Thousands march against gun violence in Washington

Comments (37)
Ashau wrote:

How neat. How showy. How hip. How myopic! If these thousands of people, orchestrated by Obama and his bobble-heads, really wanted to stop the violence in our society, rather than just push their long standing goal of disarming America’s law abiding citizens, they would be marching against people violence. But, of course, that’s harder and doesn’t give the instant gratification or headlines that gun control does. How superficial and ineffective. But, that’s the hallmark of Obama and his administration.

Jan 26, 2013 10:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

Right, don’t blame the mother who left the guns out for her mentally ill son to get his hands on. Yep, makes sense to me.

Jan 26, 2013 10:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
PPhermit wrote:

To Hell with how many deaths and injuries that is caused by guns. I demand to have my adult toys to play with.
If I get tired of shootingat paper targets I can always go out and shoot another and the “stand you ground law” will keep me from being put in jail !!
Anybody knows more guns will stop killings and accidents just like more cars would !!

Jan 26, 2013 11:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
MetalHead8 wrote:

@Americanguy, you think million moms would protest for people to be more of a responable parent.

11,000 Americans die from firearms a year

Jan 26, 2013 11:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
Texmaster wrote:

Tens of thousands of people showing up across America for gun appreciation day is a great thing.

Tens of thousands of people driving to Washington to protest guns is “showy and myopic”…

Got it.

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

I think today its getting to be an all to common scenario as the news media is making news as to unbians reporting the news. JMHO

Jan 26, 2013 11:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
MetalHead8 wrote:

Rueters, my full comment didn’t show? What the Hell?

Jan 26, 2013 12:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Donnatello wrote:

Here’s how stupid the NRA is. First off, we want to say that it is against the Constitution to even remotely suggest that firearms should be controlled in any way. We are all about Constitutional rights. Next we want to sue any gun buy back program to prevent free Americans from deciding to sell back their own weapons to have them destroyed, because it is illegal to even think about destroying guns.

Jan 26, 2013 12:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Johan-Doh wrote:

They should march with the Right To Life event coming up. They both are for less death of children.

Jan 26, 2013 12:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Snowpine wrote:

People feel helpless so they lash out at something that IS eventually changeable. Eventually, guns WILL be outlawed totally and they will have their victory over law abiding citizens who are lumped in with the mass killing ‘gun-nuts’.

But you cant change crazy people who have a sudden idea to mass kill. If they want to get in a car and run over multiple people, you will not stop them, because someone somewhere will go unnoticed and hurt people.

And people will go on feeling helpless AND unarmed.

Jan 26, 2013 1:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
buzzquick wrote:

The gun owners have built a fortress around the 2nd Amendment. All of the best data banks on the Mentally Ill who should not own guns is fruitless. Any person can go a Gun Show and buy any gun and all of the clips of any size. Plus a neighbor selling a gun over the back fence defeats the purpose of those gun owners who think the No-Buy List will work.

Jan 26, 2013 3:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
blah77 wrote:

1. Every major poll (yes even Fox News) shows that most American favors more strict firearms control. Again, this is not about ‘outlawing firearms’ as many delusional pro-gun folks are having anerysms over. And please, spare me the ‘slippery slope’ argument.

2. The ‘law-abiding citizen’ argument is getting old, tiring and wholly incompatible with facts. True, the vast majority of Americans are ‘law-abiding citizens’, including gun owners. However, we are also only human who are just one emotional breakdown or major life event away from turning completely irrational and violent. In fact, most of of these mass shooters in recent memory were also ‘law-abiding citizens’ prior to their murderous rampage. Sorry but you ‘law-abiding’ gun-folks aren’t really that special and certainly not exempt from human nature.

3. The so-called solution of focusing exclusively on mental illness while leaving guns along is also one that is highly detached from reality. Yes, many of these shooters exhibited signs of mental illness prior to their heinous acts but what effective measures can we use to filter out the majority of these types of ‘unsuitable’ firearms owners? Does anyone actually believe that there is some magical registry somewhere that will show every American who has had bouts with depression and unipolar disorder (however minor) if they have never been clinically diagnosed? Perhaps we should force everyone in America to undergo psychological analysis and screening on a regular basis then. Small government my arse.

Jan 26, 2013 3:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
blah77 wrote:

And to the anti-gun controls folks who keeps comparing cars to firearms, please at least make the attempt of applying some logic to your argument. If I wanted to kill as many people as possible in a short time frame, I’d pick up a semi-auto military styled rifle with 30 rounds in the mag over any type of motor vehicle any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Efficiency, effectiveness and lethality makes all the difference. If cars were anywhere close to being as effective at killing as military styled firearms, you would see soldiers ramming each other with Dodge pickups on the battlefield instead of shooting at eachother with rifles.

Jan 26, 2013 3:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:


Most of the mass shooters were on prescriptions that promote suicidal or homicidal thoughts. Yet you want to sweep that link under the rug and go after guns. Maybe we shouldn’t be giving people mind altering drugs that we do not fully understand. How many mass murders have to take place before you explore that link? Make it harder to get guns is fine, the next even will involve an explosive. The shooter in Colorado had his home made bombs too. Are you going to outlaw fertilizer and gasoline? Are we going to need to do a background check everytime we fill our gas tank up with gas? How about laundry detergent?

Going after guns will not solve this issue. What it does do, is eliminates another civil liberty that is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.


Where do these mass killings happen? If you said at gun free zones, you would be correct. And if I wanted to kill the most people possible, I would do it with a bomb. Feel free to take your semi-auto rifle to a police station and open up fire and see how far you get. Take that same weapon to a “gun free zone” and you have 10-20 minutes of killing before the police (people with guns) show up. Rifles are the best defense, eliminating are defense does not solve a single thing.

Jan 26, 2013 3:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RexMax46 wrote:

You a literally advocating that their time would be better spent trying to promote world peace. You may call that myopic, but here in the real world, tackling concrete problems with a concrete method is called vision.

According to Reuters, at least 30,000 Americans die from firearms each year. That includes killings and suicides, but not accidental shootings of oneself.

Your paranoia about the gov’ment coming to take all your guns is showing! We know we can’t make the world 100% safe, but putting in place sensible regulations is the way to balance freedom a security.

Yes, criminals will break laws. That doesn’t mean they should not be laws to begin with. It is idiotic to suggest that the only reason a law should not be instituted is because someone might break it.

Jan 26, 2013 4:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sjfella wrote:

Sniff, sniff. I smell another huge black market opening soon.

Jan 26, 2013 4:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jlj wrote:

Your headline is silly – very few people are in favor of gun violence, so youre saying marching against it sounds ridiculous. As the body of you article said, people were marching for gun control. If ever thousands marched for gun violence, we’d be in even more trouble…

Jan 26, 2013 4:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bates148 wrote:

Leading five causes of death in the US:
Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859

Statistically speaking, deaths caused by firearms are low compared to other factors. In 2010, it was #106 on the list (check If these people want to do something productive, why don’t they protest against the sales of tobacco products, for example? Nearly everyone is affected by second-hand smoke and it’s a leading cause of cancer.

Jan 26, 2013 4:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jabberwolf wrote:

Im curious why 5-10 thousand (if that) get so much attention yet the anti-abortion march of well over 1/2 million people gets little or no coverage. BTW- I support the right to choice, but WOW the news is seriously biased these days.

Jan 26, 2013 4:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jabberwolf wrote:

Im curious why 5-10 thousand (if that) get so much attention yet the anti-abortion march of well over 1/2 million people gets little or no coverage. BTW- I support the right to choice, but WOW the news is seriously biased these days.

Jan 26, 2013 4:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
whitewidow wrote:

My sister is in Washington, DC and I called her today and she said she only say about 250 people or so. Nobody supports gun control in America except the Nazi’s and the democrats. Get your act together. What a miscast.

Jan 26, 2013 5:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
johne37179 wrote:

Why it is so much fun to be a liberal…
You can be against giving small arms to unstable Americans and be for giving fighter jets and tanks to unstable Egyptians!

Jan 26, 2013 6:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:


“Yes, criminals will break laws. That doesn’t mean they should not be laws to begin with. It is idiotic to suggest that the only reason a law should not be instituted is because someone might break it.”

You are not insisting on a law to make it illegal to kill children. That is already against the law. You are not creating a new law to protect people, you are taking away a constitutionally protected right. It is idiotic to suggest that we should take away the right to purchase a rifle, pistol, shotgun, with a magazine because someone might use it to break an existing law.

Jan 26, 2013 6:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
blah77 wrote:


“Most of the mass shooters were on prescriptions that promote suicidal or homicidal thoughts.”

Seriously? That’s your argument? Even common perscription meds such as Celebrax or Ambien can potentially cause suicidal thoughts and violence. Should we start placing people that are under insomnia and arthritis treatment on do-not-sell lists also? As I have said already, not all ‘mentally ill’ individuals (however minor) are under prescription. In fact, a very small percentile are even diagnosed in the first place.

“And if I wanted to kill the most people possible, I would do it with a bomb.”

You could *try* to build a bomb that is big enough to cause mass casaulty level damage though I doubt you can acquire enough ammonium nitrate without a door knock from the ATF/FBI, much less more destructive materials such as C4 or TNT. Just researching bomb making information online may be enough get them at your door.

“If you said at gun free zones, you would be correct.”

Oh I get it, you’re one of those folks who actually thinks that having armed civilians/guards/police all over the place is actually a good idea. What was that about a ‘police state’ that neo-cons hate so much? Right, I’m sure folks strapping AKs to their back while shopping at the local market is not a recipe for disaster, just like in so many of those third world nations. God forbid there’s a road rage incident in the parking lot. I’ll get the popcorn.

Then there is also the fact that escalation of armed confrontation is generally bad news when it comes to collateral damage. With that said, I have military training with small arms and that is something which few people can claim in this nation given our low enlistment rate. On the flip side, any Joe Schmuck can claim that they are responsible and experienced shooters but that doesn’t mean I am willing to place my life and faith in their idle boasting. Being awesome at the range is one thing but being able to react under a live fire/combat situation is entirely another. Most people simply do not react well when their life is being threatened. Once again I will reiterate the fact that you (and other gun owners) are not that special, sorry to be the one who broke the news.

“Rifles are the best defense, eliminating are defense does not solve a single thing.”

Wrong. In most home defense situations (IE close quarters of less than 20 feet), shotguns is usually the best choice. High velocity rifle rounds tend to go right through dry wall/insulation and cause unintended collateral damage. This is not to mention that aiming in low light situation is a 50/50 proposition at best (unless you have a NVG in your nightstand) and a shotgun spread is far more likely to hit the intruder/attacker in one blow.

Anyway, full featured military-style rifles (pistol grip, detachable large capacity mags, intermediate/high power cartridge) are just like what that name implies, designed to kill and not defense. Modern military small arms design revolves around that very principal. Soldiers do not take their rifles into warzones for ‘defense’. The ceramic/kevlar body armor they wear is for defense. The ballistic kevlar helmet on their head is for defense. You want purely defensive weaponary? Get a crowd control bean bag gun.

“What it does do, is eliminates another civil liberty that is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.”

The ‘shall not be infringed’ part of the Second Ammendment comes with the caveat of ‘well-regulated militia’. That was the intent behind the Second Amendent which is to have civilian militias in lieu of a large standing army to be the backbone of defense for America. Context is very important and many founding fathers from John Adams to James Madison have clarified that very point many a times.

With that in mind, a collection of Joe Schmo shooting beer cans in their backyard is not what I consider to be a ‘well-regulated’ militia. Frankly, even police dogs have more training and discipline than most of those jokers. They certainly do not report to any organization structure that is under the guidance of a state appointed officer. I somehow suspect most gun owners would not adhere to such conditions regardless.

Jan 26, 2013 6:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

“Education Secretary Arne Duncan, lawmakers and actors – urged the protesters carrying such signs as “What Would Jesus Pack?”

Based on His words, Jesus would tell us to carry and assault weapon or a Glock.
Most so called “Christians” know nothing about Jesus and should shut up and stop spewing lies about Jesus for their political agendas. Or at the least, they should pick up a Bible and read it.

“Luke 22:36-37
King James Version (KJV)

36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.”

Jan 26, 2013 7:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Dragos111 wrote:

While fewer than a thousand (yeah, count them) marched in DC, hundreds of thousands of gun owners in NY state are getting ready to defy the new registration law that was rammed through. Gov. Cuomo is lucky he does not have to run really soon for re-election. He would be unable to win at this time. In fact, he has Presidential aspriations. I bet at this point he could not win the post of dog catcher.

This is all going to come back and bite the politicians who support subverting the Constitution. See you at the next election time, guys.

Jan 26, 2013 8:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
victor672 wrote:

It’s these people’s kids that are doing the shootings.

Jan 26, 2013 8:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RexMax46 wrote:


I’m sure you think you had a point in your post, but I couldn’t quite find it. Please explain exactly why you think a law outlawing certain types of guns is idiotic. You also seem to be completely unaware that the amendment that gave citizens the right to own firearms is the very same amendment that calls for the regulations of said firearm. Could you also address that in your response as well?

Jan 26, 2013 9:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse

If by “thousands”, you mean about seven hundred, then sure. I counted 682 including about 120 or so kids with their parents. I think the author of this story confused yesterdays roe v wade protest which brought out over a quarter of a million protestors with today’s gun protest which had well under a thousand attendees.

Jan 27, 2013 2:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
AtomCharles wrote:

People who want gun control aren’t really for gun control, they just want control over others. If you think about it, they want to arm the government to have them come take guns away from your at gun point.

Jan 27, 2013 3:40am EST  --  Report as abuse

I am ‘all in’ for looking at constructive and effective ways to reduce violent crime. Think about it…it CAN be done. They did it with better car design and tougher safety standards. There have been successful campaigns to deglamorize smoking in popular media that could be adapted to movies and other entertainment forms that showcase gun violence. These are in reality reasonable efforts to combat violence, not demonize responsible gun owners. That’s an important point that seems to have been missed amongst all the yelling, posturing and finger pointing. Sadly the discussions in Washington DC these days isn’t on the same planet as a constructive and workable solution.

Since 1990, public opinion surveys carried out by pollster Gallup have found that Americans increasingly oppose stricter gun control measures. Today, fewer than half of Americans say they want laws to become stricter. In 1990, more than three-quarters wanted tougher laws.
One possible reason for this trend may be the fact that over the same time period, the number of gun-related homicides dropped precipitously, as part of an overall decrease in crime in the US.

So, if this group’s position is really about reducing gun violence, and keeping the ‘children safe’ and reducing violent crime or saving lives, they’d be discussing ending the war on drugs and passing a national 2 strikes law for violent felonies. Those two alone, according to their own best data, would, at a minimum, reduce gun murders in the US by 65 75%.

According to the FBI, so called “assault weapons” are used in only 2% of gun crimes, and in less than 1% of murders, despite the AR 15 being the most commonly owned rifle in the US.

FBI estimates are that 60 90% of all gun murders are a result of the illegal drug trade.

The Department of Justice says that 56% of all murderers had a prior conviction for a violent felony when they killed.

Thomas Jefferson said it best: “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

Jan 27, 2013 4:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
MetalGod1964 wrote:

Banning guns will never work. There are too many skilled people that have the ability and means to produce weapons in their garage.

Jan 27, 2013 4:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
davemundy wrote:

Typical media slant … 700 becomes “thousands” when it’s a cause they’ve been paid to push, a million people becomes “a few hundred” when it’s a cause they’ve been paid to pan (remember the Tea Parties?).

Jan 27, 2013 6:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
RexMax46 wrote:

@brucelancaster and davemundy
Care to provide a source for your count of the number of protesters?

Likewise, can you provide links for your FBI statistics?

Jan 27, 2013 6:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:


The militia is to be well regulated, the right to bear arms is not to be infringed. If you don’t think so, do some Supreme Court decisions investigations for your self. I was commenting on your statement that said “Yes, criminals will break laws. That doesn’t mean they should not be laws to begin with. It is idiotic to suggest that the only reason a law should not be instituted is because someone might break it.” My point is it is already against the law to kill children. Their are already laws in place. A creation of new laws and regulations has no chance at stopping this. Yes I am for an armed guard at schools. The high school up the street from me has a police officer stationed there at all times while school is in session. We have security guards where I work, I think our children can are worth it to have the same protections I have.

Jan 27, 2013 7:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:


Yes that is just one argument out of many when we are investigating shooting such as this. This and the recent Colorado shooting both came at the hands of mentally disturbed and medicated individuals. Why would you not want to look into the prescriptions that they are on? Do you want to stop these things from happening or not? Or are you just here to push a gun ban?

I am glad you were in the military, if you were in any sort of engineering role, you know how easy it is to come up with explosives. Certainly the jihadists have no issues. Ever hear of an anarchist cookbook? This information is freely available. You don’t even have to go that far with it. Gasoline is enough to cause a lot of death. And I have never had any government official checking me out when I go get gasoline.

Yes I am for armed guards at schools for a myriad of reasons, not just the rare events like this. We pay bus drivers, teachers, teachers aids, coaches, administrators. We can easily afford an armed security guard at every school. We can freeze the wages for all education jobs for one year to create the new position. Everyone at the school would benefit from increased security.

Rifles are the best defense in different situations as well, yes shotguns are in a close quarters situation. But Feinstein’s bill wants to ban everything with a clip. Rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Stop nitpicking every sentence I state.

You are dead wrong on your interpretation of the second ammendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Original text of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives. original text

I don’t know how good your english and grammar is, but a semi colon denotes a separation within a sentence. The well regulated militia is a separate right of the people from the right to bear arms. This is the original text that was presented in the house. Let me again print it out for you.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;

Jan 27, 2013 7:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RexMax46 wrote:

@New World
I’ll start by pointing out the general ban on citizens owning machine guns, hand grenade, and various other arms. While you might call this an “infringement”, others, including Congress [1], the Supreme Court [2], and even the NRA [3], see such laws as sensible measures provide the necessary regulation mentioned in the Second Amendment. In particular, United States v. Miller they found the Second Amendment did not protect sawed-off shotguns as they do not have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.“ Likewise, the mere styling of a rifle does not provide a benefit to a militia. Thus, certain styles of guns can be outlawed if there is good reason for it, i.e. psychopaths tend to gravitate towards this particular style.
Finally, I’d like to point out the error in thinking gun control as being unnecessary because “it is already against the law to kill children” via the Socratic Method. Do you think we should repeal laws that prohibit drunk driving as it is already against the law to drive an automobile in a manner that causes damage to others?

Jan 29, 2013 9:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.