In the wake of a series of mass murders that have plagued the country recently, President Barack Obama today is expected to propose an assault weapons ban, a ban on high-capacity magazines, and increased background checks on gun buyers.
Following the Newtown Massacre in which a lone gunman shot 20 children and six adults before turning the gun on himself, the president vowed to curb gun violence with tougher restrictions. The Newtown shooting came just months after the Aurora movie theater massacre, in which 12 people were killed and 58 wounded and a year after the Tucson shooting in which U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot along with 18 others, including six who died. Each of those massacres were committed with the kind of high-capacity magazines targeted by the president, according to The New York Times.
Some of the proposals that Mr. Obama is expected to make at the White House on Wednesday, which are likely to include a call for expanded background checks, a ban on assault weapons and limits on high-capacity clips, will be intended not only to prevent high-profile mass shootings, but also to curb the more commonplace gun violence that claims many thousands more lives every year.
“The president has made clear that he intends to take a comprehensive approach,” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday. Mr. Carney said the proposals were aimed, broadly, at what he called “the scourge of gun violence in this country.”
In 2011, 6,220 people were killed by handguns, and 323 by rifles, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. So while the administration is expected to try to restrict some types of assault weapons, it is also focusing on ways to keep more commonly used firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals and people with mental illness.
Orange County’s deadliest mass murder, the Salon Meritage shooting in Seal Beach that killed eight people, was committed with a 9 mm handgun and a .44 magnum revolver, neither of which are the kind of high-capacity weapons used in the Newtown massacre. However, attorneys for the alleged salon gunman, have alluded to his mental illness, hinting that it will play a role in his upcoming death penalty trial.
Has your attitude toward gun control changed in light of the recent massacres? Would you support or oppose the kind of bans and restrictions the president is expected to propose today?
Let's stay on the same topic of discussion here. But let's make ONE THING CLEAR. Rifles with 'fully automatic' capabilities are NOT LEGAL in the United States of America for civilian use and haven't been for decades.
The individual right to keep and bear arms is not a political whim. It has long pre-dated our own nation's constitution, which simpy codified that right to protect it against government infringement. "...your blog speaks the only truth there is, right?" Nope. nor did I ever say such a silly thing. "Do you need an assault rifle?" What I may or may not need is not your concern, any more than what you may or may not need is mine. Because the right to legally own a firearm is, indeed, an individual one, what sort of legal firearm one may choose is an entirely personal decision. I do not sit in judgment of the personal choices of others in this area and I would prefer that they not presume to sit in judgement of mine. "If one mentally ill person had not had access to his mother's weapons, those innocent children and their teachers would be going about the daily business of first grade." I strongly agree that states should impose severe penalties upon legal gun owners who do not properly secure their weapons and ammo. If Mrs. Lanza's weapons had been properly secured, it really wouldn't have mattered what *type* of weapons they were. They would still not have been available for misuse. "Why wouldn't we take the simple step of banning unneeded fire power? Wy shouldn't we do that among other things?" Because I think we should focus more on the criminal, and less on the instrumentality of the crime.
So what option is left for the gun-ban proponents? To remain constitutionally compliant they must amend the constitution to re-write it to say what *they* prefer. If enough folks truly want to change the constitution in this regard, then let them change it!
I am not comfortable with that. The idea of guns in schools terrifies me on so many levels.
I am a recovering Catholic yet I still attend Catholic church occasionally, Robert. How's that for a paradox, sir? I decided to return to the Catholic church for a trial period when I found out that they started a 'blessing of the pet's day'. You can take your house pet (doesn't matter what it is....a dog, cat, lizard, monkey, kangeroo, gerbil, snake, etc...) to a ceremony and a priest will bless it. Now that's what I call a good marketing strategy and American ingenuity! It sure sold me, Robert! Even though they claim my dog doesn't have a soul and can't go to heaven, they will still bless him. Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, eh? And it makes my dog happy too! A win-win for everyone. Ok. Take good care, Robert. Do some crossword puzzles this week. It's very good for the old brain cells. Auf wiedersehen!
are you a muslim? if you can't answer it truthfully...than what you say on here is a cheap crockpot
There are no firearms currently available to private citizens that I would ban. To do so focuses on the instrumentality, rather than upon the criminal. That said, if the majority of voters in any given state choose fixate on guns, ammo, or magazines and ban them, they certainly should do so for their own state. Here's the inconvenient truth, though: Weapons bans only hamper the law-abiding, who, you may note, are *not* the ones shooting up our schools, movie theaters, and other places of mass gathering. Lawless persons who want a certain type of weapon, will find a way to get it. Just ask the drug cartels in Mexico who still possess hundreds and hundreds of very good weapons that our own government knowingly allowed to be sold and delivered to them. Weapons that have already been used to injure and kill hundreds of Mexican nationals and at least one U.S. Border Patrol Agent. Please review this very basic, well-sourced,10-minute slide show that a private person put together to try to explain to folks the fallacy of most people's understanding of the phrase "assault weapon", the futility of fixating on different types of weapon "furniture" and magazine capacity, and the utter farce that was the so-called Assault Weapons Ban of which so many are now calling for a reinstatement: http://www.assaultweapon.info/
Quite the contrary, I would love to make changes to federal firearms laws. I would make them more compliant with the constitution by seeing that they only had jurisdiction on federal lands and properties and over federal employees, contractors, and vendors. "And you seem comfortable with any kind of guns carried by anyone who wants to carry them." Not true. I favor any law-abiding, adult citizen willing to assume the many responsibilities of gun ownership (including adequate training and acceptable storage when not in use) carrying any concealed weapon of those types commonly available to private persons. "The idea of guns in schools terrifies me on so many levels." The idea of armed criminals wandering our schools and other public areas and massacring innocent people while they cower helplessly because there is no one present to defend them is what terrifies me. You will not remove all of the guns from our society. Because this is so, violent criminals will always find a way to arm themselves and victimize others. Because this is so, the best and only way to stop them once they have commenced their assault is for a good person or good people who are also armed and already present to stop them using whatever force may be necessary. You disagree. I respect your disagreement.
I simply believe that we should not focus on mental or emotional health screenings of dubious accuracy and, therefore limited value and effectiveness. Further, if my state decided to mandate such a requirement, I would certainly comply with it, even though I did not support it. My challenge is that the good folks in another state may not want to enact such a requirement and, if so, they should not have to be subject to it while within their own state. "The steps we need to take include screenings for everyone and the banning of unnecessary fire power owned by anyone except police and military." I appreciate that you believe this and I think if the majority of voters in your state agree, then that's what you should do. I do not think the Fed should presume to impose such blanket measures on all states (because I believe them to be unconstitutional). The underlying purpose of the 2nd amendment is to codify the people's right to defend themselves against government tyranny. If only the military and police have access to commonly-used firearms of the day, then the 2nd amendment loses its entire purpose. "We can never prevent every gun tragedy but surely we can take simple steps that may prevent some." Agreed. So take steps that actually have that effect. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not do so.