Obama calls for gun control proposals within a month

First thing is to take down the power of the NRA. That should be the first step IMO.

In another development Wednesday, Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller announced a bill that would require a National Academy of Sciences assessment of links between violent games and violence.

Oh come on! Whatever happened to people just being nuts?

If someone kills because a video game affected them to do so, the game isn't the problem, their messed-up brain is.

More liberal bu!!$hit on how nobody is responsible for thier actions.

First thing is to take down the power of the NRA. That should be the first step IMO.

It'll never happen, it's impossible! I think there should be a limit or stricter conditions and limited exceptions to hunters, military etc., other than that, why should law-abiding people have to pay for one psychos meltdown? I think the Federal Government should start to build new mental institutions and lock these crazies up, that would be a big and huge start, but we just want to do out-patient care and or commit these people to hospital and most patients are discharged after 60 days, the cost is monumental, but liberals love to borrow money so much, they can get it from China, build mental asylums and lock these people up.

Photo number 6 needs a caption.

History shows that there have been countless crazed psychopaths who kill wantonly, indiscriminately, without the use of assault rifles:

Seung-Hui Cho, the 2007 Virginia Tech killer (he used two handguns) - Luis Garavito, a Colombian mass murderer who killed hundreds of children with just a knife - Mary Ann Cotton, a 19th century mass murderer in England who poisoned her victims - Countess Elizabeth Bathory, a 16th century Hungarian who tortured and killed hundreds

Some people just aren't wired right. It's always been that way. Before firearms, before violent movies, before video games... there have always been crazy nuts.

Passing laws doesn't change any of this. Government cannot protect us from all the bad people out there. Bathing travelers in radiation doesn't make us any safer. Fondling children at airports doesn't make us any safer. Invading foreign countries doesn't make us any safer.

Neither will banning assault rifles. Bad guys will always find a way, either commandeering a killing machine illegally, or reverting to something more old school. As Lao Tzu once wrote, "The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

“There is a big chunk of space between what, you know, the Second Amendment means and having no rules at all,” he said.

Yep. Give them responsibilities to go along with their rights.

Yes, supperlib, rights come with responsibility.

The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, DC, is a classic example, but just one among many.

When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, handgun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.

The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.

But, if you look back through history, you will find that 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. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.

In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.

Neither guns nor gun control was not the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.

Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.

In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. 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.

Gun control zealots' choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem – including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.

A good start.

You could always just give us the url to the article Hervé.

Can I just ask where the pro-gun posters draw the line? I take it nobody supports the general ownership of AK-47s and nobody is against the ownership of revolvers. I've asked this question before and got all kinds of vague nonsense.

I think there should be a limit or stricter conditions and limited exceptions to hunters, military etc.

Good start - though violence by current and former servicemen is a large problem.

...why should law-abiding people have to pay for one psychos meltdown?

Two points: ONE psycho's meltdown? Gun violence is daily, everywhere. More importantly, a balanced individual would feel far more sympathy for the victims and their loved ones than to gun owners who might face a bit of inconvenience such as having to re-register their weapons yearly. Perspective is in order.

I think the Federal Government should start to build new mental institutions and lock these crazies up

This is where the current right wing argument goes off the rails. Crazy is as crazy does; do you suggest preemptive incarceration? Waiting until after the fact is too late, of course, but reasonably, this idea is a complete non-starter, and not just because of the cost. The lengths some will go to create straw men so as to distract attention from the true problem - the overwhelming availability of guns - is, in two words, absolutely pathetic.

...the cost is monumental, but liberals love to borrow money so much, they can get it from China, build mental asylums and lock these people up.

Translation: I will characterize liberals to encourage them to do something I find fiscally irresponsible so that I can avoid the grave social misjustice such a step would entail.

Granted, mental health care in the US is pathetic, and blame lies on both sides of the aisle, but the sudden concern conservatives have found for this issue is astounding.

The US has no more mentally ill people than any other country, nor does it face a society with entertainment any more violent than is average; its non-gun crime rate is also aligned with other industrialized countries. All statistics point that the root of the problem is the easy availability of guns. Until that is solved, nothing else will be.

Perspective is in order.

Yes it is......

Gun violence is daily, everywhere

the overwhelming availability of guns

All statistics point that the root of the problem is the easy availability of guns.

Except they don't......

In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 (-9.4%).[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

And this is even accounting for the large population growth in the U.S over the past 50 years! We're awash in guns and the U.S crime rate overall is dropping like a rock to levels not seen in decades and this is happening in a bad economy when you would think the crime rate would rise. Somebody is causing this good news and for this trend to happen and it might behoove a Liberal to actually hold his nose for moment and actually consider that the increase in private citizens being able to legally carry might actually have something to do with this.

In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968.... And this is even accounting for the large population growth in the U.S over the past 50 years!

Rates have nothing to do with absolute number - that is why rates are used.

Still, the question is not crime rates - it is gun violence. This chart is more pertinent: it shows the gun violence rate see-sawing since the Carter administration, certainly not soaring but neither conclusively falling. One wonders what the 2012 update will look like - or 2013, considering the recent surge in gun sales. (On a positive note, murder by blunt object continues its gradual decline despite the increasing availability of blunt objects.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

...consider that the increase in private citizens being able to legally carry might actually have something to do with this.

The data is out there and is highly debated. Correlation does not equal causation: Areas where right-to-carry are common also tend to be rural, where everyone knows each other and crime rates are low, and many point to the effects of legalized abortion as the prime cause of this plunge in crime. Note, though, that this plunge is not marked by an equal plunge in gun-related deaths; they remain stubbornly steady.

You may be satisfied with this status quo. Others find it intolerable and seek solutions.

Can I just ask where the pro-gun posters draw the line? I take it nobody supports the general ownership of AK-47s and nobody is against the ownership of revolvers. I've asked this question before and got all kinds of vague nonsense.

Ah explosives and calibers above .50's is where the line is drawn.

I support general ownership of Semi-Automatics patterned after AK rifles.

"I support general ownership of Semi-Automatics patterned after AK rifles"

Gee, I would never have guessed. What on earth do you need an assault rifle for as you go about your business as a citizen?

As quoted by Samuel L Jackson in Tarantino's "Jackie Brown":

"The AK-47. The very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every motherf**** in the room, accept no substitutes."

Those kids bodies are barely cold. May I commend you in your support for Joe Public having the right to own such weapons.

Still, the question is not crime rates - it is gun violence. This chart is more pertinent: it shows the gun violence rate see-sawing since the Carter administration, certainly not soaring but neither conclusively falling. One wonders what the 2012 update will look like - or 2013, considering the recent surge in gun sales. (On a positive note, murder by blunt object continues its gradual decline despite the increasing availability of blunt objects.)

That is one way to look at it, another way to look at it is that for the past 20 years it has been conclusively falling, in fact it has pretty much been cut in half in the past 20 years. Your graph only goes till 2004, the 8 years after 2004 have shown even further drops in gun violence as a grand total.

Note, though, that this plunge is not marked by an equal plunge in gun-related deaths; they remain stubbornly steady.

The past 20 years it has been falling, that is not stubbornly steady. Gun violence has been cut in half, that is pretty much equal to violent crime rate drops.

To further prove my point here is the murder figures and the weapons used as a grand total from 2007-2011. You will see a more than 10% drop over a period of 4 years in gun homicides. In your figure that you produce hand gun homicides were 8,000+ in 2004. In 2011 6,220 were killed by hand guns. In fact the grand total of all firearms that were used in murders is 8,583 in 2011. If we use your figures which is 8,000+ hand guns and 2,000+ for all other guns that means the homicide grand total was easily above 10,000 probably closer to 11,000. In 2007 the grand total amount of people killed by guns was 10,129, again in 2011 it was 8,583. That is a 15% drop in gun homicides since 2007. If you do grand total homicides from everything the homicide total has fallen 15%.

Property crime in the same time frame have only fallen 8.3%

In fact gun crime today is lower than jimmy carters time. You need to get a more up to date records man.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Here is an interesting table from the FBI, I only counted 3 states where more people were killed by rifles than were killed by a person bare hands, feet, etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

Gee, I would never have guessed. What on earth do you need an assault rifle for as you go about your business as a citizen?

Well first off they are not assault rifles, in order to be an assault rifle it has to be a machine gun. Needs would be: Hunting, target shooting, self defense, militia, collector. Considering rifles make up less than 1% of all gun crime in the US and there are only 3 states in which more people are killed by rifles than are killed by someone bare hands and feet in the US......You wouldn't notice any drop in gun crime by banning them.

Let me ask you this, if you were to ban them what percentage of crime crime would drop? I'm going to say it would be the most negligible of all drops.

As quoted by Samuel L Jackson in Tarantino's "Jackie Brown": "The AK-47. The very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every motherf**** in the room, accept no substitutes."

So what you are saying is that you believe Hollywood for accurate gun information/facts. Interesting.

Those kids bodies are barely cold. May I commend you in your support for Joe Public having the right to own such weapons.

So I'm not allowed to defend them while people are calling for their ban?

@noliving I've had vague nonsense. Now I have clear insanity.

Sure you do....

I remember living in Texas and being told that certain lethal firearms are 'pussy'. I couldn't join that conversation very well.

I remember living in Texas and being told that certain lethal firearms are 'pussy'. I couldn't join that conversation very well.

If it makes you feel any better I couldn't join that conversation well either.

"So what you are saying is that you believe Hollywood for accurate gun information/facts. Interesting."

Nope - I'm saying it's a funky Tarrantino line delivered by one of my favourite actors that also doubles up as a damned good description as to exactly why the AK47 was designed by Dr Kalashnikov: for killing as many people as possible in a confined space. A gun like this has but one use - mass murder.

Oh FYI Noliving, my question as to why you would need such a weapon was rhetorical.

That you failed to address it was disappointing, but expected.

A gun like this has but one use - mass murder.

Well we are not talking about machine guns so.....we are talking about guns that only fire one round each time the trigger is squeezed, same as a pump action, lever action and a bolt action...

Oh FYI Noliving, my question as to why you would need such a weapon was rhetorical. That you failed to address it was disappointing, but expected.

Sure it was, ya I failed to address the reasons why someone would need a semi-automatic rifle.......

The truth of the matter is that you don't believe anyone should have a firearm whatsoever, you are also in denial about the fact that semi-automatic rifles make up less than 1% of all gun deaths, injuries or any other type of gun assault in the US.

@Madverts, the truth of the matter is that banning them won't do anything in terms of reducing gun violence. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how much gun crime would go down in the US if semi-automatic rifles were banned. What would be the percentage decrease in all types of gun crime if we banned semi-automatic rifles?

Really a stupid question. Nobody knows exact percentage until you implement the law, and this is true for any law and regulations. That's not a good reason for no action.

It is not a stupid question at all, we had the AWB back in 1994 till 2004. That should be enough to determine the effects of such a ban. The answer was that it had a negligible effect on gun crime. We can determine the effects right now on such a ban by looking at the current rates of such weapons that they want to ban. If you go to the second FBI link it shows that on average the average state has 5 rifle deaths or less a year, that is all types of rifles: bolt action, lever action, pump action, semi-automatic, and fully automatic rifles. In fact according to the FBI more people die each year by someone's bare hands, fists, and feet than all types of rifles combined. Do you honestly believe based off of such stats that banning them will make any real difference in gun crime?

No one is saying there shouldn't be action but the action needs to be on a more effective background checks, not on banning rifles that make up on average less than 5 deaths a year in each state.

So based off of that information how much of a difference do you think it is going to make? I say basically zero.

I'm sure you would still say we need more guns, LOL, It's just amazing how trigger happy people like you twist any logic to your advantage

I have never stated we needed more guns or less guns, to me gun ownership is a choice. To me if you want a gun that is fine, if you don't want to that is just as fine, there is nothing wrong with not wanting to personally own a gun but don't try to force people to own a gun or to deny them(ones with no violent criminal record and or mental illness) a gun because of your own personal beliefs. I don't force people to own a gun nor do I insult them or degrade them for not wanting to own a gun. Same with alcohol, if someone wants to drink that is fine if they don't that is just as fine, don't try to force those that don't want to drink to drink. Same with sex.