let them storm the schools.
Analogies sort of fall apart when given this test, don’t they?
Name me ONE long distance efficient lethal and legal weapon that isn’t a gun. GO.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:28 pm
rightwingextreme:
That is why we need NEW GUN LAWS
Connecticut has gun laws….didn’t stop a deranged killer…..and here’s a news flash. No law will ever stop a deranged killer.
The libs won’t be able to understand this because they, themselves are deranged..
GT
January 15th, 2013
1:29 pm
Seems to me that the right should be as acceptable to alternative life styles as they are to guns. Why can’t we just learn to live together, you have your weirdness and they have theirs. You both are in a vast minority and you both turn the majority off about an equal amount. What the gay’s need is a stronger lobby, and it could be first cousins to the NRA.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
1:29 pm
“I was providing an explanation as to why simply allowing current laws to be enforced, such as those relating to murder, isn’t enough.”
And again I ask you to THINK about what you’ve said. Anything you can say about current laws is going to apply to ANY law passed in the future. Laws that are against ANYTHING are not intended, or expected, to prevent such actions. They are to define the punishments that can be used when someone breaks them. That’s ALL they can do.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
1:29 pm
Okay. I suppose we can allow gun owners to commit suicide with their own guns and not charge them with anything so long as their guns and ammo are secured after the fact.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
1:29 pm
However, I owe the rest of the regulars here a similar apology, and I hope you’ll accept it, along with my promise to steadfastly avoid name calling and personal insults in the future.
What you did was not that egregious. Just bad timing on your part after Jay issued a generic yellow card to the entire blog. Any other time, I imagine he would’ve just pulled your post and yellow carded you specifically.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:30 pm
Legal gun purchases are already registered. You think we’ll be able to get criminals to register their guns too?
Since most guns used in crimes are purchased legally.
Yeah probably.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:30 pm
Trolls Bane: So, can someone please explain, how the US being the most heavily armed nation doesn’t have more people getting murdered with guns than say Brazil with 8 guns per 100 residents?
A good question, but we’re not attempting to solve the problem of murder overall by addressing the gun problem. If you want to address murder, you have to look deeper. And you have to fund research on the subject. And you have to fund whatever proposals that would work that come out of that research.
But the point is that we should not take the fact that murder still happens as a reason to allow people to perform murders more easily.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:31 pm
“Most gun owners far more reasonable that the NRA”
Jay, you need to seriously hire a proofreader. You’re about as bad as Cynthia Tucker used to be.
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
1:31 pm
Paul
January 15th, 2013
1:05 pm
indigo
“None of you cons seems willing to say what you truly seem to fear.
If I understand you correctly, you fear:
1. The Government will nullify the 2nd ammendment and then take away all your guns.
2. Then, jack-booted troops will come into every city and town and impose a harsh Obama Socialism.
Gee, i don’t know…ask the Japanese Americans in 1942 what a government can do when you don’t have a means to fight back.
Ask the Indians(native Americans)…..
Ask the Jews in Nazi Germany….
Ask the Poles when occupied by Nazi Germany….
Ask the folks in the former Soviet Union….
Ask the folks in North Korea…..
Ask the folks in Cuba…..
Ask the folks in Cambodia…..
Ask the folks in a the Sudan….
Ask the folks in Mali….
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
1:32 pm
Since the liberals are ok giving up our constitutional rights for no real improvement in security or safety…
Not intended to be a factual statement.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
1:32 pm
And I’m still good with letting the gun owners have their hundred round magazines for their cars and hammers and aluminum ladders. No hundred round magazines for fiberglass or wooden ladders though because they will jam every time.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:32 pm
Christian Conservative: No law will ever stop a deranged killer.
Unproven tripe. Implied causation at best to back this up. There is no way to prove or disprove that a murder spree did or did not happen because of law or lack of law.
What we CAN show is that reducing gun availability ON A NATIONAL LEVEL (border controls, people) reduces crimes committed by guns.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:32 pm
Connecticut has gun laws….didn’t stop a deranged killer…..and here’s a news flash. No law will ever stop a deranged killer.
The libs won’t be able to understand this because they, themselves are deranged..
No its you that doesn’t get it.
And you never will sadly.
Gun laws wont stop every violent act.
Just like tough DUI laws dont stop every DUI fatality.
But they cut them in half.
Cant we at least try to do that.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:34 pm
I’m sorry, sir, but if your carry-on bag won’t fit in the overhead compartment, we will have to check it for you.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/15/16526584-18-human-heads-shipped-from-rome-held-up-at-chicago-airport?lite
What’s the chance they’ll end up at that place in Alabama where they sell off unclaimed luggage?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:34 pm
“But they cut them in half.”
Guess you haven’t heard of Chicago.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:34 pm
The sickening thing is Oblama is going to trot out children to try and push his anti-gun agenda……
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
1:34 pm
Ask the Jews in Nazi Germany….
Ask the Poles when occupied by Nazi Germany….
Ask Godwin’s Law.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:35 pm
Gee, i don’t know…ask the Japanese Americans in 1942 what a government can do when you don’t have a means to fight back.
Ask the Indians(native Americans)…..
Ask the Jews in Nazi Germany….
Ask the Poles when occupied by Nazi Germany….
Ask the folks in the former Soviet Union….
Ask the folks in North Korea…..
Ask the folks in Cuba…..
Ask the folks in Cambodia…..
Ask the folks in a the Sudan….
Ask the folks in Mali….
Take cover dude. The black helicopters are on the way.
Get your tin foil hats ready !!!!
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
1:35 pm
And to make matters even worse, President Obama is not even planning on financing the construction of a death star. How are we supposed to take out hostile alien planets without it!
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
1:35 pm
It’s not a reason to deprive a hundred million Americans of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Seizing our rights by executive order is the action of a tyrant.
Habeus corpus, Mr. Bush?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:35 pm
“support a ban on assault weapons”
1: WHAT IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON?
2: We had a ban in the 90s and it did not curb gun crimes.
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
1:36 pm
Hi back atcha, Paul.
About something godless heathen posted earlier to wit:
That representation of a 223 beside a 22 rimfire cartridge is about the stupidest misrepresentation I have seen in a long time.
I agree that the text accompanying the pic was dumb. If one’s objective were, as KUTGF had stated, to merely display the difference between those two cartridges, it’d make more sense to provide some other picture (or, perhaps, to simply link the photo and skip the descriptive text.)
However:
The clear implication of the ad was that the 22 rimfire was a “hunting” cartridge
I might be picking nits, but that was not an “ad”, it was a simple copy/paste from someone’s Facebook entry, posted to a moveon.org page.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:36 pm
Gee, i don’t know…ask the Japanese Americans in 1942 what a government can do when you don’t have a means to fight back.
Ask the Indians(native Americans)…..
Ask the Jews in Nazi Germany….
Ask the Poles when occupied by Nazi Germany….
Ask the folks in the former Soviet Union….
Ask the folks in North Korea…..
Ask the folks in Cuba…..
Ask the folks in Cambodia…..
Ask the folks in a the Sudan….
Ask the folks in Mali….
Many of the groups you cite had guns at the time. Even the Jews in Germany, against the laws of the time (which were instituted pre-Hitler, btw) had guns and fought back in one particular instance. Nearly all died.
See, what you don’t get is CRIMINALS (or in this case totalitarian regimes) don’t CARE whether you have guns or not, they’re coming after you whether it’s difficult or not. And they will win.
Native Americans had guns too. Not when we first got here, but around the 1800s they were as heavily armed as any regular U.S. citizen. They still got whalloped.
Want me to go through some more history for you, or have you had enough?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
1:36 pm
Guess you haven’t heard of Chicago.
drudgey has.
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
1:36 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:35 pm
Gee, i don’t know…ask the Japanese Americans in 1942 what a government can do when you don’t have a means to fight back.
Ask the Indians(native Americans)…..
Ask the Jews in Nazi Germany….
Ask the Poles when occupied by Nazi Germany….
Ask the folks in the former Soviet Union….
Ask the folks in North Korea…..
Ask the folks in Cuba…..
Ask the folks in Cambodia…..
Ask the folks in a the Sudan….
Ask the folks in Mali….
Take cover dude. The black helicopters are on the way.
Get your tin foil hats ready !!!!
Easy for you to say as we live in the relative comfort and safety of the United States. You move to one of the aforementioned countries and you would beg for a means to fight back.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:36 pm
The sickening thing is Oblama is going to trot out children to try and push his anti-gun agenda……
The really sickening thing is you will let more of them die
Instead of doing something
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
1:36 pm
The sickening thing is Oblama is going to trot out children to try and push his anti-gun agenda……
He wouldn’t really show their bullet ridden corpses, would he.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:37 pm
Kamchak
So have all the dead people in Chicago.
Try again.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:37 pm
Adam:
What we CAN show is that reducing gun availability ON A NATIONAL LEVEL (border controls, people) reduces crimes committed by guns.
Not true. Look at Switzerland, Finland and Sweden….
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:37 pm
“The really sickening thing is you will let more of them die”
Not meant to be a factual statement.