Obama says assault weapons ban deserves a vote in Congress

Comments (108)
speaker12 wrote:

King Obama on the move again. For a guy who does nothing but talk and spend money he sure gets around a lot.

Feb 04, 2013 10:17am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

It’d be much more poignant to fill his press conferences and high-five some inner city thugs because it is they who endure the majority of gun violence in America; not children…

Feb 04, 2013 10:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
akrozbi wrote:

These gun control proposals are advertised as one thing and are meant to do another.

Fingerprints, photographs, applications and fees are supposed to reduce gun violence? Probably not. Help those in society that need help. We think not.

The end game for Feinstein/Schumer/10 rounds is to make gun ownership impossibly difficult. And then at death your guns go to the government.

No thank you.

Feb 04, 2013 11:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
justinolcb wrote:

wait – a bunch of people were just killed in a big car crash – we better regulate cars too!!
didnt some kids in New York drop a shopping cart from the top of a building onto a person on the sidewalk below?? – we got to regulate them too!!
how about chicken bones?? dont people choke on chicken bones?? we best regulate chicken too!!

Feb 04, 2013 12:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BillDexter wrote:

Again, “incidence involving guns” disingenuously supplanting incidence involving ILLEGAL guns – a deliberate lie on behalf of gun control advocates.

Scary times. Those who hate and vilify the NRA are willing to lie at every, single point in the ‘conversation’ about gun control.

Why lie? Why not acknowledge that black market supply will pick up the slack even if legal guns could NEVER be illegally obtained? Why not acknowledge that almost all gun violence as we know it would still exist even if all firearms were illegal? Why not acknowledge the many people who have successfully saved themselves from crime with legal firearms? Why not let the truth be the starting point for your ‘conversation’?

No, that’s not how fascism operates. Fascists lie and vilify.

Feb 04, 2013 12:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
txguy2112 wrote:

First off when will Obama stop campaigning and start leading? He seems to not know how to do anything else. As to the photo op of him shooting you can bet that he will be exempted from any laws he manages to get passed to affect anyone else. He, like just about all of the politician think they are a separate priveledged class

Feb 04, 2013 1:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

Billdexter

Look at other countries with strict gun control and you find they have very little gun violence. Japan, 7 gun murders last year.

No one is saying guns will be banned, but guns and gun ownership should have certain restrictions. Remember the vast majority of Americans do not own guns. Don’t you think in America the majority has a right to have their input?

Feb 04, 2013 1:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
deerecub1977 wrote:

Does he know he is no longer running for president? Lets get back to the economy Mr. Obama. Oh and btw, guns aren’t violent.

Feb 04, 2013 1:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

Speaker2
The majority will be heard-no gun control. And we have the guns to back it up. Only question left-how many Americans is obama going to get killed? REALITY! You people need to wake up and realize exactly what you are dealing with. This is not playground rhetoric. Private gun ownership built the most powerful nation on earth, ever, and we will keep it that way.

Feb 04, 2013 2:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

@bobber1977

And just exactly how does gun ownership do that? After all the US does not have a monopoly on freedom. Many countries enjoy the same rights Americans have and they do that without massive gun ownership.

Not sure what advantage being the most powerful country does, other then get us into a lot a wars and doing a good job of pissing off a lot of people.

Do you really think most Americans own guns? They don’t, gun ownership is under 40%. Are you saying if the country does decide to add additional restrictions, you will fight your own countrymen?

Feb 04, 2013 2:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

Acetracy
So why are you making it about race, bigot.

Feb 04, 2013 2:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bates148 wrote:

To reference the Obama worshipers: “Obama won, it’s time to move on.” Can someone tell me why this man is still campaigning? There is an idiom most of us have heard: actions speak louder than words. If Mr Obama was truly passionate about gun control, he would be in D.C. doing something about it rather than talking to folks that already agree with him.

But who are we kidding? Mr Obama is a community organizer so what can one expect?

Feb 04, 2013 2:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dakine1 wrote:

Gun control is another red herring for Obama to deflect attention away from what a dimal failure he has been with the economy, Benghazi and the coming debacle of Obamacare. He is a disgrace to the office of president.

Feb 04, 2013 2:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
akrozbi wrote:

Speaker2
Different countries = different cultures, histories, laws, societal norms.

Your numbers 40% firearms ownership times current USA population – 313,914,040 is about 125,560,000 firearms owners.

Does that tell you that hundreds of millions of firearms owners need government doing background checks, paying fees, being fingerprinted, having our photographs and applications taken? And this is going to help gun violence?

We think not.

Feb 04, 2013 3:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
akrozbi wrote:

Speaker2
Different countries = different cultures, histories, laws, societal norms.

Your numbers 40% firearms ownership times current USA population – 313,914,040 is about 125,560,000 firearms owners.

Does that tell you that hundreds of millions of firearms owners need government doing background checks, paying fees, being fingerprinted, having our photographs and applications taken? And this is going to help gun violence?

We think not.

Feb 04, 2013 3:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bates148 wrote:

@Acetracy

First, re-examine your data. Take at look at Mexico’s suicide and homicide rate and then compare the figures to the US. What do you see?

Second, I highly recommend doing research on this site: http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/#view=all This is an excellent resource that looks at actual murder rates, rather than figures that include suicides, accidents, etc.

Third, head over to http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm. If you spend some time in the data, you’ll realize there are about a hundred or so other causes of death that trump homicides by firearms.

Feb 04, 2013 3:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BillDexter wrote:

Other countries with very strict gun control and low crime also do not have open borders and a welfare state. Speaker2, if you only counted gun crime committed by legal guns the U.S. we would have MUCH lower gun crime, too. Saying the U.S. has a lot of gun crime – and then NOT acknowledging that almost all of it is already outlawed – for the purposes of further restricting law abiding gun owners is dishonest. It has almost nothing to do with crime. Having ‘input’ is fine. Lying to restrict constitutional rights is not.

Feb 04, 2013 3:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

Speaker2
If you are unaware that it was private citizens with guns that made, built, and keeps this country strong then you have proved my point. You have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, I will die, or kill, before you take my gun. Again, this is not playground rhetoric. I was wounded in combat in 1974 and again in 1995 and willing to die for freedom to bear arms (and all the rest). Nothing has changed. If you try to take them away I will kill you or die. Believe it. I am not alone. Believe it.

CSM USA RET Airborne Infantry 23 yrs.

Feb 04, 2013 3:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
victor672 wrote:

The Minneapolis chief of police is a lesbian Native American. Obama feels at home in Minnesota. Senator Al Franken of SNL warmed up the crowd telling rape jokes.

Feb 04, 2013 3:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

akrozbi

“Does that tell you that hundreds of millions of firearms owners need government doing background checks, paying fees, being fingerprinted, having our photographs and applications taken? And this is going to help gun violence”

Hell yes! and mandatory gun ownership and safety training and to purchase ammo.

Feb 04, 2013 4:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

The photo in the article looks as if the President is leading a choir.

Feb 04, 2013 4:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

BillDexter

Actually they do in most European countries have open borders and welfare and low crime rates and what does open borders and welfare have to do with gun control laws? Nothing.

If you look at the stats, most gun deaths are by suicide followed by being killed by family and friends, then accidental shootings, then crime. Note many gang vs gang shooting are done by people who know each other. The number of self-defense are quite low, a few hundred a year.

Think you forget we have a constitutional right to be safe. You know the right to life, liberty etc.

Feb 04, 2013 4:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
derdutchman wrote:

Fears of what might be revealed by a background check of criminal records and mental health problems should be a tip off that someone doesn’t need to be on the preferred list of those allowed to brandish weapons. When all your neighbors become so strident about defending YOUR right to have a gun without a background check, it should make you just a bit suspicious that maybe what they are really trying to avoid is a background check on themselves, and using you as a scapegoat behind which to hide their own failure to pass legitimate, and what would for law-abididing citizens be innocuous, tests for ownership.

Feb 04, 2013 5:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Burns0011 wrote:

There is no Constitutional Right to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ That’s in the Declaration of Independence, which is NOT a legal document.

Feb 04, 2013 6:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Aldo1887 wrote:

Even the term “Assault Rifle” is propaganda, it only relates to what the gun LOOKS like, not how it functions, because if we tried to outlaw guns by how they function, then grandpa’s duck hunting shotgun works just the same as an ugly AR-15 and would be confiscated. Wake up folks, these ugly guns STILL don’t work ANYTHING like the firearms that the military and police have, the general public has nowhere near what they have, they may look the same to folk who have no clue, but they are not… Don’t fall for this, this is a gun-grab pure and simple, it has no basis in crime prevention. Ask yourself why, in California, we have had background checks for 30 years, but we don’t even have enough cops to arrest the convicts that try to buy a gun at the Big5? Yet they claim new laws will do something??

Feb 04, 2013 6:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
goodtoberight wrote:

Folks, it isn’t about guns. That is all a smoke screen for the gullible.

This is all about the marxist maggot tyrant and the progressive left making a major push toward disarming Americans for the purpose of having absolute power over the people.

The left is power crazed and must have total control. It is a recognized mental sickness caused liberalism. Remember, obama has been stocking up on millions and millions of hollow point ammo and automatic rifles. What other president has ever done such a thing? What is he going to do with so much fire power? I will leave you to figure out the answer.

Feb 04, 2013 6:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
oneof7billion wrote:

A lot of these comments are downright scary, and I question whether those making them should have guns at all. Anyway, I think a vote is a great idea, and a list of those who vote for/against can therefore be a matter of public record, useful when re-election comes up.

Also, the number of people who own guns quoted above is incorrect. The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center. There are 2.6 people per household in the US, meaning that only one of them may own guns.

Those who own guns just own more of them. But they are in the minority.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html

Feb 04, 2013 6:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
hgvrruyyoil wrote:

And the accompanying picture says it all: while the elite speak of disarming the common man, armed guards stand ready to defend the upper classes.

Feb 04, 2013 6:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
akrozbi wrote:

Speaker2
If hundreds of millions of law abiding citizens need mandatory gun ownership safety training then you have a different vision of home of the brave and land of the free than I do.
Who would pay for these mandatory courses?
Remember you suggested one hundred hours for a course.
Let’s see using your numbers gun owners = 125 million divided by fifty students per class = 2.5 million classes… do we need to keep going?

Who are you? What can you be thinking?
Or is it simply that you don’t want private firearms ownership?
If so just own it.

Feb 04, 2013 6:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Dragos111 wrote:

None of this stuff deserves a vote. Do something that has a chance of actually stopping crime. Let’s pass some laws that put those convicted of felony gun crimes away for a very long time, with no chance of early release. Let’s pass laws that put a stiff penalty on
illicit gun trafficking (Sen Mark Kirk is sponsoring that right now).

Most importantly, let’s ENFORCE the laws that are out there before we make new ones.

Let’s go after the bad guys, not the law abiding citizens.

Feb 04, 2013 6:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
eddietheblur wrote:

I am with Obama here.

Let’s add some facts to the load of opinion expressed here.

There is a positive correlation between homicide rates and availability of guns in developed nations. (Hemenway and Miller, 2000)

RESULTS: In simple regressions (no control variables) across 26 high-income nations, there is a strong and statistically significant association between gun availability and homicide rates.

CONCLUSION: Across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides.

Hemenway D. and M. Miller. 2000. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high-income countries. J Trauma:49:985-988.

Feb 04, 2013 7:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
eddietheblur wrote:

Re: “Let’s go after the bad guys, not the law abiding citizens.”

Fact: Every “bad guy” was a “law abiding citizen” before he/she committed a crime. Or pulled the trigger. Law abiding citizens armed with military weapons are only one decision away from becoming mass murderers.

That worn out NRA response just doesn’t cut it.

Feb 04, 2013 7:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jscott418 wrote:

I am not sure why we should waste time in Congress on something that won’t pass? Sure it makes for great press for Obama. But in the end it accomplishes nothing. How about presenting something to Congress that will pass Mr. President? I could promise everyone a million dollars too. But truth is I know I don’t have it.

Feb 04, 2013 7:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

akrozbi wrote:

Why gun owner of course. Guns are deadly weapons, people with guns should have training both in shooting and in safety. Gun Ownership should not be an easy pass just because you want one and remember many people don’t want to own guns.

Since leaving the service I have gotten by just fine the past 50 years without owning a gun. If I was into hunting, I might own one and yes, hunters should undergo training also.

Feb 04, 2013 7:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

akrozbi wrote:

Why gun owner of course. Guns are deadly weapons, people with guns should have training both in shooting and in safety. Gun Ownership should not be an easy pass just because you want one and remember many people don’t want to own guns.

Since leaving the service I have gotten by just fine the past 50 years without owning a gun. If I was into hunting, I might own one and yes, hunters should undergo training also.

Feb 04, 2013 7:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kevin2ia wrote:

Deserve, deserve??? We the people, DESERVE, a president that does not hate the USA, defends, rather than alters, the Constitution and seeks to set people free, rather than enslave them. Start with this and then we will see….

Feb 04, 2013 7:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
eddo wrote:

And who would come up with a definition for an “assault weapon”? At the moment, the media is using this term as if it was absolutely definitive, when in fact, it is generic.

Feb 04, 2013 7:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

Dragos111

Look up the stats, most gun related deaths are by suicides, accidents, or being shot by a family member or friend, actual death by criminals is less. Even self-defense gun deaths are just a few hundred a year.

Technically the young man who killed the children at school was not a criminal until he killed his mother and the children.

The average person, you have better odds at winning the lottery than being shot during the commission of a crime.

Now if you live in poverty and are young and black, your odds are greater, and this is a failure of society to solve the problem of poverty and education.

Feb 04, 2013 7:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

Dragos111

Look up the stats, most gun related deaths are by suicides, accidents, or being shot by a family member or friend, actual death by criminals is less. Even self-defense gun deaths are just a few hundred a year.

Technically the young man who killed the children at school was not a criminal until he killed his mother and the children.

The average person, you have better odds at winning the lottery than being shot during the commission of a crime.

Now if you live in poverty and are young and black, your odds are greater, and this is a failure of society to solve the problem of poverty and education.

Feb 04, 2013 7:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ChiHD wrote:

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. While the statement in itself is correct, it lacks context. People have pointed out there there are other things that kill much more people every year, and they are not wrong. However, I think that is a false equivalence. Guns were made for only one purpose, to kill/injure something. That something has generally been other human beings. Some guns are certainly made with sporting in mind but I would say those are rather rare compared to guns meant to shoot at other people. As an example, a shopping cart for was not made with killing/injuring in mind. This is where there is a false equivalence. You can certainly kill someone by dropping a shopping cart onto a person from a higher elevation, but that is a use that is outside of its original intended use. By the reasoning and logic of that shopping cart incident, you can say that literally anything in daily life is dangerous because can one can reasonably kill someone with practically anything if they want to use it with an intent to kill/injure. The difference however is whether the item was made to kill/injure. At the end of the day, guns make it much easier for someone with bad intentions to kill/injure someone because that is its primary purpose. A sword is also a killing weapon. But a man with a sword is not as likely to be able to kill 10 people in less than minute; perhaps he may not even be able to kill 10 people at all before he is overtaken. With a gun, the chances of the attacker achieving 10 kills or more increases significantly due to the difference in killing power between the two weapons. It does not matter that there are more deaths from automobile accidents than there are for guns. The primary purpose of cars is transportation. With ill intention it can certainly be used for murder. And with careless use it can cause deaths by accident. Accidents are certainly the biggest reason for auto deaths, and we do try to regulate it via driver licensing and driver training. I believe the elderly are required be re-tested regularly to make sure they are not a street hazard. In conclusion, guns are meant to kill/injure and are not comparable to the many other items commonly listed to compare death rates. These are my thoughts, and I welcome input from others.

Feb 04, 2013 7:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

The gutless members of Congress are afraid to vote the way they know is right for their district, because they are afraid someone might get offended and not vote for them. Then they would lose the millions a year in bribe money since they wouldn’t be in Congress.
Congress is pathetic and has been scared to vote on critical issues and has been blocking them from votes, for 20 years or more.
Sure, give it a vote, it will fail.
The MAJORITY of police chiefs and sheriffs say the issue is not assault weapons or high cap clips, it is crminals and the mentally ill getting guns. They also say the ridiculous nothing prison terms given criminals who use guns is causing the problem. They all favor background checks on ALL guns sales, as do I.
Should we listen to the experts who actually deal with guns and killings, or a bunch of left wing liberals who are afraid of guns, afraid to defend themselves, who prefer to be sheep to slaughter, and want the US to become like Somalia or Sudan?
Tough one, let me think about it.

Feb 04, 2013 7:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DeerHunter wrote:

” despite consistent public support for the measure.” If there was more public support it would pass – There is not the support that the media believes there is – This shows the lean or spin Reuters wants to put on it – Might as well watch MSNBC for thier on opinionated thoughts

Feb 04, 2013 7:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jonathondf wrote:

I think it’s time for a conversation on “politician control”, and “lobbyist control”. Then maybe we can stop giving drugs, known to cause violent and suicidal behavior, to school kids. Then we can also stop the push by marxist’s to chip away at constitutional,individual rights.

Feb 04, 2013 8:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jonathondf wrote:

I think it’s time for a conversation on “politician control”, and “lobbyist control”. Then maybe we can stop giving drugs, known to cause violent and suicidal behavior, to school kids. Then we can also stop the push by marxist’s to chip away at constitutional,individual rights.

Feb 04, 2013 8:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dreamymiss wrote:

How is this going to stop people like Chris Oberender, a person who murdered his mom with a gun and who talks about feeling homicadal, from getting 15 guns by passing a background check? Oh wait, it doesn’t. He DID pass a background check and this murderer really did purchase 15 guns legally. The laws are on the books already, people…incompetence is in the way of them being meaningful.

Feb 04, 2013 8:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

Let’s see the liberals solve Chicago’s homicide issue first. If they can do that, we can reproduce it nationwide. What we do know is that more gun laws does not reduce the homicides in America. Other countries are not comparable.

Feb 04, 2013 8:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
eddietheblur wrote:

Hey gutless americanguy – you keep thinking about it.

Your ridiculous rant about “left wing liberals afraid of guns” who want the “US to become like Somalia or Sudan” speaks volumes about why we need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

Better put the aluminum foil back over your ears so the government can’t spy on your thoughts.

Feb 04, 2013 8:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
eddietheblur wrote:

“What we do know is that more gun laws does not reduce the homicides in America. Other countries are not comparable”??

What nonsense. How about some facts?

In the United Kingdom firearms are tightly controlled by law.

The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States’ number of 3.0 (over 40 times higher)

The US is not populated by Martians (yet). There is no reason to believe that the same principles that apply to other developed nations don’t apply to the US.

Feb 04, 2013 8:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Vuenbelvue wrote:

Syria has a militia and we see how well that works. If your looking for a long rifle or a Glock, wait til next year and folks will be selling them for whatever they can get. This is just a fad promulgated by the NRA Gun Lobbyist and the GOP. I would bet a small percentage of gun owners never shoot their weapons at a range or on safe private property.

Feb 04, 2013 8:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
deerecub1977 wrote:

I hope Reuters readers around the world know what’s really going on in the U.S. right now. Dangerous men and women are trying to rear our country apart and the majority of Americans don’t agree with a thing their doing. I have taken my flags down. This isn’t freedom. WE didn’t vote him in.

Feb 04, 2013 8:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AndrewBinga wrote:

Mexico has a strict gun ban in place and they have 4 times the gun homicides that the US has.

Feb 04, 2013 9:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AndrewBinga wrote:

Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries — and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States….

The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.

In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s — after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions — there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.

Feb 04, 2013 9:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AndrewBinga wrote:

After imposing strict gun laws Australia’s and Britain’s violent crime rate SKYROCKETED.

Feb 04, 2013 9:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
revamadison wrote:

Absolutely, there should be a vote. The American people deserve seeing the specific votes their so-called representatives make. If the congressmen/senators know they so all-fired right, then let them put up or shut up. Of course, many of them do not want their constituents to have an inkling that they may vote differently than the majority of the people of their state really want- and this is the way to hide the fact, for later elections. One of the problems with all the letters, phone calls and articles that they see now, are from activists that have a horse in the race. The silent majority might just surprise those who think they can ignore the whole thing, and thus there will be no gun control, including even the two things that the majority NRA members accept and support. Lets see what the majority of American people really think about it – bring it up for a vote. Win loose or draw, then accept it – because your side lost.

Feb 04, 2013 9:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AZWarrior wrote:

Maybe Obama should start by first meeting lawfully required deadlines – his is overdue on a budget submission. No deals, no stupid sideshows, no more blaming everyone and anyone, just get a budget done. Incompetent egomaniac.

Feb 04, 2013 9:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Justadad114 wrote:

I understand that some people want more gun control. However, I would like to point out that when a country has stick gun control that individuals that want to harm others will find a way. For example the same day as the events at Sandy Hook there was an attack on an elementary school where 20 students and teachers were attacked. This attack took place in a country with very strict gun controls where only government agency are allowed to have guns. The attack was conducted with a knife. I do think that some gun laws are out of date and should be changed but that the laws we have when USED will work to keep individuals safe. We don’t need more of our rights taken away from use. Something to think about is that when the second amendment was created there were no sports hunters and that the second amendment was not created for that reason. It is another way to keep our government from over reaching. Which it is doing now and has been for several decades. This has been done by both parties so no one can say that it is the Demarcates or the Republicans.

Food for thought Lincoln was a founding member of the current Republican Party and he wanted to preserve the Union not destroy it.

Feb 04, 2013 9:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Acetracy wrote:

All I want to ask to these rabid gun promoters is this, how many times in your life have you been threatened where having your gun saved your life?

It’s not about safety, it’s not about freedom. It is a sick pleasure knowing that you can kill since somehow that makes you a man. Be honest with yourself. would you feel safe to into a bar where everyone was armed. Just a few too many shots, someone looses their temper, and BANG!! Life over. That is what you really want in your neighborhood?

Feb 04, 2013 9:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

There is so much irrational paranoia coming out of the conservative gun-lovers crowd, and none of it is warranted. No one went around seizing guns when Clinton enacted the Assault Weapons Ban, and this is the exact same thing. Slippery Slope Arguments are irrational and illogical. Banning Assault Weapons doesn’t lead to guns being taken from people, so believing that it does is childish and insane.

Yes, getting a gun should be a difficult thing. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says anything about it having to be easy to get a gun; just that so long as the person is a registered member of a government-regulated state militia, they have the right to acquire a gun. But it should be next to impossible for the insane and criminals to get a gun through legal means. The vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals are acquired legally under the current, broken gun laws.

It’s just plain stupid to oppose background checks for 100% of gun sales — heck, the NRA was supporting that in 1999! Their current about-face is complete hypocrisy. They’re only doing this because it’s a black president trying to enact these much needed reforms.

The hate and insanity of those opposing these essential changes is very clear. People need to really examine just why they want to oppose laws that will save the lives of children from the insane.

Feb 04, 2013 9:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jjparkerjim wrote:

I see Mr. Potato Head is back on the campaign trail again. Dude you won! Time to go back to the White House and work on something like the economy or maybe creating some good paying jobs?

Why would you want to have me give up my 15 round magizines I use for target practice, or my semi automatic rifles?
I pay my taxes, I have never been arrested, I have my concealed carry permit, I keep my guns locked away securely. Why do you think it’s ok to demonize legal gun owners like myself? We are not the enemies we are your neighbors, employees, and bosses. Why should law abiding people be penalized for the actions of criminals and deranged murders.

Why don’t you and the rest of the gun grabbing Leftists go after the gang bangers and criminals that cause most of the death and destruction first. Provide medical treatment for the insane. What about locking up these guys with manditory sentences caught with a loaded hand gun with no permit to carry 2-5 years commit a crime with a hand gun-20 years. That is what you need, inforce existing laws and mandatory sentencing. Not limiting magazine capacity or banning semi auotmatic hand guns and rifles.

Feb 04, 2013 9:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sonorama wrote:

The fear-mongering among the commentators here and Americans in general is ridiculous. No, this isn’t Brave New World. Give it a rest.

Feb 04, 2013 10:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

“The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States’ number of 3.0 (over 40 times higher)”

“A study undertaken by the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development estimated that there were approximately 490,000 intentional homicides in 2004. The study estimated that the global rate was 7.6 intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for 2004″

IT IS 4.1 for the US which almost HALF the global rate.
North Korea is 15.2, and NO CITIZEN is allowed to have a gun.
By the way, there are no statistics for the “UK”, murder rates are by country, and the UK is not a country.
LOL

Feb 04, 2013 10:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Rugeirn wrote:

Enough of this “assault weapon” nonsense! The term “assault weapon” has gone from being a misnomer to an abuse of the language. The guns in question are not assault weapons. No semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon. Ask any infantryman. What the US Army issues to its troops for use as assault weapons are fully automatic or select-fire — in other words, machine guns. The M16 is an assault weapon. It’s a machine gun. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It is not a machine gun. It is a semi-automatic rifle. Enough of this “assault weapon” nonsense! Be honest with your language!

Feb 04, 2013 10:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AndrewBinga wrote:

Ownership of guns has been an American right since 1791 but of of a sudden the liberals sick paranoia of guns have kicked in full speed ahead. Makes me wonder if their mental illness has come to a summit due to the abundance of the use of anti-depressant and other psych meds…

Feb 04, 2013 10:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Turf12 wrote:

I don’t understand everyone claiming gun control is unconstitutional, the supreme court has ruled many times that it is legal and constitutional. The first gun law was passed in 1792 for god’s sake.

Feb 04, 2013 10:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

Strategic pandering based on vote-counting calculations for keeping the scepter in Family/Party, with complete disregard for the Constitution.

American Leaders drill it into us, the grand beauty and perfection of Democracy, and for good reason, it is the only claim to authority remaining when the authority granted by the People via the Constitution is undermined. Democracy, rule by majority, and in our case rule by the whims of those elected by tiny majority votes.

Feb 04, 2013 11:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@McBob08

“The hate and insanity of those opposing these essential changes is very clear. People need to really examine just why they want to oppose laws that will save the lives of children from the insane.”

It wont save a single child, nor would it have stopped Newton. Even Biden admits that.

Feb 04, 2013 11:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Acetracy

“All I want to ask to these rabid gun promoters is this, how many times in your life have you been threatened where having your gun saved your life?

It’s not about safety, it’s not about freedom. It is a sick pleasure knowing that you can kill since somehow that makes you a man. Be honest with yourself. would you feel safe to into a bar where everyone was armed. Just a few too many shots, someone looses their temper, and BANG!! Life over. That is what you really want in your neighborhood?”

Four different occasions when i lived in government housing, which is cesspools for drugs and gun violence. Can I say it saved my life? You never know. It did keep me from being robbed at knife point. Crack heads are not scary. BTW, you can’t have a gun in a bar. That is mandatory jail time.

Feb 04, 2013 11:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@eddietheblur

Gang related violence in America dwarfs anything in Europe. Hence European countries are not comparable. Half the homicides in the US are gang related. We have over 320 million people. We have a major cartel and drug wars on our borders. So what makes you think apples = oranges? The closest related country to us and our situation is Mexico. They have the gun laws you seek. Go and spend vacation in Juarez my friend and tell me how much safer you feel with their gun laws.

Feb 04, 2013 11:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlaskanDude wrote:

Obama says assault weapons ban deserves a vote in Congress… No sir, it does not. Nothing you have offered will make any impact on the violent misuse of guns we have been seeing. NOTHING. It is political theatrics at the expense of real victims. You should be ashamed and congress should not even bring it to a vote.

Feb 04, 2013 11:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ANZUS wrote:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

I wonder what kind of weapon Ben would have handed the lamb? Since the liberal in us likes to protect fluffy things from big bad bullies, we’d want it to have the very best right… so what’s wrong with a M16A2? The republican in us would make sure he did’nt run out of ammo… because that’s what republicans do best, think about the future dangers.

Feb 05, 2013 12:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

americanguy wrote:
“By the way, there are no statistics for the “UK”, murder rates are by country, and the UK is not a country.
LOL”

From Wiki:
“The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,[nb 5] (or simply United Kingdom, UK or Britain), is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands.”

Feb 05, 2013 3:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
Fr0ntSight wrote:

It is quite sad how quickly some of the American public is willing to give their rights away. The public is increasingly turning into sheep that pretty much do whatever the Govt decides and puts complete faith in the Govt to protect and and feed them. There was a time when Americans were responsible and could take care of themselves. This is not the case anymore. I fear the future of what was once the greatest nation in the world. God bless America.

Feb 05, 2013 4:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

TheNewWorld wrote:
“It wont save a single child, nor would it have stopped Newton. Even Biden admits that.”

The gun laws in place in EU countries would have stopped it, so McBob’s point still stands – why are you opposed to laws that could save the lives of children?

TheNewWorld wrote:
“@eddietheblur

Gang related violence in America dwarfs anything in Europe. Hence European countries are not comparable.”

A ‘gang’ is just one of several labels attached to organised crime, and it exists all over the world though – as you note – restricting access to guns tends to reduce the profile of organised crime. Comparing the US to the EU is valid. Labelling a group of criminals a gang instead of an organisation, a syndicate, a family, a ring, an outfit, an alliance, etc. makes no material difference.

I understand that you are trying to find an excuse to sit back and do nothing while Americans get killed, presumably because you value the GOP more than you value your country, but playing the American exceptionalism card? Is that the best you can do?

Feb 05, 2013 4:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Abulafiah

How would they have stopped it from happening. Go into detail. And show me where gang violence reaches levels of Chicago in a European nation. And then for good measure show me the land border that The Eu has with South America where the cocaine comes from and which drug cartels operate from Europe. Then explain to me why you refuse to compare us to our closest related neighbor to the south and why their gun laws dont work.

Feb 05, 2013 5:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Abulafiah

“I understand that you are trying to find an excuse to sit back and do nothing while Americans get killed, presumably because you value the GOP more than you value your country, but playing the American exceptionalism card? Is that the best you can do?”

I am libertarian. Don’t you have a college class to get ready for and a liberal professor’s butt to kiss?

Feb 05, 2013 5:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

TheNewWorld wrote:
“How would they have stopped it from happening. Go into detail.”

In Euro countries, prospective gun owners are assessed by a psychiatrist. They also have to keep weapons locked in a safe, with ammo in another. In many, there is also a training corse (11 months in Norway) with an exam that has to be passed before you can even apply for a gun. The application has to describe a *need* for a weapon. “I wanna gun so I can look macho” doesn’t work outside the USA.

TheNewWorld wrote:
“And show me where gang violence reaches levels of Chicago in a European nation.”

If you asked somebody to operate Google for you, you could have found this for yourself instead of asking silly questions about common knowledge.

“Within the contexts of American gang violence and European non-gang youth violence, this article has tried to provide as systematic a view as possible of the relationship between European street gangs and violent behaviour. We used reports produced under the aegis of the Eurogang Program, based on quantitative as well as qualitative data. All of these reports dealt with youth groups that fitted well into the Eurogang consensus definition of a street gang and that were describable in terms of the Maxson–Klein street gang typology. The reports make it clear that it is not feasible to deny that Europe has youth groups that can be called street
gangs (although some might prefer the term ‘troublesome youth’ groups for some of them); such groups exist and their various patterns are describable.

Eurogang Program members have identified 50 cities that have gangs in
16 countries. The data reported here suggest some important conclusions about the relationship between European street gangs and violent behaviour. First of all, the level, severity and lethality of youth violence are, generally speaking, lower in European countries than in the United States. This holds for gang members and non-gang members alike.
Second, once this general level of violence is taken into account, gang membership appears to have the same pernicious effect on behaviour for European youth as it does for American youth. Compared with nonmembers, gang members have substantially higher rates of violence, engage in more serious forms of violence and are more apt to use weapons.”

To dumb that down for you, the EU has ‘gangs’ but they don’t generally use that name for them, for the very sensible reason that the USA has failed to come up with a standard definition for ‘gang. They do exist despite your ill-informed protestations that they don’t but – as I said previously – they don’t usually go around shooting each other and hence are lower profile.

Now… I can figure out why Euro gangs don’t shoot each other. Can you?

TheNewWorld wrote:
” And then for good measure show me the land border that The Eu has with South America where the cocaine comes from and which drug cartels operate from Europe.”

I think you need to ask someone to show you a map….

Then you might understand why asking for the EU/South America land-border is so pointless, and you might notice that the EU does have a very long land border (about twice the length of short little border with Mexico) with Russia, which is known to have at least 6,000 bratva – drug cartel to you, or Russian mafia if you must – of which at least 200 operate internationally. It also has North Africa within easy distance by sea. which is also known for rampant drug problems.

So no… your excuse that having a land border make the USA unique is meaningless.

TheNewWorld wrote:
“Then explain to me why you refuse to compare us to our closest related neighbor to the south and why their gun laws dont work.”

So first you whine that comparing with the EU is apples to oranges, based on nothing but your dislike of anything that contradicts you faith-based ideology, then you say the USA should be compared with Mexico? Really? Mexico?

Get a clue: Mexico doesn’t have the resources to curb gun crime. Gun laws that can’t be enforced due to a lack of resources effectively don’t exist so “their gun laws dont work” is a really ignorant comment. The USA does, in contrast, has ample resources and guess what? So does the EU, which is why their gun laws work so well.

Feb 05, 2013 5:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
RexMax46 wrote:

@americanguy
Are you ready to answer those questions I asked you in the comments of the last gun control article?

Feb 05, 2013 6:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
RexMax46 wrote:

TheNewWorld wrote:

“If you don’t understand what [the] bill is saying, I don’t blame you, as anti-gun people, you would have no experience with it, no knowledge about it, and no understanding of it. And you are the last people that should be commenting on the issue…I refuse to debate the merits of a bill or a new law with someone who has no clue what it covers”

I see you are still commenting on the issue, even though you don’t quite understand the pending legislation. So I’m still thinking you should take your own advice and stop debating the merits of this bill. Also, you asked to “show me where gang violence reaches levels of Chicago in a European nation. And then for good measure show me the land border that The Eu has with South America where the cocaine comes from and which drug cartels operate from Europe.” Well Greenland does have a 1.92 per million people murder rate [1] compared to Chicago’s 1.52 [2]. And while it does not share a land border with South America, neither does Chicago. (?!) You can keep trying to ask for tests of purity, but we all know there is no “true” Scotsman. Ultimately, your complaints about comparing America to similar countries fall flat when you try to compare a particular American city to entire nations.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago

Feb 05, 2013 7:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
AZreb wrote:

When will we see a BUDGET? That, to many, is more important right now along with a plan for jobs, jobs, jobs.

Feb 05, 2013 8:17am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

AZreb wrote:
“When will we see a BUDGET?”

When you learn to use the internet I guess. I have seen them, the budget requests are online for all to see, but the dysfunctional, Republican dominated, Congress can’t get their act together and produce one.

Do you understand that it is Budgeting Committees from Congress and the Senate who produce budgets? I suspect that you don’t…

Feb 05, 2013 9:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
ChiHD wrote:

I would like to add that the idea that gun laws in the US have not been shown to work is actually false. There is currently no evidence of causation for whether it is effective or ineffective due to many reasons but here is a nice article that goes over a portion of the issue:

http://factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

Factcheck is a well known non-partisan fact checking organization. Both political parties quote from it regularly. This deals more with the assault weapons ban, but I’ve read in general that there simply hasn’t been enough research in general on gun violence in the US to show any relation for either side of the arguement. I would argue however that the reason we have a lack of data is due to the efforts of the NRA and other pro-gun groups, since they were the ones who lobbied to cut funding for gun violence research and they were successful in their endeavors.

Feb 05, 2013 9:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
Concernedcitz wrote:

If Congress cannot see after all the gun related deaths and violence that this country has endured in 2012 that we have a gunand violence problem, then they all need to get out of DC while they can, because the American people are not going to tolerate or accept life with assault weapons legal to roam the malls, temples, churches, schools/colleges, theaters and other public venues. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE LIFE WITH ASSAULT WEAPONS RUNNING RAMPANT. DOWN WITH THE NRA!!!!!!!!

Feb 05, 2013 11:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
VectorBoson wrote:

I strongly suspect bobber1956 couldn’t pass a psych eval at this point.
More to the point, until the rabid proselytization of the NRA and our “Amurrican” gun owning good ole boys comes to a halt: (you’re all paranoid,,guys) nothing will be accomplished.

Feb 05, 2013 11:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
txguy2112 wrote:

ChiHD

Are you also advocating banning archery equipment and swords as well? They were the predecessors of guns so I guess we need to ban them as well.

Feb 05, 2013 1:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
txguy2112 wrote:

Acetracy

You asked “All I want to ask to these rabid gun promoters is this, how many times in your life have you been threatened where having your gun saved your life? ”

Twice, and there was at least one other time where I would have liked to have it when I was being shot at. I would rather go to my grave never needing my gun than go to my grave wishing I had it.

Feb 05, 2013 1:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
txguy2112 wrote:

Concernedcitz

You do realize that the term “assault weapon” is basically meaningless. Anything I use as a weapon to commit an assault is by definition an assault weapon we would have to ban all matter in the universe to ban assault weapons. You might want to consider toning the hatred down a bit as well.

Feb 05, 2013 2:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ChiHD wrote:

@txguy2112

Like I mentioned earlier, the difference between guns and even other weapons such as sword and bows is power. The idea that they are equivalent just because they were the primary weapons during their era is not logical. Mass killings were not doable with bows or even swords, or at the least they were not as easily doable by a single person against many. It would take some degree of ability just to kill one person on an even standing (as in if both attacker and victim are equally strong physically). Guns can allow even a weaker, untrained person to kill one or many other people without regard for differences in strength within a short period depending on the gun. The most common guns used in crime in general are some versions of semi-auto handguns and they are capable of what I describe. I would go on to say that even the old single shot rifles are not equivalent to most modern weapons. The time needed to reload and prepare the next shot makes it incapable of mass killings. The difference in power is the issue and that is what makes modern firearms a safety concern for society.

Feb 05, 2013 3:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ChiHD wrote:

@txguy2112

To be clear, I think a discussion about what can be done to reduce mass shootings or perhaps even shootings in general is a reasonable and warrented. Certainly there is merit in trying to strengthen our mental health system as there is in imposing stricter punishment on known criminals. However, in many of the mass shootings we have had in recent memory, the shooters only became criminals after the fact, and overall government spending is decreasing (mental health system overhaul can only come from increased spending from the government in this area). We also need more data and research done on gun violence in our control and measure its effectiveness. As I stated in my previous post, there has not been enough data to make any concrete conclusion for either side, and continuing research on the topic is stymied by the NRA and other pro-gun groups. I leave you with a final source for my claims regarding now the NRA gets in the way of gun violence research:

http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1

One final point which is related to the article, research results that led to recommendations of regulation is not necessarily biased research. It may very well be what the results have called for due to links in causation.

Feb 05, 2013 4:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JohnnySalami wrote:

Yes, it deserves a NO vote!

Feb 05, 2013 4:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SamuelColt wrote:

No more gun laws!! Drug laws didn’t stop drug traffic. And how much is that war on drugs costing taxpayers? Ask a Brazilian how that gun ban is working in Brazil. Only the criminals have the guns, and they are using them a LOT! Happy times for the criminals in Brazil.

Feb 05, 2013 7:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Progunner wrote:

We the people charge you with the crime of tyranny, and treason. President Obama. An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle. And they are already not available to the public. a Semi automatic rifle, is not an assault rifle. That is a false label you have put on weapons owned by the public. And the 2nd amendment is not in place for hunting purposes. When it was wrote if you did not hunt, you did not eat. The 2nd amendment is in place for the sole purpose of protecting ourselves from a tyrannic Government. Like the one that is running this country at this time. You call our gun’s weapons of war, only because that is what you want them to be. and if you ban them that is exactly what they will become. and you know this. that is why you wish to disarm we the people. So you can be a Communist dictator.

Feb 06, 2013 4:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Why doesn’t Obama go to Chicago and push for more gun controls and tell them all the great thing sit will do….wait a minute…

Feb 06, 2013 8:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
txguy2112 wrote:

@ChiHD
Ok I can agree that a discussion is warranted but I steadfastly disagree with continuing to punish the innocent rather than the guilty which is what these laws are doing in essence. I have owned guns in the past including “assault weapons” (such a useless term) and have never even considered using them unless I had to (and I have had to protect myself with a pistol on a couple of occasions), so why should I be punished because of what someone else did?

Feb 06, 2013 12:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ChiHD wrote:

@txguy2112
Well, first tell me how you, as a current owner of assault weapons, will be punished. I do not know the details of local government legislation regarding gun laws but to my understanding, the laws under consideration on the federal level will grandfather in “assault weapons” that have already been sold. This should mean that you, as a current owner of an “assault weapon”, get to keep it. It simply bars and prevents future sales of “assault weapons.” Please correct me if I am wrong about this.
As for the universal background checks, this is probably a topic for honest debate but I am in favor of doing a universal background check for all transfers of ownership for firearms. There are already exemptions in place in the laws under consideration that allow for certain transfers within the family without needing a check; such as presents from parents to children. Finally as opposed to what the NRA claims, the universal checks cannot be used as a form of registration. There are already laws currently in place that does not allow the government to retain background check information that have been cleared.

Feb 06, 2013 1:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
txguy2112 wrote:

Well as a current owner of a weapon that is mentioned (I refuse to continue using the vague term assault weapon as it means anything that is used as a weapon in an assault) I would not be able to sell the weapon or will it to my family in the event of my death, the only thing I could do it give it to the government (I have yet to hear any mention of the government paying fair value or anything for that matter for it). That is punishment in that if I need money I cannot sell it, if I die my family cannot inherit it despite the fact that neither the potential buyer and my family members would be able to own it. This is telling my thay my property is worthless because the only option I have is to GIVE it to the government. How would you feel if they told you that the only way to get rid of your legally owned property is to give it to the government?

Feb 06, 2013 2:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Yanninono wrote:

@Jahan

“It’d be much more poignant to fill his press conferences and high-five some inner city thugs because it is they who endure the majority of gun violence”

I dont think this is true at all. Its the depressed crazy white kids who live on the fringe in society, that snap and shoot innocents. Besides: Inner city thugs cant shoot very well and u know it sir.

Feb 06, 2013 4:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

Ok , comparing the US to the EU is viable. Let’s follow their example and let each state make their own gun laws just like each member of the EU has their own laws? Sound good? Of course it doesn’t to liberals. The goal is to remove liberty from Americans at any cost. A gun bill may or may not be introduced, it may or may not pass. If it does it will make no difference to the gun violence rate just like it made no difference in 94. The next step is obviously confiscation.

Feb 06, 2013 6:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

Can anyone post the link to Greenland gun violence rate. It doesn’t hit the top 34 of countries on wikipedia and I can find nothing other than homicide rate of 10 in 2008 compare to 15 in Chicago in 2010. I think the liberals mislead and lie to get legislation is kicking in here with the anti gun freaks.

Feb 06, 2013 7:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ChiHD wrote:

@txguy2112

Well I suppose I will have to take your word on it since I have not read anything regarding firearms transfer in the law except that background checks would not be required when passing it along within the family. I will agree with you in that it would certainly be unfair if the firearm is automatically passed to the government without compensation even when people with inheritance rights are present. Even in real estate, the government can only escheat a property if there are no heirs to a property. I have however read that they wanted to impose universal checks for personal sales of firearm, so I do not know why you think you cannot sell it yourself. There would simply be an additional hurdle to overcome in personal sales where you have to do a proper background check on the person you are selling to, which does not seem like such a big deal to me.

Feb 06, 2013 7:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ChiHD wrote:

@TheNewWorld

I do not quite agree with your comparison with US vs EU in regards to the states but explaining is too lengthy for now. Basically aside from not being the same type of “union” there are also too many other elements to consider when comparing the two. I would be happy to type something up if you are interested though. =)

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/greenland

Above is a link to the stats you want. It seems to only go up to 2008 as well. I have no idea as to the credibility of the site but it does appear to be an international organization.

Also please stop thinking people like me are just out to take away your rights. Just as I have been discussing this issue with txguy2112 I honestly think it is just a difference in world view. There is nothing wrong with honest debate on an important issue, and there is nothing wrong in agreeing to disagree.

Feb 06, 2013 7:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MikeyLikesIt wrote:

ChiHD

The problem is that the current crop of liberals in congress and the presidency DON’T want honest debate.

They continue to cloud the issues by using incorrect terms like “Assault rifle/weapon” and constantly using the deaths of the Sandy Hook children to bring about irrational fear and axiety in the uneducated public. Funny how they didn’t give a rats behind about the 500+ people that are murdered in Chicago every single year. I guess they needed lighter colored victims to play those heart strings…

Feb 07, 2013 3:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ChiHD wrote:

@MikeyLikesIt

I’ll agree in that they are certainly trying to squeeze the most out of the Sandy incident, but really when exactly would be a good time then to try to make push for a change for the better? Do we wait until the next major shooting if it happens? What do we do between now and then? Certainly not nothing right? I would say we should have had a continuous effort to try to make things better well before Sandy. But unfortunately, people tend to forget that these things happen until it happens again.
You may think that people do not care about Chicago, but the reality is that they do, its just more difficult to get OTHER people to care enough to make things happen. The topic of gun control is not something that just came out of nowhere. It is something that liberals have always called for but have been largely ignored. This is in spite of Chicago continuing to have high death rates. Part of the reason they are ignored is because the NRA and pro-gun groups have not been silent up to now. They have always been fighting against gun control efforts the entire time.
What is truly unfortunate is that we are unable to have this conversation until something out of the ordinary actually happens. Shootings in Chicago were simply sidelined into a business as usual occurrence.

Feb 07, 2013 5:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@chihd

I had found that link too, it is homicides any method, not just with guns. It leads me to believe Greenland either doesn’t track gun violence stastics or they don’t publish it. In either case the reply to me comparing Chicago to Greenland above was a lie.

I have no problem with background checks and closing loopholes. That isn’t the goal here. Read feinstein’s bill. She will ban anything that accepts a clip. Most liberals are jumping on the bandwagon with no clue how far she wants to take this. As a libertarian I take assaults on liberties very seriously. Especially when the government says it can kill whoever they consider to be enemies without a trial, and at the same time are gearing up to take our guns.

Feb 08, 2013 12:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
txguy2112 wrote:

ChiHD

The NRA and gun rights groups are not been fighting against gun control in general, they are fighting against taking rights away from law abiding citizens. These groups are all for getting guns out of the hands of criminals but the laws that are being proposed are to get guns out of the hands of the non criminals by making it more difficult, if not impossible, for us (the people who have not nor intend to commited crimes)to get them. They are all for laws aimed at the criminals so long as they stop trying to make laws that make us (the aforementioned people who have not nor intend to commit crimes) criminals.

Feb 08, 2013 7:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
RexMax46 wrote:

@TheNewWorld wrote:
“She will ban anything that accepts a clip.”

You keep typing this lie. The bill will not ban anything that accepts a clip. First and foremost, it will only stop the proliferation of certain guns, and there’s a huge difference between stopping the sale of something, and banning it. Secondly, it will not affect all guns that accept a clip. It will only affect weapons that have removable magazines AND have some other additional feature, as listed in the bill. Please stop your willful ignorance, read the bill [1], and find the part that will “ban anything that accepts a clip.” Only afterwards should you continue this conversation.

[1] http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4

Feb 08, 2013 1:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bill1212 wrote:

Lets make a deal, send all the illegal immigrants home, and then we can talk about gun control!

Feb 08, 2013 1:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RexMax46 wrote:

@txguy2112
The NRA is most certainly against gun control in general. In any of these recent talks, I’ve not heard ONE aspect of the bill which LaPierre agrees with. His ideological obstinance is highlighted by his rebuke of the universal background checks he himself has advocated in the past [2]. And whenever I ask the anti-gun control crowd on this board exactly which parts of the bill seem reasonable or unreasonable, the only parts they can point out are parts that don’t exist.
Even you are guilty of this, as you felt that if you wanted to get rid of your gun, “the only option [you] have is to GIVE it to the government.” Well that’s not true. There is also a proposed buyback programs for assault rifles [3], which would give you $2,000 for turning in your gun. Thus, Republican obstructionism would be the only thing preventing you from having the option of being properly compensated for your gun.

[2] http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/lapierre.htm
[3] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/assault-weapon-buy-back-bill-introduced/

Feb 08, 2013 1:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SamuelColt wrote:

And Americans deserve a government that respects the constitution!

Feb 09, 2013 8:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.