Former Representative Giffords launches gun control drive

You want serious change, change that will save thousands of lives each year?

1. Ban handgun sales to those under the age of 25. Vast Majority of gun crime is by men under the age of 25. However, one statistic that would back up this law NO one tracks. The % of NEW guns used in gun crime. Even though I believe this law would save lives, it will always be easy for someone to “Borrow” or “Steal” a gun. Several mass murders in the past 10 years were with 100 year old guns.

2. Ban Alcohol sales after 10PM. Again, Vast Majority of drunk driving fatalities are from people who drink and drive after 10PM. 77 Americans die each DAY from alcohol related accidents, we are talking 10′s of Thousands die each year from alcohol sales after 9-10pm compared to Gun crime that is in the low thousands.

Those two simple laws would help society more then it would hurt it. Also, allow teachers the right to attend a 5 hour gun safety class every 4 years and gain the right to keep a Bean Bag Shotgun in class. Something as simple as the teachers in Newton all having Bean Bag Shotguns would have saved lives.

Police take 5-10 minutes to arrive on scene. Had the gunman done this foul deed in a county school system it would have taken 15 – 20 minutes for a county sheriff to arrive. Everyone thinks Everyone lives in a city with fast police response times…

This tact can only end one way, and it will NOT save lives. You need to read the history of the American Spirit. It is still alive. Anyone that can not see that Giffords is NOT leading anything-that she is being led and exploited-has bought another lie. baaaa! Like sheep to slaughter!

Wolf with dentures kills 5 sheep; sheep ban dentures.

This is a quote from Wiki “Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world as they don’t have a standing Army.”

Guess what the gun crime rate is in Switzerland?

“Until now, the gun lobby’s political contributions, advertising and lobbying have dwarfed spending from anti-gun violence groups. No longer,”

Don’t hold your breath…

Bucky_2
No the blood is not on the Republicans hands. If the libs keep pushing it and don’t leave people alone there will be a lot of blood on their hands. And they will not like whose blood it is. US history proves that. The American Spirit is still alive and well we, by nature, are a bit Conservtive until you rile us up…not a good thing. But one thing for sure, we WILL fight for what we believe in. Count on it. Are you sure you want that? You libs need to back off this.

I don’t really understand how reasonable gun owners have a problem with deeper background checks and waiting a couple days to purchase a gun.

I don’t really understand how reasonable gun owners have a problem with deeper background checks and waiting a couple days to purchase a gun.

Of the 12,000 firearms homicides that occur in the U.S. each year, almost all are committed by minority minors with illegal handguns. BTW one of the reasons that number is so low is that emergency medical care is saving the lives of a lot more shooting victims lately. Thank you, taxpayers. Anyway, we never hear about these shootings in the national news. The only time a shooting is reported nationally is if it occurs in suburbia. The mainstream media has hard, fast rules about reporting shootings: the shooter must be white and the firearm must be legally registered. Otherwise, no story. As we discuss ‘gun control’, I wonder about the intent of people who want new policy based only on .1% or so of shootings that occur.

Tuscar
Those laws are already in place so-back off. That is the point. They want more…and won’t get it.

If it’s background checks and preventing psycho’s from getting guns, great. If it is about restricting gun rights for law abiding citizens, which it most likely is, they become just another liberal wacko group that says no to all guns and there are too many of those already.

What the main stream media, I guess is not allowed to report, are the stories where citizens have successfully *protected* themselves from criminals wanting to harem them because 911 calls for help were two far away; here’s one: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57562397-504083/georgia-mother-hides-children-shoots-intruder-5-times-during-home-invasion-police-say/

The truth is that millions of Americans suffer from an addiction to firearms. They buy multiple high power firearms for no other reason than their being gun junkies.
The NRA’s role is to facilitate and promote addiction to guns that should have not been manufactured and sold in the first place, since no one needs more than one, small caliber, non-automatic handgun for self protection.
The effort to liberate America from gun addiction could take decades, but it’s worth it – no doubt about that.
The battle against tobacco companies seemed impossible too, when it started. Tobacco companies were richer and more influential than today’s gun companies, and the number of tobacco addicts who supported them was bigger than the number of gun addicts today.

“January 7, 2013 10:38 AM — Police said a Georgia mother hiding with her children shot an intruder five times after he chased them in their own home Friday afternoon, CBS affiliate WGCL-TV reports.
Authorities said the woman took her twin 9-year-old children to the attic as the man broke into their house with a crowbar. He reportedly busted open the front door and gave chase when he heard the woman call out to her children.
Investigators said the man chased the family into a crawl space near the attic, and when he opened a door the mother opened fire, striking him five times. He then stumbled out of the house, got into a car and crashed into a tree line in an attempt to flee from the scene.
The woman and her children then ran to a neighbor’s home for help, WGCL-TV reports.
Investigators said 32-year-old Paul Slater is in critical condition and in an intensive care unit at Gwinnett Medical Center.
He reportedly has an extensive criminal history.”

And it was a big, fine, expensive home, not one in the ghetto.
Just a mother and children in their own house while the father is at work, and a criminal with a history of violence, bursts in to rob, rape, or kill them.
Guess Giffords didn’t hear about that.

The women and mothers hold the keys to solving this weapons problem.

See, this is why the “mentally ill” label to confiscate weapons is a trick: “On Sunday, January 16, eight days after the shooting, Vietnam War veteran James Eric Fuller, who had been shot in the knee during the attack, was arrested for disorderly conduct at a town hall meeting. Fuller had criticized Palin and what he called the “Tea Party crime-syndicate” for promoting a divisive political climate before the attacks.[15] The police then committed him to an undisclosed medical facility to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. A police spokesman stated that the hospital will determine when he will be released.”

Declare anyone who speaks out mentally ill, take them away, lock them up, then when they get out, they cannot own a gun. That will silence anyone who disagrees with the government and disarm those who might fight for freedom if needed. Classic Soviet Union, and Communist China tactics.

our economic crisis (and the debt that accompanies it) won’t be solved without foreign investment, especially in our houses. Who will be brave(foolish) enough to buy where the deaths of so many are judged an acceptable trade for the preoccupation with firearms? There is cheap real estate in more than one country

The majority of Americans could come to a reasonable agreement about limiting sales or assult weapons and high capacity magazines if the NRA wouldn’t fight tooth and nail against any restrictions no matter how small. That’s all the gun control that most of us really want. It’s just the same assulat weapons ban we had before, but with the loopholes in that one covered. It doesn’t threaten anyone’s rights or impact hunters or the average person one bit, but the NRA will never let that legislation see the light of day.
Yes, we need better mental health screening and better background checks, but crazy people will still manage to get guns. At least they won’t have the easy access to high capacity weapons that we have now, so that even when things go horribly wrong, less people will die. If someone has to change clips instead of continually firing, that’s more time for someone to get to the scene. In emergencies, seconds do matter. The gunmen generaqlly stop and kill themselves when the police arrive. Three 10 round clips instead of a 30 round clip is at least another minute for the targets. If I’m one of the targets, I’ll gladly take every extra second I can get to try and take cover or whatever.

That’s why we need groups like Giffords to counter the obscene amount of money that the gun manufacturers donate to the NRA to keep thier greed unchecked.

Regrettably, things like these horrible shootings do happen but I don’t think you can legislate the problem away without infringing on the law-abiding person’s rights. Would the good Congresswoman be wanting new drunk driving laws if she’d been injured by a drunk driver? Does she realize that more children are killed each year riding 4-wheelers than are killed by guns? How about some new laws about kids riding 4-wheelers? They won’t work either as the kids are going to want to ride them and their parents are going to allow them to ride the machines. The way it stands right now, an 18 year old can join the military and the government will issue them a fully automatic M4 rifle and semi-automatic handgun. But, an 18 year old cannot purchase a handgun in most states and a fully automatic firearm is very expensive due to the government’s ban on future production for sale to the public. Also, these firearms have to be registered with the BATFE and a “transfer fee” paid to cover the cost of the extensive background check associated with these firearms. Even Pravda, the old Soviet newpaper, has told the American public not to allow our government to take our guns. Registration is the first step to confiscation and once the citizenry is disarmed, the government does what it wants without fear of the people revolting.

I would suggest that an IRS style organization checks gun ownership people’s rights. Randomly and efficiently. Guns need to come off of streets. Mal-intended people can get them with ease.
The American fear of their own government is pure paranoia : you voted and elected the people in power. If you do not stand by your elected officials you do not believe in democracy ( then I do not know what democracy is ).
But stupid is what stupid does : you elected Bush jr. twice . And now Obama…

Every time there is some mention of gun control and you read some of the comments one can see why some people should NOT have guns.

She really should be looking into the drugs this guy was on. That is the cause of the event.

Gun control will have limited effectiveness. Modest steps will be taken. Re-instating the assault weapons / high cap magazine ban is a reality, and you republicans should get over it. Or don’t. But it will happen.

over 300,00 thousand abortions per year in the u.s. alone.

Gun Licensing and Insurance.

Install this sort of process and business. The culture will follow suit. Tacking money and liability to the whole issue will dramatically change the gun culture.

Atta girl Gabby. WE must power down the NRA and get rid of assault weapons and we must insist on a national verifable gun check that demands a thirty day review (background check, mental health check etc) before they can buy a gun from a dealer or any type of gun show including private gun sales especially if over three guns are being sold on any given week.

Deercub1977 laments: over 300,000 abortions per year in the u.s. alone.”

Good. That’s what keeps us from becoming Haiti.

Abortion is legal in the United States, and always will be. If that fact bums you out….. we will miss you, but have fun in Haiti.

I agree that banning assault weapons/high cap magazines is a good idea, and I expect to see it happen soon.

The REAL culprit here is not gun ownership and its restrictions, or lack thereof, the NRA, or the “Lefties” who want a 100% gun ban – it’s the profoundly mentally ill.

I can have 100 guns, but I’m not going to use them to kill people, because I’m not mentally ill. The young men (mainly) who commit these massacres use weapons they likely bought legally, or their parents bought, or they stole them out of a neighbor’s closet… Pick a scenario, will it matter?

I have a family member who is a paranoid schizophrenic adult, and on a good day, he’d be able to buy a gun – legally – somewhere – probably a local gun show. Now that should make your blood run cold. His life is a cycle of living on the street, in jail, and then in mental hospitals. He’s kicked out of one to go to the other, and then is back out on the street until he starts the cycle all over again.

Because he’s an adult, there is NOTHING the family can legally do to make him stay on his meds, or stay at home, or stay in the hospital. We know he is profoundly unstable; we aren’t in denial – trust me. There are no guns in any of our homes.

Insurance won’t help, the state won’t help, the family doesn’t have $1000 a day, and the mental health professionals are too worried about being sued over HIPPA privacy laws, or are too stupid to see the danger sitting in the seat in front of them. As an adult, he can do whatever he wants, even though he is ANYTHING BUT of sound mind and body, and there is a paper trail a mile long to prove it. The courts will support his legal adult status.

If we think the NRA is a powerful lobby for gun ownership, try taking on the insurance industry to get them to cover permanent mental illness. If the family could pay for it, and he lived another 40 years, the bill would come to at least $14,400,000 (that doesn’t include hair cuts, clothing, shoes… There are LOTS of people on the streets and in respectable homes who would require as much money or more for their care. (Hey, ya’ll wanna help out? I didn’t think so.)

Face it. If it isn’t profitable, it won’t happen. Nothing will change because care won’t change for the profoundly mentally ill, because it’s too expensive. And gun ownership is (and should be) protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Expect more gun control, and more massacres.

What? Abortion…
I thought I was reading a article regarding Giffords and gun control!
I think bobber1956 may be that crazy man on Piers Morgan! Why would anyone object to a background check? Unless you have something to hide! Or just paranoid!

@AlkalineState

Don’t let people derail discussions… Ignore them or question their relevance.

Giffords was shot with a Glock model 19, the same model glock she owns on an Arizona gun license. This is of course on of those evil semi-automatic rapid firing weapons she’s now railing against, definitely not a “hunting” firearm. I assume that she and her husband still have it, given the reality of the wide open border a little south of them that Obama and holder demand remain wide open, and the drug gangs and kidnappers that come across every night. Perhaps she will adopt a Mayor Bloomberg type attitude wherein she can have a Glock but no one else should because she’s important.

Taking away my guns is not going to have any effect on drug wars in the inner cities, psychos who are going to kill whether it is with guns, knives or bombs, or thugs who are out to hurt good people. What it will do is leave me unprotected, one more possible victim.

Crime rates go down when gun ownership goes up. That is a measurable, verifiable fact. Look at the problems Chicago and Washington DC have. They have the strictest rules around.

Now let me get this straight? She’s going to raise enough money to take on the mean gun lobby? When was the last time anyone here saw a liberal democrat reach into their pocket for anything but lint? Liberals are big on mouth but short on wallet! God Bless the NRA!

How convenient.

Does that star-spangled banner still wave o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

So I guess it’s safe to say that she doesn’t own a Glock anymore.

Great grandpa went off to war with a rifled musket before attrition and luck earned him a cap and ball revolver and sword.

Grandpas were home front deputy/daytime factory worker issued a revolver and flashlight, and doughboy with .45 Colt pistol and Springfield.

Dad and uncles all learned the same .45 sidearm in service and at home used shotguns, or hunting rifles with break action (1-shot) or 3-5 shot bolt action magazines, in rifles up to elk-size magnum. Some kept a .32 to .45 handgun, but all practiced with .22 out of frugality.

I was in elementary school when supervised then trusted with .22 pellet break-action rifle that fired 10,000s of pellets by the time I gave it away after college. Times have changed and my kids can’t legally shoot even pellet or BB in big backyard (we do archery instead). There are local outdoor ranges to go practice with a .22 or larger.

All my conceivable home defense needs could be met with a cap and ball revolver like great grandpa used in Civil War, or a ‘modern’ WWI/WWII/Korea vintage pistol or shotgun like my grandpas or dad and uncles were comfortable with. Consider that we armed many WWII European resistance fighters with palm sized 1-shot .45 pistols.

What’s missing from all of the above? That would be mass-produced stamped-metal high capacity assault weapons like AK, SKS, Uzi, Ingram, etc., some cheap, all ugly and untraditional for ‘western’ shooting or hunting sports, and un-needed by anyone outside the armed forces, in my opinion.

Protecting against the low probability of an intruder in almost any yard or house does not require a 20-30 round clip or ½ mile range. A homeowner has the advantage inside the home or yard they know by heart, I think.

If an exception to a 10-shot magazine limit is needed, make it only for .22 long rifle, and perhaps grandfather in some traditional pistol models that are already designed for 10+ rounds inside the handgrip.

How many gun owners really feel they need an actual assault rifle? How many object to ANY added checks or safeguards? All the rhetoric about crazy liberals seems to ignore the truly limited nature of new laws (or simply re-enactment of a few former laws) that are being discussed. No-one seems to be proposing to undo the rapid spread of concealed carry laws, or the admission of guns to federal lands, all allowed under Obama administration.

Would someone for once in the media differentiate between an “assault weapon” and a semi-automatic rifle. Part of the problem is that the media is fostering this view that people are running around loose with assault rifles when they are not. Responsible reporting and keeping these politicians in line would be a nice change. Also, why has no one reported on who picked up the tab for Giffords and her husband to visit Connecticut and Bloomberg in N.Y.?

I see a few posters here have touched upon one of the original purposes of the second amendment. The citizens of the United States are constitutionally endowed with the right to stand against tyranny by our own government. These are interesting times for the U.S. Firearms sales are at an all time high right now. The shooting spree in Connecticut that sparked the uptick in sales is not unprecedented, but I guess the writing as to the direction of governance is on the wall. Perhaps the image of SWAT teams parading around in full body armor hours after the shooting reminds us an oft repeated history in this world.

Decatur, the Korean business owners who survived the L.A. riots by standing on the roofs of their businesses with semi-automatic weapons while others were beaten and killed may disagree with you.

here’s the way to control guns…ready??!!?? MOVE TO NORTH KOREA!!!

Bill, did the Koreans who owned businesses in the LA riots represent 0.001% or 0.1% of the “home protection” situations that most of us would ever face? Extreme example at a business not a home.

When my dad went to pick up my big brother and a neighbor’s kid from retail job the night our local hardware store was at risk of looting (at least in 1968 the rioters let closing-up staff leave the store first, as I recall cooler heads prevailed that night, but several stores were trashed over ’68-’69) he had a pump shotgun with him in the front seat and kept telling me to stay on the floor in the back seat.

A conversation with a co-worker leaves me with a little more insight that some people are fond of AR-15 type rifles to the same degree that I think older styles are more aesthetic, affordable, and useful enough for any non-military use.

It’s disingenuous for the NRA to say that an assault rifle ban is the same as a ban on semi-automatic weapons. It would help if the press did a page on gun education especially terminology and quality or accuracy. While it’s hard to define ‘assault rifle’ I think the practical definition of most dangerous guns might be better aimed at the cheap and inaccurate end of the auto-loading spectrum, guns that looked more like Uzis Ingrams etc are used in school or work massacres at least as often as longer arms.

Before any new bans, though, I’d like to see stronger background checks, tighter control of gun show, cross-state and other sales loopholes, automatic penalities for gun use in crimes, and mental health brought in the debate.

Personally, I could also accept some magazine limit, or ‘big clip saturday night special ban’ on “Miami Vice” style guns, and not feel oppressed; since I see no need for more than a few shots at hand (10 is plenty except for .22, some friends like to ‘walk’ their shots to the cans), but then again I’m cheap and think larger bullets are too expensive to use freely.

Finally, if 1/3 of US households have gun(s) — I would have guessed a fraction closer to 1/2 — and the NRA has 5 million members, why should no more than 5-10% of gun owners control the debate?