Gun groups predict assault weapons ban will fail in Congress

Comments (32)
DemocratJohn wrote:

Excellent! I guess my letters to congress and NRA dues made a dent. It also probably helps that data on US and European assault weapons bans show that they do not reduce murder.

Jan 13, 2013 9:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KyuuAL wrote:

Fail, huh?

Well, the next school shooting will be guaranteed within the next year or two. Until the politics on guns changes, these things will continue to happen — as the record shows.

Jan 13, 2013 9:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

Of course the gun lobbies predict that an assault weapons ban would fail, because behind the scenes they’ll be busy threatening politicians with running candidates against them during their next primaries, and lot’s of money spent on attack ads. They are protecting the profits of the industry they represent, the gun industry. It’s all about the profits.

They know there are a lot of unintelligent people in the US, especially on the right (sorry, but it’s true), who will believe anything they’re told. More guns will reduce gun violence. The liberals want to confiscate our guns. Any gun regulation is an attack on our 2nd amendment rights and would have been opposed by our Founding Fathers. We need our guns to protect us from a possible invasion from Mars. Any excuse will do. There’s simply no room for rational thinking because the conversation is dominated by the well-funded lobbyists for the gun industry.

If someone can show me a society where more guns created a peaceful culture free, or nearly free, of gun violence, I’ll apologize and argue in favor of more guns. With me it’s really that simple. Just a little common sense. Prove to me that more guns will mean less gun violence. That should be the standard that determines this entire conversation.

Jan 13, 2013 9:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@KyuuAL

It will be sooner than that. Maybe in the next few months.

Whenever it is, we will all know who to blame: all the gun crazies who enable it by doing nothing to prevent it.

Jan 13, 2013 9:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CF137 wrote:

In the meantime, Obama will do an Executive Order to ban assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and possibly ammo for all those weapons.

Jan 13, 2013 10:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConradU812 wrote:

I find no humor in the number of people who would willingly hand their lives and the lives of their families to the same government that brought them Watergate, Iran-Contra, Fast & Furious, and the Libyan Embassy massacre.

“Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.”

– Benjamin Franklin

Jan 13, 2013 10:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
FrankoNY wrote:

Men make violence, not guns, not knives, nor any other object. A madman committed to staging a horrible attack will find a way within the parameters of the weapons he possess. In Newtown, if that coward had entered a police station he would have been shot dead. Instead he entered a school full of teachers and children. He could have entered that school with a chainsaw and committed equally horrible acts.

Concerning the use of executive orders to ban ammo, the same ammunition that is used for “assault rifles” is also used in many hunting rifles (5.56, .30-06, 7.62nato, etc.).

Jan 13, 2013 10:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

So that means that the NRA supports massacring children. People better remember that the next time the NRA asks you to support their fascist policy. Numbers show that countries in Europe that have assault weapons bans have fewer multi-killings, with fewer murders where more than 3 people are killed at once. We KNOW Assault Weapons Bans save lives, because incidents of mass murder have jumping in the US since 2004 when the Assault Weapons Ban ended.

You have to keep sending letters to the politicians; facts and solid numbers, as well as simple logic show that the only purpose for assault weapons is to massacre multiple people. There is no rational or legal reason for a person to own an assault weapon or long gun clip; it’s time that was said with a ban on them. You are not going to have 30+ burglars breaking into your home at once, so it’s moronic to think that you would need such things. America needs to give up it’s narcissistic gun religion and get a healthy attitude toward guns. People shouldn’t require a gun to feel safe from crazy people with guns.

And for you Dumb Gun Bunnies out there, the Second Amendment (you know, that document you’ve never read all the way through) saws that gun-wielding, government-regulated militias should exist to STOP INSURRECTION; the exact opposite of your little fantasy that you have the right to guns in order to overthrow the government if necessary. As an American Gun owner, it is your duty to STOP people trying to overthrow the government!

Jan 13, 2013 10:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

@ConradU812: I find no humour in people supporting the current increase in gun crime just because government isn’t perfect. Corporations do a lot more F’ed up things than the government ever does, but you trust them more? They are the forces behind the NRA, you realize. You are putting the word of unscrupulous people who only want you for your money over the word of the people who are, essentially, you (the government).

NRA and its corporate leaders have spent a lot of money vilifying your only defence against their depredations and you’ve fallen for their bullcrap hook, line and sinker.

Congratulations on being a sheep.

Jan 13, 2013 11:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

Actually, Conrad, that quote is “Those who would trade in essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither.” Nothing in there about them losing them, because ol’ Ben knew how corrupt companies could be. He knew the history of the East India Company quite well, and all the murder, enslavement and suffering they created.

Jan 13, 2013 11:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

ConradU812: Your Franklin quote is misused. It doesn’t fit your point. Apply it to the Patriotic Act, but not in a national discussion on how to reduce gun violence or even consideration of banning assault rifles. You’re not giving up liberty in return for more security. Do you honestly think that allowing the sale of assault rifles will enable you to fight off the US military, if they were to come after you? Do you honestly think the US military would come after you? Why?

If you’re really that worried about your liberty, then your concerns are misplaced. You’d be better off focusing on finding ways of reducing the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups in our government. The government’s not going to come after you with guns. They don’t have to. Most people on the right willingly do whatever those special interests tell them to do anyway, particularly regarding what to believe.

Understand that the gun lobbies, the NRA and others, have one primary goal: to increase profits for the gun industry. This is not about liberty, security, or the Constitution. It’s about profits for a few people. They tell you, “They’re coming after your guns!” so that you’ll react exactly the way you’re reacting. You speak out against ANY consideration of regulating gun sales in any way. You rush out and buy more guns. It’s happening now. It works like a charm. They say “Jump” and you guys get to jumpin’. The result? More profits for the gun industry.

Our goal is to reduce gun violence, and in particular, multiple deaths by guns. A modern, rational society should be able to have this conversation without rightwing extremists claiming that any talk of gun regulating is an affront to our Constitutional rights. You folks on the right make the United States look like a backward country full of ignorant yahoos, incapable of even having a rational discussion about a topic that is costing thousands their lives.

The NRA’s position is that the more people carry guns, the less gun violence we’ll have. That argument is winning the day. But here’s the thing. We should never, as a nation, adopt a policy based on a theory that isn’t proven. Can you name one country where this policy has successfully been put into practice? One country where guns are prevalent and, because of their prevalence the country has less gun violence than the many countries that DO have gun regulations? On the surface at least, it doesn’t look good for your argument. Among all developed nations, the US has the highest gun ownership and the highest incidence of gun violence.

I just wish folks on the right would understand that they are fed a lot of bull so that a relative few can make lots of money. The same holds true for our fossil fuel industries (there is no global warming); our tobacco industry (cigarette smoking does not cause cancer); our healthcare industry (the US has the best healthcare system in the world and any change would amount to evil socialism); our defense industry (any cut to defense spending is a threat to our national security); and a whole host of other industries and special interest groups with self-serving agendas. And who most often believes these ridiculous industry canards? I’ll give you a clue. It ain’t the progressives.

Jan 13, 2013 11:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
10hawks wrote:

What if 110,000,000 American gun owners were a “gun group”?
What if Thompson Reuters was a credible news source?

Jan 13, 2013 11:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

@FrankoNY: Guns facilitate violence in a way that no other object does; even knives or other objects with multiple purposes beside being a weapon. It is irrational to think that guns have nothing to do with violence. Guns allow people who would otherwise not be predisposed to violence injure or kill people because it makes killing easy; ridiculously easy. The Founding Fathers never even considered the idea of guns that could be fired multiple times in less than even 2 minutes when they came up with the Second Amendment. If they knew people were trying to justify the ownership of murder-machines that can end 30 lives in less than as many seconds, they would be shocked and appalled, and would wonder why the second amendment wasn’t revoked a hundred years ago because a standing army makes it irrelevant, and abusive.

You’ve bought into some pretty twisted, illogical thinking if you think that guns have nothing to do with the increase in mass-murders in America. That guy at Sandy Hook Elementary didn’t kill 20 children and 6 adults with a knife; he would not have been able to do so, since all it would take is two teachers to disarm him. No, it was the gun that turned that from what might have been a few serious injuries, maybe one death into 26 senseless deaths, and many more injured.

If you think guns are not responsible, you are (the gun lobby’s) idiot, because your ignoring logic, reason and the human incapacity to responsibly handle great power. Guns are Great Power. In the hands of the minute minority, they can do ambivalent things. In the hands of the majority, they cause atrocities. Remember this; no one’s life has ever been saved by a gun blocking a bullet heading toward them. The only thing that will protect you from another gun is a shield; stop pretending that guns create a magical shield that protects you from violence, because it’s moronic.

Jan 13, 2013 11:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chopchop wrote:

flashrooster, tell that to a criminal pointing a gun at you. The anti-gun lobby has just as many lobbyists and money. If politicians had the willpower to enforce the laws we already have we wouldn’t feel the need to have a gun to protect our safety. If the goal is to reduce fire arms in the US, why the threats to take aware our right to own a firearm? All this has done is fuel the gun buying. As for your challenge, if you bought a gun and used it to protect your home, would that not make it safer? Anything to save one life, according to VP Biden, right? If criminals know that they might get a gun stuck in their face, I would say it acts as a deterrent, wouldn’t you? But, alas, if you will simply wait for the police while someone is trying to harm you or your family, that is your choice, and then you will be a statistic that the anti-gun lobby will hide from the public. By the way, my kids school district placed armed officers at all of the schools the next school day after the Newtown shooting. More guns equal less violence. Hey! I could write a paper on this for you individuals that don’t understand “simple common sense”.

Jan 13, 2013 11:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
adah1249 wrote:

My grades for US Congress: Republicans = F, Democrats = D. Republicans beyond worthless, and Democrats not far behind. If the psychos started shooting politicians we’d have more gun control than you could shake a stick at. As long as they are not effected directly nothing will ever happen, especially since the NRA pays off the GOP. EVERY Republican in Congress gets money from the NRA, they are all dirty as pig slop and wallow in the same filth.

Jan 13, 2013 11:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chopchop wrote:

Since when did comments from Miss America pageants add up to a hill of beans? Okay, don’t respond to violence with violence. Just let the bully beat the snot out of yourself. Just stand still for the person shooting at you with a gun so he doesn’t have to chase you. Just let that person who is trying to harm your family have his way. Why, we are more civilized than having to act like a cave man and be violent.

Jan 13, 2013 11:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
psittacid wrote:

What else would they say?

Jan 13, 2013 11:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WhyMeLord wrote:

It’s interesting to read the posts from people who obviously live in some sort of ‘war zone’ where the lives of them and their families are constantly bein threatenedby some unidentified criminal with a gun. They must be smoking too much weed while being glued to the TV screen.
What a horrible existace they must be living; why don’t they just move? When it gets too hot in the ktchen, it’s time to get out…

Jan 14, 2013 12:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

@Chopchop: There is no anti-gun lobby. That’s the problem. There is no corporate group interesting in protecting people from guns. There needs to be one, but there is no profit in it like there is with the Gun Lobby. A person pointing a gun at you will just shoot you if you try to pull a gun on him. A gun will never stop a bullet that is already heading toward you, so the idea that guns protect you from other people’s guns is irrational at best; dangerously moronic at worst. A simple whistle will stop a person with a gun better than your gun ever would. Alternatively, screamers, pepper spray and stun guns all have a better record at stopping gun crime than guns do.

You’ve bought into the CorporateThink; you’re brainwashed with misinformation. If you want to protect your family, buy an alarm system. it has 30 times the success rate guns do in protecting families. Owning a gun for safety is just a dangerous fantasy. You’re twice as likely to see your gun harm or kill you or one of your loved ones than see it save them.

Jan 14, 2013 12:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
Thornbird961 wrote:

I doubt many gun owners other than the far right wing would stand against laws that would restrict or ban “assault weapons” if those writing the laws used any common sense or restraint themselves. Categorizing a weapon based on appearance is simply ridiculous and meaningless. The appearance is not what makes one weapon more dangerous than another, yet, this is the basis of the proposed ban. Worse, Feinstein has included semi-automatic handguns in her bill. These are the most commonly owned guns for defensive purposes in the country. How does she think that would ever pass? She herself owned and carried such a gun. “High capacity magazinrs” are equally as poorly and arbitrarily defined. Why 10 when the standard magazine for many pistols is 12 or 15? Why, if there must be such a ban, not apply it to after market extended magazines and drums that may hold up to 100 rounds? The anti-gun zealots are not interested in rational discussion about what may be acceptable compromise to gun owners. The fact is that the 2nd Amendment establishes a right to bear arms which the Supreme Court has ruled to include individuals without requiring membetship in a “miltia”. The correct way to change the Constitution is by Amendment. Until the time that happens, gun laws must involve compromise, something the gun control crowd is unwilling to consider so they will continue to fail in passing their bills.

Jan 14, 2013 12:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
FreonP wrote:

The NRA used to be a gun owners’ group. Now it is a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers and sellers. It continues to pretend that it represents gun owners, even though polls of gun owners show that most of them support reasonable controls, like universal background checks, that the manufacturers and sellers funding the NRA oppose. The NRA has a small number of highly vocal members (like DemocratJohn) who believe that the government is out to take their guns and that the only way to stop it is by opposing all controls. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/nra-gun-manufacturers_b_2468565.html

Jan 14, 2013 1:15am EST  --  Report as abuse

So instead we do nothing… brilliant strategy.

Jan 14, 2013 1:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
JayTParker wrote:

Canada does just fine without guns. The staistics prove it. As far as the NRA is concerned, they are nothing but a number of whining winps. They should all be put in a paint-ball maze with their beloved assault rifles and play bullets. Canada is the place to be if you take to heart the dreadful killing of children.

Jan 14, 2013 2:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
bates148 wrote:

@flashrooster
“If someone can show me a society where more guns created a peaceful culture free, or nearly free, of gun violence, I’ll apologize and argue in favor of more guns. With me it’s really that simple. Just a little common sense. Prove to me that more guns will mean less gun violence. That should be the standard that determines this entire conversation.”

To me, I believe gun violence goes hand-in-hand with violence in general, thus I would revise that the standard in the conversation should be whether guns increase violent crimes in general. If an individual has access to a firearm, does that increase the chance that they will commit a violent crime? Theoretically, one could easily assume yes, however empirically, this is a very hard question to answer. Violence is part of human nature, it has occurred since the beginning of man. What drives an individual to pull the trigger of a gun is the same of what drives an individual to thrust a knife or to press a button to ignite a bomb. Let’s look at the nation’s three most populous states: California, Texas and New York. Two of these have very strict gun laws, and the other, Texas has relatively lenient laws with a higher guns per capita. Is there strong evidence to suggest that less guns equates to less violent crime, in murders per year? Not at a significant level. Is there a strong correlation between population and violence? Yes.

Jan 14, 2013 2:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
logictime wrote:

Flashrooster look up FBI statistics per and post CCL laws. In every state that passed CCL laws violent crime dropped. Also of approximately 11,000 gun deaths in the US every year assault style rifles account for approximately 200. Anti-gun activists like to target them because they look scary to the uninformed.

Jan 14, 2013 4:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

bates148: It really tells us nothing useful to use cities or states within this country as examples of whether or not gun regulations have any effect, not when it’s as easy as going next door to purchase all the guns you want. That’s why I use countries in my challenge, because it’s harder to purchase firearms and cross international borders, particularly when contiguous nations regulate gun ownership like most of Europe.

I agree with you that there’s more to gun violence than the easy accessibility of guns, but obviously having ready access to guns is a major factor. I would also argue that it’s not just having access to guns, but also living in a gun culture, and culture that is awash in guns, like no other developed country in the world, and where a large segment of the population has a rather intense infatuation with guns, that this feeds the problem. So guns become the “go to” tool of destruction.

Jan 14, 2013 4:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
mikefromaz wrote:

Since when does the NRA run this country? Unfortunately, the NRA left me (when I was a member) with an uncomfortable feeling decades ago when they shifted away from the “outdoors” sense of gun ownership to the anything goes mentality. Living in Arizona as I do, one can already see this guns-guns-guns stupidity in full play. Guns allowed in bars and restaurants, concealed guns for all without permits or even competency training. Guns for students on campus was last years legislative push. I am a hunter, target shooter, and someone breaking into my home is at serious risk. That being said, none of what I see and hear from the NRA even remotely suggests sensible or responsible gun ownership. Besides the overwhelming firepower of the federal government, the main difference between the military, the police and civilians is the professionals do not treat guns like toys. Now we see the NRA defying the federal government waving the 2nd Ammendment around like it is the holy-grail itself. They don’t even have the honesty to admit they are shills for the weapons manufacturers. Armed teachers? How about armed clergy? As TV comedian “Archie Bunker” said back in the 1970s “you gotta arm all your airline passengers”. He meant that as a joke. Today there are “responsible” people who sincerely see such tripe as a better reality. Assault weapons with almost unlimited instantaneous firepower in the hands of lunatics? Sounds like my vision of hell.

Jan 14, 2013 6:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
txguy2112 wrote:

@flashrooster

As one of those “uneducated who will believe anything they are told” (i.e. anyone who fails to see that you are the most intellegent person that ever lived and does not believe anything you say) and as someone who is only alive today because I had my guns at a critical moment, I have but one thing to say to you. When you can guarantee that I will NEVER again need a gun to protect myself then and only then will I consider giving it up. I have twice needed my weapon when driving down country roads at night and someone blocked the road to trap any oncoming motorists, and one time I did not have my gun handy when two people robbed me and my roommates at gunpoint on the back porch of my surburban house (a neighborhood that was normally considered to be safe). So seeing as I have needed my weapon to prevent criminals from robbing and/or killing me I think I will hang onto them despite what you the propaganda minister wannabe for the extreme left wing thinks I need.

Jan 14, 2013 7:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
txguy2112 wrote:

McBob08

You said in part “So that means that the NRA supports massacring children.” please show me anywhere the NRA supposedly said that. Just because they do not support your take all the guns away from all law abiding citizen agenda does not equate to being in favor of massacres. By your logic, you support people being killed wholesale by gun carrying criminals because you are opposed to us having the means to defend ourselves.

Jan 14, 2013 7:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
MetalHead8 wrote:

The gun grabbers are getting emotional again….

Jan 14, 2013 9:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

txguy2112: I don’t think of myself as being so intelligent. It’s not an assumption to say that there are plenty smarter than me. I’m just trying to be logical. There’s nothing to stop you from arguing against any of the points I make. I would just encourage you to be specific and back up your positions with verifiable facts whenever possible.

I stand by my point regarding the gullibility of the right. Straight down the list of major industries it’s the people on the right, for the most part, who seem destined to always believe whatever profit-advancing canard any industry floats to the public, usually via the Republican Party, with the help of AM talk radio and FOX News. I don’t need to repeat my partial list.

Finally, to be held up at gunpoint 3 times is highly unusual, unless you live in a very bad neighborhood. However, perhaps you can explain to all of us how adopting some practical gun regulations, e.g., longer waiting periods when purchasing a gun, banning assault rifles, closing gun show loopholes, would have prevented you from protecting yourself with a firearm.

I would add this, expounding a bit on what Speaker2 has posted. I don’t want to be bringing my family to Cracker Barrel for dinner, or to the local skating rink and see people around my children with guns sticking out of their pants. I have rights too, and I see that as a threat to me and my family. I know nothing about the people who might be wielding such dangerous weapons around my children and as long as they are near me, they are in a position to take from me my family in an instant. I shouldn’t have to worry about that. Remove that gun and their ability to destroy my life and the lives of my wife and children is reduced dramatically. Their ability to kill my entire family is squelched entirely. And I don’t want to have to carry a gun everywhere I go to afford my family that protection. I shouldn’t have to. The prospect of having a shootout in a restaurant with my family beside me gives me very little comfort.

Jan 14, 2013 11:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
txguy2112 wrote:

@flashrooster

First off if you bothered to actually read my post you will have noticed that the 2 times I actually had to use my weapon were on country roads NOT where I lived. I have also been shot at in a robbery where I worked (it was a restaurant with a bar so having any weapon there is illegal) and only once in my normally quiet normally safe surburban neighborhood. As to whether the knee jerk laws being proposed would have prevented me from using my weapon then yes if they try to adopt the laws that New York just passed the weapons I had would have been illegal as the magazines held more than 7 rounds (8 for one and 16 for the other). You keep talking about how gullible the right are but you seem not notice that the right is actually advocating MORE rights than the left. The right is saying that you have the right to not own a firearm if you do not want one whereas you and your ilk are saying that because you do not want one then nobody can have one. In this case the right (I am actually in the center myself) advocates choice whereas you do not.

Jan 16, 2013 7:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.