Silence greets calls for changes in U.S. gun laws

Whitehawk...you say the NRA hasn't supported.... So what is your point? Do you really trhink the NRA and gun manufacturers don't benifit from young kids excited about shooting? Do you actually think there is no connection with violent military based attack games and kids growing up wanting to shoot or go be a "hero". So non of this benifits the NRA? Every gun manufacturer who is in his business to make money is sad to see kids become adults wanting guns? Look, you can use all the "logic" you want to convince yourself or anyone of anything but the bottom line is less guns will be less deaths. It doesn't matter what you were attacked by or with. Many gun deaths were not meant to be but happened anyway. Someone can't stab you from 10 feet away and you have a chance. Just because someone can kill you with another weapon does not mean we need guns to counter it. Someone wanting to kill someone else or even scare them who gets mad in the heat of an argument won't have a gun in his hand that would go off because he squeezed the trigger in anger. Those deaths alone are worth tougherlaws no matter how many people attacked you with a strap. That is irrelevant.

stevecpfc at 02:28 PM JST - 17th January WhiteHawk; I think you miss teh flaws in your argument. 1; You do not >know you would have been killed.. 2; With stricter gun laws you would not have been in danger in teh first plache

The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that "stricter gun laws" would prevent criminals from procuring and using guns. Criminals don't abide by "gun laws" they buy them from criminals who sell them because their whole intent is for criominal purposes. With "stricter gun laws" as you suggest the victim could have been unarmed, but the criminal would be armed.

American gun deaths--over 11,500. Japan 39. I would love to make more comments and make some comparisons, but the stupid moderator on this site HATES any kind of logical comparison. Time for posters to demand a new moderator! The current one acts like a child in deleting almost everyone's posts.

Guns should only be a right for a small minority as in other safer nations. America would be a safer and better place without guns.

Moderator: Readers, we remind you that comparisons with other countries are not relevant to this discussion.

virgo:

The NRA loves this as well as gun manufacturers and the military.

The NRA has only supported, endorsed or produced one video game. In it, the shooter shoots at paper targets on a simulated gun range. No silhouettes even, just round bullseye-style targets.

Many in America have never been to a third world country. Unfortunately, many parts of the USA resemble those I have been to.

I suspect those place are inner cities like Chicago and Washington D.C., where guns have been banned for decades.

The silence about gun restriction only pisses on the grave of the beautiful 9 year old girl who was killed in Arizona.

Effective laws to prevent this atrocity were already in place. They simply weren't enforced.

Stevecpfc, I haven't missed a single thing. The man who attacked me used a nylon strap, not a gun. He snuck up behind me and put it around my neck, lifting me off my feet. I couldn't afford to wait to see if he was going to kill me or not before I passed out from the lack of oxygen. I dropped both bags of groceries and took the appropriate action.

Stop thinking about guns, criminals, violence and self-defense with such narrow view. Criminals - especially violent ones - will use any tool, any technique, they can. If you think I'm a "loser" for defending myself, then you have a self-defeating mindset.

The gun stuff is a moot point in America. Video games are also marketed to kids to get them high and happy to get guns one day. The NRA loves this as well as gun manufacturers and the military. Make everyone think they are a hero because they shot someone the government said was bad. That means you are a freedom fighter. Though I still haven't figured out what I am free from while my fellow citizens get killed in IraQ. Save the war on terrorism speach for the brainwashed and Fox news. I can agree on limited ability of guns for citizens but as long as our coward politicians make money hand over foot in conjunction with lobyists (while in or out of office) America will be brainwashed to live in a state of fear and gun loving. Let us not forget we are the world leaders in many crimes, not just shootings. Many in America have never been to a third world country. Unfortunately, many parts of the USA resemble those I have been to. The silence about gun restriction only pisses on the grave of the beautiful 9 year old girl who was killed in Arizona.

WhiteHawk; I think you miss teh flaws in your argument. 1; You do not know you would have been killed.. 2; With stricter gun laws you would not have been in danger in teh first plache

stevecpfc, I'm alive today because I was armed when a mugger attacked me. Do you not recognize the deaths inflicted by criminals, including unarmed ones?

Whutehawk; 10,000 + dead a year can't be wrong. Left or right means nothing, guns are for losers and loser countries.

Unlise you believe the crap you see on American TV.

Thank-whoever you subscribe to that this murderous nutter didn't get his hands on a AK or an Uzi, neither of which would be difficult to procure in the US.

Oh, the irony! ;) Do you believe every anti-gun myth you read on the internet?

At least the crank that opened fire in Fort Hood was surrounded by people that were not only heavily armed, but trained in deadly force.

Hasan held his shooting spree in the Soldier Readiness Center (a medical facility). Soldiers were unarmed, as weapons are not allowed in that area. That's why he was shot by an Army civilian police officer and a civilian police officer from nearby Killeen Texas. Hasan was surrounded by unarmed soldiers, some of whom died trying to take him down while they themselves were unarmed. That's why he was able to kill 13 people and wound another 30.

If I were a Leftist, this would be where would I claim that any credibility you once had has now evaporated, and I can self-justify ignoring everything else you've ever posted. Which is what another Leftist claimed of me on the very first thread about this tragic shooting incident. The difference is, that person didn't agree with what I posted and offered no facts to back their opinion up.

It's certainly not the first time that's happened to me here on JT. Even some of my regular debate opponents have tried that tactic. I just wanted to point that out, in case y'all start feeling superior about yourselves again.

So I'm not going to cherry-pick one thing you've posted and try to completely discredit everything you've ever written, Madverts. But I would prefer that you do some research before posting on documented events.

Madverts I done my service and spoke to many vets from the angola wars, beirut, Vietnam, Irag, etc.

Pretty sure about the difference between a trained soldier and a civillian. And most of it is mental.

Bah, even experience marks-men aren't precise with handguns. Unlise you believe the crap you see on American TV. They are for nothing other than close range killing, or phsycological effect. Thank-whoever you subscribe to that this murderous nutter didn't get his hands on a AK or an Uzi, neither of which would be difficult to procure in the US.

At least the crank that opened fire in Fort Hood was surrounded by people that were not only heavily armed, but trained in deadly force. Imagine Mjr Hassan deciding to do his spree in a shopping mall armed as he was, as Loughner did...... :-o

Wh.

Ask any experienced shooter large mags are for people that can't aim or shoot, ie the inexperienced. 9mm is the most readily available ammo hence popular.

Now if loughner would have been military trained(he got rejected) he would have done way more damage.

Jeez WH, I hope your mates never organize you a surprise party!

Zenny11:

If all it takes is 1 shot to take an intruder down than there is NO need to reload.

The most popular handgun round is the 9mm. Loughner used a 9mm. Military troops under the NATO umbrella use the 9mm. The American military uses the 9mm.

Pope John Paul II was shot five times with 9mm rounds in the attempt on his life in 1981. One round doesn't always work. And then there's the issue of missing the target in all the excitement, which does happen from time to time. Still, even I don't see the need for a 30-round magazine outside of the military.

Plus, hearing a shotgun being cocked can work well as a deterrent.

If you have to load a cartridge, you're not prepared.

elbudamexicano:

Some scumbag drug dealer comes in needing a gun for a quick job, sure they have those guns too, OK?

The NRA does not support that.

I would say it is about power. If all it takes is 1 shot to take an intruder down than there is NO need to reload.

Most security specialists also recommend a shotgun for home-defense as one shot/bullet covers a wide radius/arc and accuracy is not that much needed and they can be loaded with non-lethal shot that will still take an Intruder down.

Plus, hearing a shotgun being cocked can work well as a deterrent.

So as you can see, just following the US constitution as it is written would fix the gun problem pretty quick.

Couldn't agree more. However, what the Constitution says is what the Supreme Court says it says. The Court has "established" or "clarified" that the Founding Fathers intended for the individual US citizen to be able to carry enough fire power to do what the shooter has done here.

Personally, I doubt that. My point was that it is unavoidable that the Court "legislates from the bench". So, I'd like to put paid to that whole corrupt argument.

You might want to rethink that. My boar gun is a black powder rifle and it's a hullofalot meaner than most bolt actions. Muzzleloaders are cheap, its just the ammunition that's expensive.

I don't think I need to rethink that. The point isn't about power. It's about reloading.

Uh, corporations are legal creations of the STATE. They can not exist without the power of the State behind them, but in this legal fantasy land they have rights but the State (their creator) doesn't. In other words the US Supreme Court regularly engages in this kind of legal hocus-pocus, aka "judicial activism", and the second amendment decisions are just another example.

Corporations are not legal creations of the state. The state has no role in their foundation, only their regulation. Please note this difference.

GJDailleult - Obviously you are going to say that is what they did, they can't say we dreamed this stuff up so we could get what we wanted. "Clarification". sounds very official.

How's that Constitutional Convention coming?

The U.S. Supreme Court clarified the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Obviously you are going to say that is what they did, they can't say we dreamed this stuff up so we could get what we wanted. "Clarification". sounds very official.

This is also the same Supreme Court that has decided that corporations have the same rights as individuals, while posters here claim the State has no rights. Uh, corporations are legal creations of the STATE. They can not exist without the power of the State behind them, but in this legal fantasy land they have rights but the State (their creator) doesn't. In other words the US Supreme Court regularly engages in this kind of legal hocus-pocus, aka "judicial activism", and the second amendment decisions are just another example.

The American NRA and the American gun industry go hand in hand, and keep making $$$$$$$ hand over fist, you need a gun to protect your house, ok! You need a gun to do your job as a cop ok! Some scumbag drug dealer comes in needing a gun for a quick job, sure they have those guns too, OK?

Is anybody calling to simply enforce the laws that they have already?

Me. Am I alone on this?

Gun control advocates say the immediacy of the Tucson shootings is key to pushing legislation now, before public outrage fades.

This really offends me. As Rahm says, "Never waste a crisis". Disgusting.

Is anybody calling to simply enforce the laws that they have already?

GJDailleult - The Supreme Court can decide whatever it wants, it doesn't change what is written in the second amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court clarified the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment. If you have a problem with their decision, you can always convine a Constitutional Convention and add an Amendment of your own.

Interestingly enough, very little blame ever gets assigned to the Hollywood culture of death and video games that require mass killing to “win” from the same people on the left that love to prattle about the Second Amendment and try to exploit tragedy for political gain.

What are you talking about? They blame video games and movies all the time. Look at John Grisham suing Oliver Stone for Natural Born Killers or Jack Thompson trying to ban all sorts of videogames. It's one of the flashpoints of the culture wars.

think about what "arms" were in 1789

Yes, and when people actually do think, they realize that the drafters of the Constitution would not be stupid enough to use the term flintlock or musket and hold technology hostage to tyrants who prey upon people who don’t think. The constitution assumes people are individuals (not states) and they have the intelligence to understand what constitutes and "arm". "Keep" actually means keep, own, posses; "arm" means weapon of the day; “bear” means to have on your person and at the ready.

Interestingly enough, very little blame ever gets assigned to the Hollywood culture of death and video games that require mass killing to “win” from the same people on the left that love to prattle about the Second Amendment and try to exploit tragedy for political gain.

This is one of the sickest blurbs I have ever read in my life, truly sickening, the US is reaping what its sewn domestically for sure, let the gun play & stupidity continue, this talk of mags is stupid beyond belief

Rep Peter King, R-NY, is drafting a bill supported by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg that would prohibit people from carrying guns within 1,000 feet of the president, members of Congress or federal judges.

Hey PKing you daft twit, why the hell shud these SOBs get a 1000ft barrier that regular riff raff cant enjoy, unbelieveable!!!

arrestpaul- The Supreme Court can decide whatever it wants, it doesn't change what is written in the second amendment. All they did was come up with some legal mumbo-jumbo to justify making the pre-determined desired decision.

The US has definately got something wrong. The genie is out of the lamp now of course. Even if there were the will, I doubt the politicians could find a way to gain control.

WordStar - Sorry, but you are wrong here: no law has ever existed in US history -- either prior to the Constitution or subsequent to its ratification -- requiring a man to own a weapon.

Take it up with the The Militia Act of 1792 -

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia. Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock.

Originally, all males between 18 and 45 were considered the milita and each was required to own a weapon for defense.

Sorry, but you are wrong here: no law has ever existed in US history -- either prior to the Constitution or subsequent to its ratification -- requiring a man to own a weapon.

GJDailleult - They should also be able to keep and bear arms if they are willing to join the militia

Wrong. The Supreme Court recently established in "District of Columbia v. Heller" and "McDonald v. Chicago" that the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms applies only to the individual people. The term, "The People" is used several times in the Bill of Rights and it always refers to an individual. The government is NOT considered "The People". The "State" has NO rights.

There is also NO requirement to join a standing "militia". Originally, all males between 18 and 45 were considered the milita and each was required to own a weapon for defense.

Criminals will always find other ways to kill, like poison and creative bombs found under the kitchen sink" GD: I tried explaining to a few the other day, but in just 2 years driving an ambulance in NYC and 1 year working at a Chicago VA hospital, I seen more stabbings, people hit by hammers or large heavy objects, kids who were put in ovens, people hung from trees and telephone poles, suicides by razors pills and shoe laces than I saw by gun (although still too much for comfort) but my point is that there are forces that are making it out to be JUST guns and legally owned guns.

I love guns. Criminals will always find other ways to kill, like poison and creative bombs found under the kitchen sink.

go ahead, ban guns. I am 100% certain, criminals will still get their hands on them from along the border of Mexico which is virtually controlled by gangs who get guns from not only the US, but direct from China and Russia. I'm keeping mine until everyone is educated enough to know that killing for cash or out of anger is just wrong.

now the question is, how do you educate people with criminal minds?

From the article:

Rep Peter King, R-NY, is drafting a bill supported by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg that would prohibit people from carrying guns within 1,000 feet of the president, members of Congress or federal judges.

Most Americans don't know who their representatives are, much less those of other states. And federal judges? Forget it. Americans recognize actors, singers and game show contestants. They wouldn't know their rep or judges on sight. What a waste of time and money.

The irony is, the event that legislators are using as a catalyst for their restrictions would have been avoided if the local sheriff had done his job. Instead, he talked the victims of Loughner's threats out of filing charges. Anyone who has a restraining order against them or an arrest record for violent actions (domestic violence, making death threats, etc.) cannot legally purchase a gun. Loughner would have had the record to prevent his purchase had Dupnik simply enforced the law.

Typically, I say that America doesn't have lax gun laws, just lax gun law enforcement. But in this case, there were other laws where the enforcement was lax. What's the point of writing more laws if the ones you already have aren't being enforced?

National RIFLE Association: Originally to support hunters and target shooters have now evolved into slimeballs.

I really don't see the point in legislating against magazine clips holding more than 10 rounds: how long does it take to change a clip? 4 seconds or so if you are quick?

"Most lawmakers are greeting calls for tougher gun restrictions after the Arizona shootings with silence, reflecting the tilt in recent years toward expanding access to firearms rather than curtailing it."

Well, then just get ready for the next time this happens. It's sad the the US ignores the obvious problems it has and instead wants to EXPAND them. I feel sorry for Americans sometimes.

Those militias are "necessary" too by the way, but the cherry pickers ignore that part, so now you have guns but no militias.

There are still militias. Fragment groups of the old Michigan Militia still do hunter and gun safety programs and I've seen them use airboats to rescue stranded ice-fishermen on Lake Huron as recently as last year.

If you want to apply militia more liberally to a group of armed individuals who train in the use of firearms and have experience in national security then one could argue that most gun clubs could also fit the bill. The majority of members in clubs I've observed have been police officers and ex-military men who enjoy sport shooting. If something were to happen it's no stretch of the imagination that some of these organization could turn into true militias with relative ease.

The US and specifically Arizona have militias.

Ah, but are they "well regulated", and if so, by who? Are they working for the security of a free State? Don't blame me, I didn't write the US constitution. I am not selectively ignoring it either.

The gun laws in the US will never change significantly. There are more people who like the gun culture than those who don't. Anytime there is a major incident there are calls for banning this and banning that but they almost never go anywhere.

This will be no different.

The US and specifically Arizona have militias.

I think people should be able to keep and bear all the muskets and flintlock pistols they want to.

They should also be able to keep and bear arms if they are willing to join the militia and head off into the wilderness to fight some very angry Indians and the Redcoats. Maybe there could be a 200th anniversary re-enactment of the War of 1812. Any American who wants to have a gun must go across the Niagara River in an open boat (non-motorized of course) while the British army fires cannonballs at them. Those who make it across will then retreat and go home, and get to keep their arms.

So as you can see, just following the US constitution as it is written would fix the gun problem pretty quick. Those militias are "necessary" too by the way, but the cherry pickers ignore that part, so now you have guns but no militias. Selective reading and selective history are very useful skills!

The US stands holding a gun.

Rep Peter King, R-NY, is drafting a bill supported by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg that would prohibit people from carrying guns within 1,000 feet of the president, members of Congress or federal judges.

Congrats on proposing a virtually unenforceable law. There aren't enough police in most towns to search every person that attends a rally, a protest, or a public speaking. Plus in some instances there may be people with conceal carry just passing by within the range. I go to the same bakery as my representative and my handgun is in my car, I can't predict where these people are at all times.

I think people should be able to keep and bear all the muskets and flintlock pistols they want to.

You might want to rethink that. My boar gun is a black powder rifle and it's a hullofalot meaner than most bolt actions. Muzzleloaders are cheap, its just the ammunition that's expensive.

People who are upset by the notion that judges might do something called "legislating from the bench" might want to stop and think about what "arms" were in 1789.

I think people should be able to keep and bear all the muskets and flintlock pistols they want to. If reloading becomes burdensome, they could always hire caddies.