People do not need assault weapons: defense secretary

Comments (52)
LandonD wrote:

A statement like this from Panetta is like the sun telling fish that they don’t need water.

Jan 17, 2013 9:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
mike439 wrote:

NOONE has a assault weapon, they have guns that LOOK LIKE assault weapons! No different than the guy who decks his car out to look like a NASCAR race car! Should we restrict him from doing this too?

Jan 17, 2013 9:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
Doc62 wrote:

I’ve been a hunter all my life. Own a crossbow, shotgun, bolt action rifle and revolver. Assault weapons and RPG’s blow the carcass to smithereens = no meat. Ever bite into a piece of lead? ouch!
If your neighbor keeps parking on your edge of the driveway, an RPG will dispatch it quickly(ha,ha).
Seriously. there is NO reason to own an assault weapon other than very sick paranoia or bragging rights. That creates trigger happy people.

Jan 17, 2013 9:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
davespc22 wrote:

I support the NRA !!

Jan 17, 2013 10:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

Lets hope that a couple of the older right wing Supreme Court Justice retire over the next four years. Then a centralists court may rule different and accept an outright ban.

Jan 17, 2013 10:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
dancerboots wrote:

@mike439..I’ll take Leon Panetta’s word over yours..He characterizes a semi-automatic rifle as an assault rifle and I agree. Any weapon that is capable of killing twenty six people in minutes IS an assault rifle. The children and teachers in that school never had a chance..As one police chief stated, even seasoned police officers (most likely with body armor and weapons like those used by the murderer) would have difficulty during the ASSAULT and slaughter in the Sandy Hook school to bring the murderer down without at least an injury or possible death of the police.

Jan 17, 2013 10:57am EST  --  Report as abuse

you have no right to tell me what i need, or dont need, sir

Jan 17, 2013 11:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

He grew up in Californian drinking wine from a silver spoon. He is surrounded by the most powerful fighting machine in the world. He is not qualified to speak for the common person in the US dealing daily with inadequate law enforcement that has a sluggish response time to the ever increasing 3rd world society obama is forcing us to live in. I have a WWII Mauser converted to 30.06 that will knock an elk down dead at over 500 yards. I am sure the last elk I shot felt a little assaulted. Perspective!

Speaker2

A centralist Supreme Court will uphold the Second Amendment as any Supreme Court will. A liberal Supreme Court, and admit it that is what you want liar, will try to mitigate the Second Amendment just like this liberal president is trying. It will not work. You cannot ban weapons in the US unless you change the Constitution-and there are far too many people here (with guns) that have sworn an oath to defend it that it will never happen. If you want to live in a gun free society you will have to move to the moon. And it will only be gun free until some one with a gun moves there. Who will take it away from them?

Jan 17, 2013 11:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
reality-again wrote:

@JamVee

You can’t be serious.

The underlying problem with guns in this country is widespread gun addiction: Millions of people who buy powerful weapons they don’t need at all.
The NRA stuffs these people’s minds with apocalyptic and pseudo-legal gobbledegook, and works hard to enhance their irrational fears and false sense of power.

It took many years before tobacco addiction was identified as a problem, and more precious time was lost as a result of tobacco companies fighting the notion that tobacco is addictive.
Similarly, the problem of gun addiction needs to be recognized as such, and once it is, guns junkies could get serious solutions to their problems.

Jan 17, 2013 11:06am EST  --  Report as abuse

Leon Panetta, another limp wristed reject from the KKKLintonista days. Of course he thinks we don’t need AR15s, he is another Obama new hire that has the ideology rejected from the dark bad old days of Clinton.

Jan 17, 2013 11:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

The military has EASILY taken more lives with guns than citizens with registered guns have even come close to…

Jan 17, 2013 11:15am EST  --  Report as abuse

@reality-again, gun addiction? Are you serious? Have you been checked by a competent psychologist for your delusions? Anyone who calls gun ownership an “addiction” is obviously in need of many many trips to the local loony bin for deprogramming. Oh and your lie about tobacco companies was nice propaganda, but there is zero proof that tobacco is anywhere near as dangerous as you fear mongers think.

Sorry but the instant you link guns to smoking, it tells me you are nothing more than the enemy, a lackey of Eric “No guns for you but lots of illegal guns to Mexico” Holder.

Jan 17, 2013 11:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
datsneefa wrote:

considering the way the US justice system and government have been treating the American people I think maybe ALL Americans need assault weapons

Jan 17, 2013 11:17am EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

well-regulated starts now.

Jan 17, 2013 11:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
Ashau wrote:

I agree that people don’t need assault weapons. Assault weapons are fully-automatic militart rifles and there is no need for them in the community.

However, there are many things wrong with this thought process. First is the grotesque hypocticy of the Obama administration. To the best of my knowledge, the only release of true assault rifles in recent history was done by the Obama administration (and a couple of them were used to kill a Border Patrol Agent).

One could argue that perople do not need 500-600+ horsepower automobiles capable of reaching speeds up to 200 miles per hour. People have been killed as a result of these but there is no hue and cry to ban them.

Oh, and I might add that the right to possess high performance automobiles is not protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms is.

Jan 17, 2013 11:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
Ashau wrote:

I agree that people don’t need assault weapons. Assault weapons are fully-automatic militart rifles and there is no need for them in the community.

However, there are many things wrong with this thought process. First is the grotesque hypocticy of the Obama administration. To the best of my knowledge, the only release of true assault rifles in recent history was done by the Obama administration (and a couple of them were used to kill a Border Patrol Agent).

One could argue that perople do not need 500-600+ horsepower automobiles capable of reaching speeds up to 200 miles per hour. People have been killed as a result of these but there is no hue and cry to ban them.

Oh, and I might add that the right to possess high performance automobiles is not protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms is.

Jan 17, 2013 11:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
ExRepublican2 wrote:

Dick Cheney loved to hunt too… lawyers. He couldn’t even safely handle a shotgun never mind an assault rifle! Not sure whether the news media ever investigate if Leon Panetta has even gone through a hunters safety course lately. His staff would acquire DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) just write him a certification course completion anyway. They are all fakes claiming to be hunters i.e. “I’ve been hunting since I was 10 years old.” I use to walk twenty miles to school when I was a kid, etc. and the BS stories just keep coming from their mouths.

Jan 17, 2013 11:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
billybob244 wrote:

and i care about his opionion why?

Jan 17, 2013 11:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
WillD wrote:

You just cant trust them. This is the start of their agenda. I think our founding fathers had It right the first time. Ill take Washington,Madison and Adams and the framers of the constitution.
Political winds should not blow on the constitution like it was written in sand.

Hypocritical words from a concealed carry permit holder http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DKuN2ey80

Jan 17, 2013 11:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
acd wrote:

1st I am sick of hearing the position that no one needs assault rifles for hunting or sport. The 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with that. the 2nd amendment is about the right of the people to arm them selves to ensure that tyranny always has an enemy. It was specifically crafted to ensure the government was not the only entity that was armed. Thus the motto that a government that fears the people is healthy and a people that fear its government is unhealthy. When looked at from the correct prospective it is essential the people have assault weapons.

with respect to armor piercing bullets that is a mute point as any one can buy a Nano coating that is brush on (like nail polish)and air dried that will do the exact same thing. these are readily available from multiple vendors for many manufacturing application and end product use. weather you agree or not you can not stop people from modifying the regular bullets to do 90-95% the same as a armor piercing. I agree people should not have access to super high end depleted uranium bullets but that is not what he is discussing. he is discussion PTFE coated and impregnated bullets which can be done like nail polish in anyone’s kitchens by the thousands in one night.
thus he is either deliberately deceiving the people that this has any worth or he is ignorant of well known technology and thus incompetent for his position.
I agree there is a clear problem but the American way is we do not compromise the right of the masses for the benefit of the few nor do we compromise the rights of the few for the benefit of the masses. This is the hole premise of our legal system for example “innocent until proven guilty” (we would rather see 10 guilty go free than put on innocent in prison). Lets have a discussion about issues, lets stop mis-represeting the issues and facts, the 2nd amendment as being about hunting or sport, and lets talk real solutions. As far as I can tell every one of these massacres was enacted with illegally obtained fire arms. How about we enforce what we already have on the books before we start compromising the rights of law abiding citizen and compromises our constitution.

Jan 17, 2013 11:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
acd wrote:

1st I am sick of hearing the position that no one needs assault rifles for hunting or sport. The 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with that. the 2nd amendment is about the right of the people to arm them selves to ensure that tyranny always has an enemy. It was specifically crafted to ensure the government was not the only entity that was armed. Thus the motto that a government that fears the people is healthy and a people that fear its government is unhealthy. When looked at from the correct prospective it is essential the people have assault weapons.

with respect to armor piercing bullets that is a mute point as any one can buy a Nano coating that is brush on (like nail polish)and air dried that will do the exact same thing. these are readily available from multiple vendors for many manufacturing application and end product use. weather you agree or not you can not stop people from modifying the regular bullets to do 90-95% the same as a armor piercing. I agree people should not have access to super high end depleted uranium bullets but that is not what he is discussing. he is discussion PTFE coated and impregnated bullets which can be done like nail polish in anyone’s kitchens by the thousands in one night.
thus he is either deliberately deceiving the people that this has any worth or he is ignorant of well known technology and thus incompetent for his position.
I agree there is a clear problem but the American way is we do not compromise the right of the masses for the benefit of the few nor do we compromise the rights of the few for the benefit of the masses. This is the hole premise of our legal system for example “innocent until proven guilty” (we would rather see 10 guilty go free than put on innocent in prison). Lets have a discussion about issues, lets stop mis-represeting the issues and facts, the 2nd amendment as being about hunting or sport, and lets talk real solutions. As far as I can tell every one of these massacres was enacted with illegally obtained fire arms. How about we enforce what we already have on the books before we start compromising the rights of law abiding citizen and compromises our constitution.

Jan 17, 2013 11:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
tiktin wrote:

Mr. Panetta took an oath to uphold the constitution, but their plighted word apparently means little to these people. The constitution is very clear: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Disarming the people is always the first thing dictators, and would-be dictators do when they seize power. I know this from first hand experience because I was in Austria when the Nazis took over. The first thing they did was to order people to turn in their guns. They then proceeded to send six million to the gas chambers. This is the meaning of tyranny.

Jan 17, 2013 11:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
LuKennedy wrote:

There are many things that are not needed in civilized society. Here are a few:
alcohol, tobacco, pot and other mood and mind-altering drugs not prescribed by a doctor;
sexually explicit or violent entertainment (to include music);
vehicles that seat more than five passengers, emit toxins, are capable of driving above 80 mph, can be driven by people who have blood-alcohol levels above the legal limit or can be driven by unlicensed or uninsured drivers;
abortions as birth control, homosexuality, extra-marital affairs, breast implants, penile implants, viagra;
the death penalty, prisons of any kind;
lawyers of any kind, for that matter…
The list of what a civilized society doesn’t need literally could go on forever.
Unfortunately, we don’t live in a civilized society. We live in a state of perpetual decay, the vast majority of us just trying to live our lives as happily as possible while harming as few as possible. I guarantee you don’t think whatever it is you do that “isn’t hurting anyone else” is wrong, or at least you believe it is none of my business, and you certainly don’t want the people in your bedrooms or your medicine cabinets or your doctors’ offices, or telling you how to raise your children. What rights of yours would you as a law-abiding citizen care to give up or stop fighting for because you suddenly want to live all civilized?

Stay out of my gun safe.

Jan 17, 2013 11:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
GospelVenice wrote:

The reality is that the U.S. is becoming a failed state. The public institutions are failures as is the Congress, Courts etc. All the way down to the local level. Public schools are a failure period. With all this failure common sense people realize that they have to be self reliant. A corvette with a huge V8 motor is not necessary as the speed limit is set at 65 or so. Yet they are legal. Why? This is supposed to be American with “freedom of choice”. The reality is that people have a right to buy a gun like they have the right to buy the car of their choice. Obama and democrats and republicans both, left right doesn’t matter they are all generally considered out of touch with reality and generally insane and immoral by the majority of Americans. Well if they are insane, immoral and out of touch we definitely need weapons to defend ourselves from them if and when they go to far or wig out which if history is any gauge I’m sure someday they will.

Jan 17, 2013 11:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
AZWarrior wrote:

The lies and distortion continue. There are no “armor piercing bullets” available to the public. “Assault rifle” is a made up name. The military doesn’t call any weapon an assault rifle. The American people are being herded like sheep into accepting more and more government control of their lives as an easy, no thought required reaction to the trials of everyday life. Sad to watch and dangerous to freedom. The emasculated American is on the rise.

Jan 17, 2013 12:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Spot on @AZWarrior…by “assault weapon” they mean semi-auto rifle, as in the same semi-automatic capability that the vast majority of modern pistols are also capable of….

Jan 17, 2013 12:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@realityagain said: “The underlying problem with guns in this country is widespread gun addiction: Millions of people who buy powerful weapons they don’t need at all.”

Ahh, so that’s what is causing inner city violence and periodic mass shootings by the mentally deranged…

The externalities of our futile “War on Drugs” and the Pharmaceutical industry’s ability to get America hooked on their drugs legally (like vastly over-prescribed anti-depressants empirically proven to increase suicidal and homicidal thoughts) have nothing to do with it….

Jan 17, 2013 12:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

‘Assault weapon’ is a lame and meaningless term. I have a deer rifle (.308) that is a Winchester Semi-auto. It is an average deer rifle, dime-a-dozen. It is certainly no assault rifle. Holds five rounds. Just treat any magazines over 30 rounds…. like crack. Mandatory minimum sentences for possession.

Jan 17, 2013 1:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Forget banning the whole weapon. No one even knows what an ‘assault weapon’ is, because that is not a real term. You can’t ban an aesthetic. Keep it simple. Any magazine 30 rounds or greater is the same as crack. Mandatory minimum sentence for possession. Longer sentence for trafficking (possession of 3 such magazines or more).

Jan 17, 2013 3:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Loucleve wrote:

THE 2D AMENDMENT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HUNTING.

ITS ABOUT DEFENSE AGAINST TYRANNY. AND TYRANNY IS WHAT WE’VE GOT.

Jan 17, 2013 3:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Loucleve, tell us when you’re going to take on all those F-16′s and Tomahawk missiles (owned and operated by the tyrannical government)…. with your collection of craigslist firearms. We want to watch it on Youtube.

Jan 17, 2013 3:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

Whether or not you need an assault weapon depends on the type of weapon beng aimed at you.

Jan 17, 2013 3:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Did Reuters put a new person in charge of comments? They are deleting a LOT of material. I suspect nubie zeal, rather than conspiracy.

Jan 17, 2013 4:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Codbiter wrote:

Panetta also told Congress last year to (essentially) “buzz off, we do what Nato or the UN tells us” another shifting of the American balance of powers.
This is probably the inspiration of H.Con.Res 107 calling for impeachment for violation of war powers. Last i checked it was at 10 co-sponsors.

The rise of the personal firearm is closely linked to the “Rights of Man” movements in Europe. Just as a firearm gives granny a fair chance against a thug, firearms in the hands of the people gives them a fair chance against tyranny.
Tyrants always weaken the people before power seizure.

Jan 17, 2013 4:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Codbiter assures himself: “firearms in the hands of the people gives them a fair chance against tyranny.”

Yeah, keep thinking that. And let us know when you plan to take on the tyrannical government’s F-16′s and Tomahawk missiles with your piss-ant collection of craigslist guns. We want to watch the big battle on Youtube :)

Jan 17, 2013 4:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
artvet2 wrote:

“The ban went out of effect.” Pssive voice to avoid responsibility. The GOVERNMENT decided to let the ban expire! Tell the truth, Panetta. And, you might want to learn the difference between an assault rifle and the semi-autos sold legally in the U.S. Your type of politician masquerading as a public servant is disgusting.

Jan 17, 2013 7:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
justinolcb wrote:

wait – the Secret Service uses guns to protect him dont they?

Jan 17, 2013 8:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kevin2ia wrote:

Fortunately, the ban went our of effect. We need these items to prevent our oppression from people like Messrs. Panetta and Obama.

Jan 17, 2013 8:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

Just put the word ‘gun’ in any article and you can see the reasons why we need to address the real problems in our society…education and mental healthcare.

Jan 17, 2013 9:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
watcher8 wrote:

I tired of listening to people who think the 2nd amendment is about hunting. The Constitution does not guarantee a right to hunt or for that matter a right to defend one’s home with a gun. It gives the right to bear an arm as part of a well regulated militia. In that capacity one must have a weapon capable of defending against any other modern weapon including fully automatic weapons. If a militia brings hunting rifles to an automatic weapons fight, they might as well just use them to dig their own graves. The founding fathers tried to imagine what would protect us in the future but we continue to believe things will never change from how they are now. At some point in the future we may well need militias, especially with Republicans willing to risk global financial chaos. While I hope we will never need militias, I hope that if we do, they are armed to the teeth.

Jan 17, 2013 9:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
elsewhere wrote:

The people need AR 15 type of rifles when the county sheriff calls on the owners for assistance. This could be called a militia. The military or national guard can’t protect citizens on home soil and who would trust the FBI?

There is no foundation in the constitution for restrictions of the type. Obama and anti gun operatives are attempting to create the largest group of lawbreakers in this country’s history, and they have done nothing illegal. You have nothing to fear from gun owners but you should fear a government.

Jan 17, 2013 11:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
txguy2112 wrote:

I usually get a good laugh out of people calling an AR 15 (ARmalite model 15 just for clarification on what AR stands for) a high powered weapon. It is basically a semi auto .22 caliber rifle the only difference is that it is scary looking and uses a high velocity (not high powered) round. The 556mm (.223 caliber) round for this is intended to wound not kill as wounded soldiers take more of a country’s resources than a dead one. Armalite originally submitted this rifle chambered in 7.62 NATO (.308) and it was rejected they sell that model still as the AR 10. Neither of these are military grade as they do not have full auto or burst fire capability.

Jan 18, 2013 7:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
Infidel1 wrote:

First of all, need has nothing to do about it. Having weapons similar to those in the military is a must in the militia. Arming the militia is in fact essential and is guaranteed in the Constitution. An armed civilian militia makes the USA a much safer place to live than say France or England. A bureaucrat like Panetta lives in the wonderland of DC, not in the real world of the common person. We must balance check books and pay our bills with what money is left after the governments are done with our income. His and his employers opinion carries little water with me.

Jan 18, 2013 7:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
sylvan wrote:

Another voice of reason, and another leak sprung in the brick wall of the NRA.

Jan 18, 2013 8:20am EST  --  Report as abuse

the following: “I mean who the hell needs armor-piercing bullets except you guys in battle?” pretty much sums up the entire discussion as to why the Framers of the Constitution included the right to bear arms in the first place. No one seems to want to talk about it openly. “You guys in battle.” That’s it. That’s what its about. That we, the average person, living in anywhere USA may have to be “in battle”. We may have to be shooting back. I certainly hope not, and I hope that our right to bear arms without restraint may act to keep overzealous, overreaching and tyrannical governments from completely removing the rights endowed to us “by our Creator”. Note closely that those rights are NOT given by the government, nor are the the government’s to take away.

Jan 18, 2013 9:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
SteveTX wrote:

“The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives Americans a legal right to own firearm”. This statement by the author is a major problem with this debate. The Constitution conveys no rights. The right to protect oneself and one’s property is a natural right. The 2nd Amendment actually restricts the government from infringing on an already existing natural or God given right.

Jan 18, 2013 9:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

I surely hope that Panetta understands at least these two things:

1) “Assault rifles”, being semi-automatic rifles, can shoot no faster than modern semi-automatic pistols which constitute the majority of handguns in circulation.

2) The second amendment is not about hunting; it’s about ensuring the peoples ability to defend themselves from an oppressive, tyrannical government that perpetually vies for greater power and control and deviates from governing based on the constitution.

There are plenty of historical examples of stringent “gun controls” preceding genocide: Ottomans, Soviets, Nazis, Guatemalans, Chinese, Ugandans and Cambodians to name a few.

Jan 18, 2013 10:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
Jameson4Lunch wrote:

Assault weapon is such a fuzzy term, I wish people would stop using it.

Assault rifle is a well defined term, and such weapons are already highly illegal without tens of thousands in federal licensing, background checks, and routine fed visits.

The AR-15 is a target gun. It’s not an assault weapon, it’s not a hunting weapon (small caliber, bullet fragments). It’s not even a a personal defense weapon, really (you could in a pinch, just pray it doesn’t jam. You’d be better off with a 357 revolver). Any attachments that work on the AR platform that are actually useful are as highly illegal as an assault rifle itself.

Basically, people are proposing laws that will punish recreational shooters, and do little else.

Jan 18, 2013 10:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
wilhelm wrote:

as comments make clear, it is a minority of people – with a rather muddled, ill sense of self and society – who clutch their guns. the devices exist to main and kill and there is nothing glorious about them. the fact that many gun owners here profess a sociopathic contempt is argument enough to ban their ‘right’ to have a firearm…

meanwhile, ‘About three-quarters of Americans surveyed support proposals to ban the sale of automatic weapons, ban high-capacity ammunition clips and expand background checks on all gun buyers, according to an online Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Thursday’

so deal with it.

Jan 18, 2013 11:21am EST  --  Report as abuse
Jameson4Lunch wrote:

wilhelm – This isn’t just about keeping our guns, but on keeping our government in check. This is a constitutionally protected right. The federal government should have no say on this issue, as it is expressly forbidden by the constitution. The right to bear arms isn’t something granted to us by a document or a government. It’s a natural right. Just like the freedom of speech. If there is a societal issue that needs to be addressed, it should be handled at the state and local level.

Also, online polls are notoriously unreliable, and automatics are already banned unless you’re a federally licensed gun dealer or a law enforcement agency.

Jan 18, 2013 11:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
Ashau wrote:

Gun abolitionists chant the mantra that “No one needs an “assault rifle” (what they are really talking about are semi-automatic military-appearing sporting rifles) but I won’t try to confuse them with facts. That’s their opinion but how do they know what someone else may need and someone’s opinion, uninformed as it might be, does not make it binding on everyone.

I don’t think that anyone needs a high horsepower sports car. They are dangerous and, in the wrong hands, have killed people. I think automobiles whose engine produces over 499hp should be banned from private ownership.

I also believe no one needs to smoke. Smoking is dangerous and people have died as a direct and indirect result of tobacco smokeing, not just the smoker but also other innocents who are exposed to second-hand smoke. As an aside, the health care costs for smokers is born by, not just by the smoker, but by everyone, and I think they should be banned.

The point is this; the simple fact that someone doesn’t like/want/see a reason for something is not adequate justification for banning it for everyone and so believing is merely arrogant intrusiveness into the lives of others.

Jan 23, 2013 9:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
Ashau wrote:

I am not going to gpo into the fact that people, not guns, or any other inanimate object, in itself, kills. I’ve covered that issue adequately in other forums. That said, it is nothing more than arrogant ignorance and self-absorbtion that makes one proclaim that, because they don’t think they need or want something, no one should.

People don’t NEED 500+hp automobiles but they’re out there in great numbers and, in unskilled hands, they have killed. Do we ban possession/use of them because some people don’t think anyone has a need for them?

People don’t NEED to smoke but there are millions of smokers out there. Many people have died as a direct result of smoking; not just the smoker but also innocent people unwillingly exposed to tobacco smoke. What about tobacco products? Do we ban possession/use of them?

Control the emotion of the moment and apply a little common sense and thought to what you’re saying and proposing.

Jan 23, 2013 9:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.