"Enough is enough! We demand strong gun laws!"

[WinterDave]

http://www.handguncontrol.org/

http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/

"Enough Is Enough! We Demand Strong Gun Laws! We are outraged and saddened by the recent shootings at Northern Illinois University where five people were murdered; in Kirkwood, Missouri, where six people, including two police officers were gunned down; and in Tinley Park, Illinois, where five women were shot and killed. Unfortunately, incidents like this happen all too often in all parts of this nation. Our weak gun laws make weapons too readily available to dangerous people. Allowing dangerous people to get easy access to dangerous weapons is foolhardy and the results are tragic. We can take steps to prevent tragedies like this in the future.Add your name to the growing list of people who are saying "Enough Is Enough! We Demand Strong Gun Laws"

[Becky]

There's nothing that could be done to keep people from shooting other people.

[WinterDave]

"Gun violence's toll: $100 billion"
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... ded28.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 50,00.html

"U.S. had to tolerate 10,567 handgun murders in 1990 while there were just 22 in Britain and 10 in Australia, strict gun control in both countries would seem to be part of the reason. Britain forbids handguns to most people who are not members of gun clubs; members must store their weapons at the club. Australian handgun owners must undergo a background check before getting a license, which is granted mostly to business owners or gun clubs for target shooting. Gun deaths have gone down in Canada since tight controls were put in force in 1978.

Societies being the complex organisms they are, however, it's never possible to know whether controls that succeed in one place would work as well in another. How much of Japan's low murder rate from handguns -- just 87 last year in a nation with almost half the U.S. population -- is owing to its almost complete prohibition of handguns, and how much to its famously cohesive and cooperative culture? Britain's relative peace is partly due to the fact that British criminals "feel they should be playing within a set of rules," insists David Kopel, an expert on gun control at the Cato Institute in Washington."

[WinterDave]

Why I'm for the Brady Bill
By RONALD REAGAN; RONALD REAGAN, IN ANNOUNCING SUPPORT FOR THE BRADY BILL YESTERDAY, REMINDED HIS AUDIENCE HE IS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION.
Published: March 29, 1991

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... wanted=all

http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/2008/ ... niversary/

"Since 1994, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (the “Brady Law”) has stopped an estimated 1.4 million criminals and other “prohibited purchasers” from buying guns from Federally licensed gun dealers. As the Bureau of Justice Statistics has shown, the rate of gun crime in America then plummeted for years. “After peaking in 1993,” the BJS reports, “the number of gun crimes reported to police declined and then stabilized at levels last seen in 1988.” Furthermore, according to the BJS, “nonfatal firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, before increasing in 2005.”

Before the Brady Law was enacted, most states didn’t require background checks of gun purchasers at all. While the Gun Control Act of 1968 made it illegal for felons, fugitives, the dangerously mentally ill and other “prohibited purchasers” to buy firearms, there was no national mechanism to help enforce this rule.

This meant that until February 28, 1994, gun dealers and gun buyers worked on the “honor” system. As long as gun buyers promised they weren’t dangerous on a Federal form, prohibited purchasers could get away with buying, and gun dealers could get away with selling, as many guns as they wanted. And if their guns were later used in crime, a gun dealer could always say, “The buyer lied to me. How could I know?” Before 1994, criminal gun buyers and dealers could ignore the Gun Control Act with impunity.

After 1994, however, we entered the era of “Trust, but verify.”

[copper]

Originally Posted by Becky

There's nothing that could be done to keep people from shooting other people.

Yeah isn't that the truth. People are going to get guns no matter what. What happens with gun laws they take the guns out of the law abiding population and the criminals still have the guns. Then the criminals shoot the law abiding citizens. People think the cops are going to protect us. Most times cops don't get to the scene until you have been murdered and they draw the chalk line around you. People are less likely to commit a crime when they know people have guns on them. If someone had a handgun they would of stopped these people before they mow down numerous people.

[WinterDave]

Seven day waiting periods, background checks, closing loopholes at gun shows, mandatory gun safety training etc., have no merit and are taking guns away from law abiding citizens? Shouldn't the ownership and operation of firearms be held to at LEAST the same standard that we require for automobiles? "Criminals are going to get guns no matter what." Using that type of logic, we should have no "Operating under the Influence" laws on the books either....Because a tiny minority of people are going to continue to drink and drive, even after their licenses have been suspended....We have about a 300% markup in "Sin Taxes" on cigarettes...Shouldn't firearms and ammunition be taxed at a similar rate? They have just as much or more of a negative influence upon society as tobacco does....And I certainly know which is more of a danger to me personally:a cigarette in the hands of a disturbed individual or a 9mm Beretta! What do students in schools worry about now? A deranged gunman or second hand smoke....

[odun]

we will never have reasonable gun control in this country, because 90% of the politicians in this country are scared of the nra.

i honestly dont believe that most elected republicans have a positive opinion of the nra. they just know the rules of the game. either they vote with the nra, or they will go in your district, recruit some wingnut to run against you and distort your record.

[Noca]

yep americans and their guns. School shootings will continue to happen in the US.

[odun]

Originally Posted by Noca

yep americans and their guns. School shootings will continue to happen in the US.

i hope foreigners understand that most americans dont have a cache of weaponry.

and im not that anti-gun...im anti-handgun. i was raised in the rural south. everyone had guns. all of my kinfolk had guns. but the guns served a purpose. they were used for hunting. killing the hogs in the fall...etc. they werent stockpiling handguns with armor piercing bullets afraid that some drug crazed maniac was going to come attack them at any time.

[SJG102185]

[odun]

that reminds me...

i knew this one peckerwood...actually i didnt know him well he was a friend of a friend. a couple of times i joined my friend on a visit to his house. each time i visited i noticed he had a 30-06 rifle in the living room. just propped up against the wall.

yeah. i thought it a bit strange. but like i said...he was a peckerwood and probably quite harmless.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by WinterDave

How much of Japan's low murder rate from handguns -- just 87 last year in a nation with almost half the U.S. population -- is owing to its almost complete prohibition of handguns, and how much to its famously cohesive and cooperative culture?

Let me toss in another fact: Japan has the highest suicide rate in the industrialized world despite the fact that they are going to have a hard time shooting themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... icide_rate

I only mention this because anti-gun groups tend to love to bulk up the number of gun deaths by including gun suicides. I don't feel endangered by people who point guns at themselves. I only worry if they point at me.

[odun]

Originally Posted by UltraShy

Let me toss in another fact: Japan has the highest suicide rate in the industrialized world despite the fact that they are going to have a hard time shooting themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... icide_rate

I only mention this because anti-gun groups tend to love to bulk up the number of gun deaths by including gun suicides. I don't feel endangered by people who point guns at themselves. I only worry if they point at me.

what if you are one of these men who buys a gun to 'protect his family'.

then your depressed 17 year old son uses your gun to kill himself?

it happens.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by odun

and im not that anti-gun...im anti-handgun. i was raised in the rural south. everyone had guns. all of my kinfolk had guns. but the guns served a purpose. they were used for hunting.

1. And a ban on handguns would stop someone at Northern Illinois University from shooting with a shotgun how? A ban on handguns would seem to merely encourage alternatives, like shotguns. And keep in mind that an ordinary 12-gauge shotgun packs about 25 times as much power as a .22 pistol that you'd ban.

2. Handguns can be used for hunting. Here is one example. It's a .454 Casull, that's about 90% more powerful than Dirty Harry's .44 Mag (that no real cop would have ever used): http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdVie ... 5&return=Y

Originally Posted by odun

they weren't stockpiling handguns with armor piercing bullets afraid that some drug crazed maniac was going to come attack them at any time.

I wasn't aware that drug crazed maniacs even wore body armor that needed piercing. I can only think of one case where I ever heard of criminals wearing body armor (clearly not your average stupid criminal). And you're not going to blast through any body armor with handguns made for self-defense. Handguns pale in comparison to the power of rifles. A .45 pistol, a very popular defensive weapon with them "gun nuts", only has about 400 ft/lbs of energy, compared to something like 2,600 ft/lbs for the .30-06 rifle you mentioned somebody keeping in their corner.

Hallow points that expand upon impact are generally what's used for self-defense. Such expansion would make it even more difficult to punch through body armor. The purpose of hollow point bullets is to reduce the risk of over-penetration where a bullet goes through your target or through your walls and endangers others in the vicinity of your criminal target. On one gun forum there is a poll that's been running for years and the "gun nuts" prefer .45 ACP 2 to 1 over .357 Mag as the best defensive cartridge despite the fact that a .357 has more power and is more likely to blow a hole right through a human target.

[Amelia]

Originally Posted by odun

i hope foreigners understand that most americans dont have a cache of weaponry.

Well, I've always assumed that many Americans must have at least one gun in the house. Even one gun is a pretty big deal, if you live in a place where private gun ownership is very rare, especially for supposed self-defence or recreation, and where the only people with guns are people who need them for their work, like farmers or special armed branches of the police. To be honest, if I knew that someone in this country owned a gun, and he didn't actually need it for a practical purpose such as keeping down vermin on a farm, I'd think he was a nutter. So it's not hard to see how people over here often view Americans with guns.

By Parker in Florida Today:

[odun]

im sure there are some stats somewhere on the internet.

im pretty sure a majority of americans dont own a gun.

[anxiousgirl]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people (I know everyone's heard that statement before). Banning rifles, handguns, shotguns, etc. is not the answer. If someone wants a weapon, they will be able to find it on the black market. Those that are unable to purchase weapons legally will utilize whatever means (ie-gangs, underground dealers, etc.) to get what they want. Banning weapons would only leave law abiding citizens defenseless. The reality is that the police cannot protect every person all the time, and criminals and crazies will use guns for their end means and goals. Plus, do you think someone is going to go into a police station and shoot it up? How about a military base? Most schools ban weapons. Many stores/malls do not allow concealed carry. So, where do these shooters go? Riiight--somewhere where people can't fight back. They're guaranteed success.

I wonder if the scenario at NIU, VA Tech and Lane Bryant would have ended differently if just one person had a concealed carry permit.

I'm amazed at how the press glorifies these whacky shooters, but doesn't talk about the people who were legally armed, and who stopped shooters from killing people. Anyone remember the security guard in Colorado at the church that shot the disgruntled guy who came in with a weapon? I wonder how many he would have killed had she not been there. I bet those parishioners are forever grateful that the armed security guard was there that day.

[Lonelyguy]

Originally Posted by anxiousgirl

Guns don't kill people. People kill people (I know everyone's heard that statement before). Banning rifles, handguns, shotguns, etc. is not the answer. If someone wants a weapon, they will be able to find it on the black market. Those that are unable to purchase weapons legally will utilize whatever means (ie-gangs, underground dealers, etc.) to get what they want. Banning weapons would only leave law abiding citizens defenseless. The reality is that the police cannot protect every person all the time, and criminals and crazies will use guns for their end means and goals. Plus, do you think someone is going to go into a police station and shoot it up? How about a military base? Most schools ban weapons. Many stores/malls do not allow concealed carry. So, where do these shooters go? Riiight--somewhere where people can't fight back. They're guaranteed success.

I wonder if the scenario at NIU, VA Tech and Lane Bryant would have ended differently if just one person had a concealed carry permit.

I'm amazed at how the press glorifies these whacky shooters, but doesn't talk about the people who were legally armed, and who stopped shooters from killing people. Anyone remember the security guard in Colorado at the church that shot the disgruntled guy who came in with a weapon? I wonder how many he would have killed had she not been there. I bet those parishioners are forever grateful that the armed security guard was there that day.

[WineKitty]

People should carry around guns to prevent crimes? Isnt that what cops are supposed to do?

Sorry although I support gun rights, I really dont support a "wild west" mentality of everyone packing guns and shooting at each other when they feel its warranted.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by Penny

People should carry around guns to prevent crimes? Isnt that what cops are supposed to do?

If you call 911 how long will it take for the cops to arrive? They generally arrive after a crime is over and write a report about how dead you are. Even under the best circumstances with an excellent police department it will likely be a few minutes in which you could be dead. Can you pick up and aim a gun faster than cops can arrive?

Originally Posted by Penny

Sorry although I support gun rights, I really dont support a "wild west" mentality of everyone packing guns and shooting at each other when they feel its warranted.

Odun has made the same argument, mocking the pro-gun folks saying they ought to all wear a holstered gun on their hip as if this was some Western film.

The whole point of concealed carry is that the criminals don't know who's armed and who's not. This makes being a criminal a dangerous game as you might attack the person who is armed or attack an unarmed person while an armed civilian pulls out his gun and puts it to your head with the suggestion that you might wish to stop and wait for cops to come & arrest you.

Odun's "wild west" idea of open carry is ridiculous. If you can see who has a gun and who doesn't you simply attack the ones without guns or you attack the armed ones from behind and grab their guns. This is similar to how Federal Air Marshals have changed their ways so that it's no longer obvious who they are. It used to be that air marshals would be the first to board the plane, would all dress alike and would stay at the same hotel chain where the staff all knew what their job was. My US Congressman said that when he flew to Washington he had no problem picking out the air marshall and assumed a terrorist could pick them out just as easily. The deterrent effect of being armed is most effective when you have no way of knowing who is armed.