In Congress, the Uphill Battle for Gun Control

But, he adds, the ban doesn't hurt, either.

Yes, it does. It prevents law abiding citizens from protecting themselves against the scum in the city that prey on them.

Wait until he has his house broken into and his family threatened; he'll be first in line to buy a shotgun.

Bans

A gun ban will work not quite as well as a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol

Gun control

Gun control was in effect in Germany when adolf Hitler took control and they had a record of every one who owned a weapon and they rushed in and either arrested or to the weapons away ,leaving the populace un able to defend their self. I firmely belive that is what they would do in this Country. Our constitution is under attack on several fronts and if gun control goes into effect , you might as well kiss uor constituation goodby as well as the Bill of Rights.

Trying to explain a lack of gun control

So in the first page of the article, the author goes over the stats as to how th public feels, which is clearly that gun control and gun bans are not what is wanted.

Then the article says: ------

Perhaps that's why, despite the steady toll of gunshot violence, it's been nearly 15 years since there has been a significant push for gun legislation on the federal level.

--------------------------------------------

This is *exactly* why there has been no more federal legislation.

Are we surprised that this is how it works?

Are we supposed to think that there should be legislation that is counter to what the voters in a democratic society want?

The author offers zero credible evidence that such federal legislation work work better to ward off the gun violence than garlic worn around your neck.

Those that think otherwise need to read a book: Death By Government

Then come back and tell me why it is we need more gun control.

gun control

This article starts, "The scenario is all too familiar: A disturbed gunman opens fire in a school, an office, or a shopping center and, before horrified spectators, slaughters innocent men, women, and even children".

Place a total ban on hand guns and the article will start, " A disturbed gunman broke into the sleeping couples home and the unarmed occupants were slain without mercy". They had just recently gotten rid of their guard dog because the insurance company was threatening to cancel their insurance.

Being Protected

The article contains the observation: "Other than that, says Andy Goddard, whose son was injured in the shooting, 'people don't know how poorly protected they are.'"

Funny, when I read that I--at first--presumed Mr. Goddard was referring to the fact that the police and other security organizations are wholly unable to protect you. In fact, Mr. Goddard was lamenting how hard it is to add to the 20,000 or so laws already on the books, presumably so we will be "safer" by additional restrictions that criminals simply ignore.

But . . .

Not a bad article, but the reporter's bias still shows.

More than just laws

The reasoning behind our legislators backing away from gun control is what is a primary concern, and one that we need to deal with. As long as lobby groups are allowed to "contribute" and public information indicates they sure do, the recipients have a conflict of interest.

They no longer represent the whole of America, they represent whoever has bought and paid for their services. We need leaders who have courage, and right now, not a single one has demonstrated even an ounce of integrity.

The gun industry makes money off every bullet, regardless of who dies. Additionally many of our legislators belong to the NRA or other pro gunners, and their legislative decisions reflect that level of corruptness.

It is beyond coming up with laws, it is getting rid of that corrupt greed that is destroying our country.

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.

From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.

From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938.

From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935.

From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

-------------- ----------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.

From1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970.

From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.

From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new laws to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent

(yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.

for gun control

I'm for control of your guns. Try telling your arguments for no gun control to the parents who lost kids @ Northern Illiniois or Va. Tech. Or how about the young Auburn girl or the honor student at North Carolina. More and more innocents are being killed, but you say that guns protect us. Guns murdered those people, they did not protect them.

The Soviet Union didn't have wackos running around killing innocent people in bars, restaurants, and schools that we now have. Thanks to the "responsible, law abiding" citizens in this country, we are in danger and it has nothing to do with the government rounding us up and shooting us.

Our own citizens are shooting us. Do you think people are blind or stupid? Check this out and tell me America does not have a problem with lunatics who own guns (my favorite is the nine year old blasting away with an assault weapon):

http://current.com/items/87302871_machine_gun_shootout_pt3?start=50&len=50

guns didnt murder anyone. Cars kill a ton of people a year, but people dont want to ban those? I guarantee you if those two girls, or VT/NIU were carrying they actually would have a chance to protect themselves instead of 0%. Its funny how some VT students and parents are actually supporting on campus carrying.

When you outlaw guns, only the outlaws have guns.

Lame

You know what, when I hear legitimate evidence that suggests a handgun ban won't work, then maybe I'll consider arming the entire population. The Wild West sure was a great place to live in, just ask all those bandits who ran towns because of their skills with a pistol. If people want to defend their houses then they should buy shotguns or non-lethal defense agents. Assuming government oppression is such a far fetched fear that I'm surprised these people are even typing their fears of such a thing on a website which most likely is monitored by the government. Simple fact, most handguns used in murders and violent crims were obtained through an illegal purchase, but 80% of illegal guns were, at one point, purchased from legal vendors. 75% of America's civilian guns are owned by 11% of the population. To you 11% who are posting on this board, control your damn guns before you kill everyone. Thanks.

Anti-Gun Rights Bias

"In 2003, for instance, it passed an amendment to block the government from publicly releasing most data that trace guns used in crimes."

Yet another false statement from Ms. Schwartz. The Tiahrt Amendment stopped the release of gun trace data for anything BUT legitimate criminal investigations. It can no longer be released for frivolous lawsuits or for illegal investigations, like Mayor Bloomberg's illegal stings of gun shops in Virginia and South Carolina. Bloomberg was even told to stop by the BATFE, yet he continued his illegal investigations.

"The Soviet Union didn't have wackos running around killing innocent people in bars, restaurants, and schools that we now have. Thanks to the "responsible, law abiding" citizens in this country, we are in danger and it has nothing to do with the government rounding us up and shooting us.

Our own citizens are shooting us. Do you think people are blind or stupid? Check this out and tell me America does not have a problem with lunatics who own guns (my favorite is the nine year old blasting away with an assault weapon): "

If the media didn't sensationalize these incidents then these idiots wouldn't commit these acts.

These horrible acts are happening because the people who do the killings know the media will be all over it and they will get the attention that they have wanted their whole lives, but never got.

If you notice, things like this didn't start happening until recently, the past 30 years or so. Why? Media coverage.

Also, look at the Beslan School massacre. Only military and Police are allowed to own firearms in Russia, yet those terrorists sure had a lot. Why? Because they were criminals, who wanted attention, and criminals do not care about laws and bans.

Gun control DOES NOT WORK!

A little news for those who have lived in the comfort of US freedom over the last couple generations: The 2nd Amendment was not put there so we could enjoy duck hunting.

It was put there so the American people could retain freedom, and protect themselves from internal and external threats upon Liberty.

Heads in the sand.

Mary May - Illinois doesn't allow us to defend ourselves - only the police, criminals and politicans can carry concealed firearms in IL. They're safe - us ordinary citizens aren't.

(By the way the VTech campus was a "gun free zone". Like most "gun control", you can see just how much good it did.)

And Michelle, while you claim,

>The Soviet Union didn't have wackos running around killing innocent people in bars, restaurants, and schools that we now have.

Ever heard of Stalin? 20 million or so Russians and their families wish they hadn't.

>Thanks to the "responsible, law abiding" citizens in this country.

It's not the responsible, law abiding citizens that are causing problem. On the day of the VTech and NIU shootings, less than 0.02% of the guns in this country were involved in criminal activity. The rest were in safes, closets, or protecting law abiding citizens from criminals - the group you seemingly wish to coddle through disarmament of their victims.

About the 9 year old shooting the "assault weapon?" What's the matter, Michelle, too much freedom for you?

Just so you know, The CDC released a study showing just how ineffective the "ban" was; not difficult, considering that, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, so-called "Assault weapons" were involved in less than 2% of all homicides.

More people were killed with knives, baseball bats, and pillows than by "assault weapons".

I remember a few Korean storeowners in Los Angeles who had some of those "assault weapons" during the 1992 south central rioting. An odd thing - their businesses were not only spared from being looted and burned, but stayed open for business during the unrest.

And according to the 1997 Justice Department's National Institute of Justice's "Guns in America" study by Cook & Ludwig, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year.

But of course, what's the safety of law abiding citizens if we can pass another feel-good, do nothing law, right?

Gun Control

Last week an Arab Israeli terrorist killed a number of Rabbinical students in Jerusalem. The terrorist was shot and killed by an armed student which prevented more senseless deaths. Try telling parents of those students that they would have been better off if the school was a "gun free" zone.

Gun Control

I find it somewhat puzzling. So far in all the school shootings the schools where basic

gun free zones as well as the malls and most business. It seems the crazed nut cases can’t read or just feel they are safe to do as they wish because every one is unarmed.

If you count on law enforcement or security to defend you your in trouble. Unless a crime has been committed they do not have the right to intervene and once it has been committed it is to late. I have also dealt with several law-enforcement agencies over the years and know for a fact that they are not required to go into harms way to stop a crime. Many brave officers will but are not encouraged or required to. This is why they waited so long at Columbine and other sites. First to assess the situation, then to move in slowly to avoid them selves from getting hurt. Do not get me wrong I respect them very much and have made many friends on several police forces in my community but it is a fact.

So do not tell me I should not have a gun to defend myself because it is the job of the police is nuts. And how would a anti gun person know what type of gun I need to protect my self. If they rely on the police and military to protect them then I should have the right to protect myself with the same weaponry.

From the day man was put on earth there have been bad apples. People who do not respect others or any laws made by god or man. If not guns it would be clubs, knifes or someone who would chain lock doors of a building and set fire to it. In Japan they have a low gun crime rate but per capita they have a higher assault and murder rate committed with edged weapons (knifes and swards).

In conclusion I have also taken accounting and several class on statistics and you can make the numbers go any way you want by only printing the data and comparisons that tend to show your point of view.

Presidential Opinion

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Thomas Jefferson President of the United States

Hummmm, his opinion seems fairly clear. Funny, he didn’t mention the National Guard, it sort of sounds like he means individuals should not be from prevented carrying arms or defending themselves.

Get your facts straight, USN&WR

No "assault weapons" were banned in the 1990s. None. There *was* a 1994 ban on some semi-automatic centerfire rifles like the AK-47, AR-15 and such that passed in 1994 and expired in 2004, but that legislation said NOTHING about assault rifles.

There has been no legislation on actual assault weapons since 1986, when legislation was passed preventing any new assault weapons from being manufactured or imported. The National Firearms Act effectively banned assault weapons in the 1930's.

Emma Schwartz Article

I thought Ms. Schwartz's belief that, "If the gun ban is struck down, the District will very likely see an increase in firearms ownership and perhaps a rise in burglaries by criminals trying to obtain guns," was not a logical statement compared to the facts.

A truth and falsehood with that statement; first, common sense will tell you that more law-abiding citizens of the district will want to own firearms to protect their families and property. After all, the police cannot stop all crime; the only thing that may help you is private firearms ownership.

Also, will criminals burglarize private residences to obtain a firearm? I highly doubt that when they can easily obtain an illegal firearm on the street, which is a no brainer if you are trying to obtain a firearm under the radar rather than risk entering a private residence and getting arrested or possibly worse: being shot by an armed law-abiding citizen!!

gun control

Gun control means hitting your target. I don't understand people who believe guns are the problems. Honest people do not commit crimes, criminals do. I believe the only way combat gun violence is tougher penalties for those who commit crimes of all sorts. Of all crimes commited, 75% are repeat offenders. I have seen reports of rapists murderers, and thieves recieve sentences of only a few years. The moment they get out, back to the same way of life. I am a pround owner of many guns. I love my freedom to target shoot, hunt, and defend my family if that time comes. I have never thought of commiting a crime. All these gun control laws accomplish is make it easier for criminals to commit crimes. As shown in places where concealed carry is at its highest, crimes of all kinds have decreased dramatically. Every place that has stripped their people of the right to keep arms has seen staggering increases in all crime rates. No one despises criminals more than supporters of the second amendment. I hate that any innocent individuals have been the victim of violence of any sort. I truly believe that what needs to be done is to educate children from the time they are in elementary school about firearms. They should be taught that a gun is a tool if used correctly, target shooting and hunting, they can be great fun. If used incorrectly, criminal activity, they would be in serious trouble. It all starts at home. I have taught my wife and daughter to shoot. I know that they are responsible when it comes to guns and if they ever needed to use one of mine to defend themselves should I not be there they could. This is what our forefathers intended and are troops protect. God Bless America!

Gun Control... Again.

To the naive hopolophobes who fear inatimate objects instead of those who use them for ill: Consider Britain.

You may want to move there, where you can be beaten, raped and stabbed or possibly roughed up with a baseball bat.

You'll have no means of protection other than your physical strength, and the police have no obligation to defend you - like America.

Then consider for a moment that everything you know about guns comes from TV.

That's right. The "idiot box" that you probably admonish to your friends.

You've probably never fired a weapon.

You've probably never served in the military.

You probably don't own your own home.

You probably believe in "entitlement" instead of earning your keep.

You probably don't know the difference between a rifle and shotgun, and think all guns take "clips".

All I ask is you take the time to educate yourself and stray from the path of controlled media.

To the question of Paranoia with regards to the Government:

Those who have no weapons demand nothing of those who do have weapons. If only the Governing body has weapons, the people are at it's mercy.

It is a system of Checks and Balances that is no more radical than having 3 branches of Government to maintain perspective and limit power.

More gun control

For gun control wrote “I'm for control of your guns. Try telling your arguments for no gun control to the parents who lost kids @ Northern Illiniois or Va. Tech. Or how about the young Auburn girl or the honor student at North Carolina. More and more innocents are being killed, but you say that guns protect us. Guns murdered those people, they did not protect them.”

According to The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice statistics over 400,000 citizens use firearms to protect themselves from crime, and other studies place that number at over three million. Try telling any one of them that banning their guns will make them safer. More gun control will only turn these survivors into victims.

Shootings and law enforcement

I was the person who provided our government information about 4 of the 5 assassination attempts against President Ford, BEFORE THEY HAPPENED!

I was the pewrson who provided information to our government about 2 assassination attempts against President Reagan, BEFORE THEY HAPPENED!

I was the person who provided information to the LAPD about the murder of actress Rebecca Schaffer, BEFORE THEY HAPPENED!

I was the person who provided information to the Vatican concerning the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, BEFORE IT HAPPENED!

I have DOZENS AND DOZENS of additional stories like this. DOESN'T IT SEEM STRANGE THAT MOST OF THESE CRIMES WERE NOT STOPPED??? Instead, on at least half of these occassions, I WAS HARRASSED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT. WHY??? BECAUSE I WAS RIGHT! BECAUSE I HAD A LONG HISTORY OF WORKING WITH THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, AND OUR GOVERNMENT DOES NOT LIKE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOOD AT THE WORK THAT THEY DO!!!

Just for the record, Presidents Ford and Reagan have NEVER received justice for the crimes against them. Law enforcement was THREATENED BY CONGRESS AND POWERFUL CORPORATIONS to arrest the shooter, WITHOUT ARRESTING THE PEOPLE (CELEBRITIES) WHO WERE BEHIND THESE CRIMES! Law enforcement was PREVENTED FROM DOING THEIR JOBS FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA, SO THEY CANNOT PROTECT YOU EITHER!! CONGRESS/HOLLYWOOD/NEW MEDIA DO NOT WANT YOU TO BE SAFE!

NRA Mistateed Fact

If anyone cares to follows what the NRA supports one would find a very strong support for prosecution of criminals and offenses with guns. It is a blatant mis-statement that the NRA tries to weaken laws about illegal guns, etc. (I don't remember the exact quote). To me, this shows the reporter (1) did not do their UNBIASED fact finding and was (2) biased by sound bites.

Another biased article

Most of you beat me to the punch on this article's inaccuracies...

However, I did notice that the article mentioned the CDC study, but didn't say anything about the National Academy of Sciences study of 2004. The NAS reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. The NAS was unable to identify any gun-control regulation that actually reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents (which, incidentally, is the same conclusion reached by the CDC). Of course, they don't admit as much, and instead say that "more research is needed" or that "there is insufficient data" to draw a conclusion, presumably because they would like to keep searching for data that will support their anti-gun bias.

To those of you who support gun control: There is simply no credible, empirical evidence indicating that gun control laws reduce violent crime or suicide (which is the ostensible purpose of all gun control). I challenge all of you to identify a credible study that arrives at such a conclusion.

Gun Control

More gun laws will not solve anything.We need to enforce the ones we

already have on the books.Weapons laws do nothing more than disarm

peaceable citizens who are not criminals.England and Australia tried the gun bans and it did nothing.We have already tried the Prohibition

route on alcohol and it failed miserably.It was repealed in 1933.Our current war on drugs should prove banning something never works.If there is a market for it somebody will supply it legal or not.

Poorly written article, full of factual mistakes and bias!

I don't even have to mention which side of the argument the mistakes and bias fall on. Its so obvious!

I just wish journalists had the ethical wherewithal to double check their facts and at least run their draft article by a few other people (outside of their journalistic click) for a bias check. Is that to much to ask for?

A fact check is easy to do and as for a bias check it should be mandatory for any article written about a controversial issue such as gun control, abortion, politics, etc. This is how professionals 'stay' professional!

Some Fanticies Destroyed

Lets start with the romantic that talked about the "Old West". What you portray never happened except on Hollywood sets.

Shooting deaths in general and homicide rates were lower then in DC today. Gun fights by quick draw killers are nonsense. Go to a gun store with a range. Have the staff train, coach, and encourage you. With some practice you will be minus ten toes and the foot on the side you draw. After a great deal of practice shooting walls ceilings and toes you while realize how stupid your comments are. The OK corral was a movie. You will not find a real life equal. Billy the Kid was called the "kid" because he died before he grow to be a man.

To another dreamer The Democrats are bought and paid for by the super rich "supporters" Sortis, Bloomburg etc. There is no way the NRA can buy nearing as many congress persons. It is not the cash its the 4 million members who all vote. I know you are smarter then they are but you get one vote (or 1 per hour if you are a D). It will never balance 4,000,000 not right bright, but not liberals with there head in the sand or between glutious maximus (sp) muscles, voters.

Police and Protection

I was once a received a threat to my life recorded on an answering machine. I immediatly took it the answering machine to the Police who listened to it and took the report. I was then told that they could not do something until I was actually attacked. After I mentioned that it was the same voice that threated to "Blowup" the building I worked in and that the building was leased by the Fedral Government. They suggested collecting phone numbers of of calls made to my office. Yes I stared carring and when he threated my wife she was carring also. We both felt safer not having to wait on Police to help.

guns

This article simply attempts too much.

First, the 1994 so-called federal "assault weapons" ban didn't ban the possession of the weapons. It stopped the manufacture of guns with specific features such as bayonet lugs, threaded barrels, detachable magazines and pistol grips.

The existing weapons were grandfathered and newer "post ban" weapons came on-line even before the ban expired in 2004.

How anyone can argue that the D.C. gun ban reduces crime is simply ridiculous. Any attempt to argue that it works invariably involves selected data sets.

In the 1980s the United States Conference of Mayors tried to jiggle the figures and, when confronted by a Washington Post reporter, the study's author said that "with a leap of hope or faith," the data showed the gun ban worked.

Anti-gunners have been leaping and hoping for more than 30 years.

D.C.'s gun law is facing a day of reckoning.

I say bring it on.

Liberals & Communists: Ideology Uber Allis

Joseph Stalin's Minister of Agriculture for several decades, was a man by the name of Lysenko. To make a long story short, Lysenco controled planting times and locations (remember farmers and everyone else worked for the state in Stalin's USSR) based upon falacious biological theories. But these theories, which held that environmental conditions had a direct effect on the genetics (innate nature) of an organism, even though preposterous and easily disprovable, conformed to Marxist-Leninist dogma and so pleased Stalin. As a result, very unsound agricultural practices caused decades of low yealds and crop failures. Food shortages, hunger and starvation plagued the USSR and much of Eastern Europe.

Addressing the problem of violent crime that is due mostly to violent crackhead street thugs and their gangs, by making gun ownership difficult , burdensome or illegal for law abiding citizens, demonstrably and historically fails dismally. There have been too many such failures to enumerate. But it does fit liberal/ leftist social theory, which demands alternative demons. After all, isn't it mean spirited and perhaps even racist to blame the thug perps and their pathological cultures for the crimes they do? And so as long as these people who ruin cities with easy welfare that promotes illigitimacy and single parent housholds and tolerance toward criminals, are in power crime will increase and freedoms/ liberties, perhaps starting but certainly not ending with gun rights, will diminish.

It's getting to be showtime folks.

asswult weapons

be happy my state wants to start with my con.ardpms 223 and finshwith my 1022 plus my 12ga atuo loader duck gun

I have guns never hurt no one and never will i was tought right from wrong just becuse guns are semi-atuo they are not bad buns don't kill pepole pepole kill pepole outlaw firearms and the only ones with them will be outlaws

PLEASE!! More Reason, Less Emotion

Regardless of how emotional the gun-controllers choose to be, the empirical reality is that guns are used for good, crime-stopping, defensive purposes far more frequently than they are used in crime.

In fact, in every jurisdiction in the U.S. where gun laws have been tightened violent crime and general overall crime have increased.

Moreover, right now in the U.S. 40 of the 50 states have laws that REQUIRE officials to allow qualified civilians to carry loaded handguns for self defense. Once again, the empirical data show that you are safer in these states than in highly restrictive states.

To those of you who want more gun control: PUHLEEEZE!!! A little more logic, a little less hysteria.

choices

Some people chose to be victims, they want laws & police to protect them, some of do not chose to be victims, & do not rely on the words, or people nseveral minutes away.

Lame James

To james, mary may, and the rest of the sheeple who bleat and whimper for more gun control, just remember that it will be people with guns who will be trying to enforce any bans, and not sheep like yourselves.

Wild West

Sure, the gun slinger takes over the whole town and terrorizes the citizens. Maybe in those TV shows and westerns you watched as a child, but reality was far different. Most of those citizens were veterans of the American Civil War and kept a rifle or shotgun handy for hunting and personal defense. What few shootings that occured out west usually happened across the tracks in the saloon and red light district. The incidence of shootings was far higher out east in the major cities which even back then were experiencing a significant crime problem due to economic and cultural issues.

As to VT, less than a year prior to the shootings the college successfully lobbied the Virginia legislature to defeat a bill that would have allowed concealed permit holders to carry on campus. A spokesman announced that now parents and students could feel safe on campus. And so they did, right up until a homicidal lunatic blew right past their regulations. And given the amount of planning the shooter put into his crimes, purchasing weapons over month long periods, bringing chains and locks to barracade the doors, etc. how can anyone believe that making it a little more difficult to obtain weapons would have deterred him in the least. He was determined to commit his agression and only a violent response was going to stop him. Pity that response came 32 lives too late.

Total bans on handguns solve the problem? Think so, just look at Chicago, or Washington DC, or England. All ban handguns and all have seen large increases in violent crime including gun crime since the bans.

I do know...

...says Andy Goddard, whose son was injured in the shooting, "people don't know how poorly protected they are."

I do know how unprotected I am Andy. That's why I choose to provide for my own protection. When seconds count the police are only minutes away!

Police Protection and Gun Control

It is a common misapprehension in the public at large that the police have a responsibility for the safety of the individual. The opposite is, in fact the truth. Ever since the 1856 Supreme Court decision in South V. Maryland, it has been the defined principle that the police have no responsibility at all for individual safety. This has been upheld at the federal level as recently as 2005 in Castle Rock V. Gonzalez. D.C.'s own city court of appeals supported this concept in Warren V. District of Columbia, where it stated that "[a] government and its agents are under no general duty to provid public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." The police exist to enforce the law. If they happen to save you in the process, that is icing on the cake, not their defined purpose. The only person responsible for the safety of the individual is the individual. Firearms prohibition denies the individual the means to fulfill that responsibility to himself and his loved ones. This is what makes D.C V. Heller so critically important to the maintenance of individual liberty in this country, both as individual and as a people.

Asault Weapons Innaccurancy

You have an error in your third paragraph:

"Back in 1993, a Democratic-controlled Congress passed the Brady bill, which imposed background checks on gun buyers, and the following year, Congress banned private ownership of assault weapons. "

This is not true, the 1994 assault weapons bill retricted manufacturer of weapons on the prohibited list, except for police and military, and weapons magazines that had a capacity of over 10 rounds.

The bill did not confiscate any weapons or magazines owned by citizens at that time. It also did not prohibit the sale or transfer of existing weapons or magazines, just the manufacture of new ones.

schwartz

I wish the author and every other misguided liberal gun hater would stop the next time they contemplate recounting the tragedy of some loon who has shot up a bunch of individuals and using that as a reason to promote more gun control laws. During this pause, I want them to count up, get help if needed here, just how many existing firearms laws were broken BEFORE the loon ever even pointed the gun at the victim. When you have a count, then explain to us just how an additional law would have prevented the perpetrator from committing this crime.

to many laws but no inforcement or follow through

this is about the shooting that happened in Illinois

In Illinois you have to apply for a foid card to the state police to have a gun. This should be the first background checks state & fed. Killer Bought 2 guns a year ago second background checks again state & fed. Then he bought 2 more guns more background checks. There is a three day waiting period for gun pick up. lets see 6 background checks in less than 2years.And they want more after the fact laws or laws that say this gun is evil looking lets ban it.

We should be pounding on senators heads to fix the backgrounds checks so people that have mental problems don't buy guns.DUH & the gang problem.Everything else will fall in line.NRA wanted the background check for gun dealers customers. We need to be united in this.All people need to look at the facts.Most of the anti gunners have no idea the amount of laws there is out there. Blame the judges for not enforcing these laws when these professionals criminals walk free for having a gun Illegally & then get busted for shooting someone for a credit card . It's our big brother that has let us down not the NRA.

You certainly are

Lame

You know what, when I hear legitimate evidence that suggests a handgun ban won't work, then maybe I'll consider arming the entire population.

*****

Look no further than DC. DC has effectively banned the posession of alll handguns and actionable long arms for thirty years. And, starting 30 years ago their crime rate went through the roof.

Read "More guns, less crime" by John Lott for statistical evidence that will probably astound you.

Second Amendment Works

During a VFW meeting in recent memory, a retired US veteran asked a retired Japanese admiral an interesting question: "You wiped our our Navy, and our air defenses. We had no military defense. Why didn't you invade?" His response?: "We Japanese know you Americans have a gun in every other house - and have championships with military rifles. We were not fools to get into such a quagmire..."

So while $240,000 Korean women as young as 13 were rounded up and put in military brothels to be violated every 15 minutes 30X/day; while 300,000 thousand Chinese surrendered only to be packed in buildings and burned and their women ran naked and bleeding in the streets from military gang-rapes - our women here in the US didn't get raped. Our civilians didn't get massacred.

Of course, we no longer worry about the Japanese - but to see the deterrence of an armed civilian populace, need we look no further than our current fiasco in Iraq? Civilians with guns make can make life pretty miserable for an occupying army (and I'm not even saying we're the bad guys).

Bottom line: Can you trust any government to have all of the guns?

Where was OUR government after Hurricane Katrina? With no 911 service, no water, no electricity, no fire department, and a police force AWOL while gangs ran wild raping and looting.

In a country of 300 plus million people, there will always be murder and mayhem with guns. That's the price we pay to keep soldiers in check: be they domestic or foreign.

The Wild West?

I've lived in TX, AZ, NV, and NM. People can have handguns in their home, carry them concealed in public, and all of them are safer than DC. Albuquerque and El Paso are 3 - 10 times safer than DC.

Tombstone AZ is safer than DC. It's safer now that it's people can legally carry concealed guns than it ever was when the Earps banned guns in town.

Dear Michelle...

You want to control my guns? Fair enough. I want to control your reproductive organs. If they're misused, why, you might spread disease, contribute to the surplus population, or be involved in the murder of an unborn child.

Where do we place the serial number?

Lack of research?

The statement that there is a "lack of solid research on exactly which laws help reduce gun violence" is completely false. I reply to that falsehood with just two words: John Lott.

Bill Of Rights

The Bill Of Rights is an untouchable list of specific things that the government MAY NOT encroach on, and specifically enumerates the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE - never 'rights' of state of federal governments (which do not have rights, only powers).

"Shall not infringe" is incredibly precise language and leaves nothing to be guessed at. Any limitation or regulation is an infringement, and violates the constitution.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to guns is to pass laws against the criminal use of arms, never to tell The People what they can or cannot own.

Gun rights

As I approch 60 and recently medically retired because of a rare spinal disease (adhesive arachnoiditis-from surgeries, epidurals, spinal blocks, etc., do your homework before any of that), I have never felt so helpless in my life. It remined me of traveling by car and truck 10s of thousands of miles across this great country, and talking to the traveling elderly. they may be weak or handycapped but are not stupid, they are armed, they told me they sleep better. Now all these years later so do I. They will never tell you that but believe it. The stories I've heard of just laying the gun on the dash as the same mysterious car noticed during the days travel pulls in but cruses on past or pulling a gun at a rest stop to end something bad. They are an independent bunch and sometimes travel in packs so watch out.

As paranoid as this or that governmet killed so many of it's citizens sounds and as true as it is, don't look any further than the registratrions and confiscations that have already taken place here in the US. NY, CA and lets not forget the confiscation at gun point of that woman in New Orleans (one of 100+), after which she was knocked to the ground by OUR OWN police & military. That's why the NRA AGAIN came to the rescue with law suites to return the guns and lesislation to forbid the taking of our arms during a national disaster. You heard ealier about how citizens banned together taking their turn at watch over the neighborhoods, protecting each other from gangs. That is until they were disarmed when the police and military got control 5 DAYS later. The person that mentioned the 93' riots in LA forgot to mention that after the police and miltary finally got control there and told the store owners to take their guns home, wer're here now, that their stores were then looted. Or the people that saw what was happening and tried to get a gun but found there was a 15 day waiting period. BUT IT's HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!! Sorry, that's the law. Before you go to sleep tonight, Google Katrina problems, read up then think about it as you drift off. I sleep just fine, as do the millions that voted for people that stood true to the Bil of Rights.

You don't know where the next problem is going to come from or what kind of situation it will leave you in but one thing you can count on is the trash will come out of the woodwork to take advantage of the situation and YOU don't know what they want. With an open mind go to this web site supported by millions that have found insurance there that can help in situations like that, nra.com In their 120+ some years they have taught 100s of thousands of people like you and I to be our own insurance policy. I challenge you to find a course on blowing heads off innocent people, go ahead.

One other item not mentioned was there is another reason the gun control freeks don't bring up gun control much, it's because during the Clinton years when gun control was full trottle, more guns were bought, reloading equipment, ammunition and components, than at any other time in our history. They put more guns on the street than anything the NRA could have done. The states also took control and concealed carry took hold, along with other pro gun legislation and boy those "assault rifles" sure became popular, going for 3-4 times their original value. Real help to the industry, thanks.

In closing I just want to say, leave me and my Bill of Rights alone! You've put to many people in harms way already ("More guns, Less crime" by John Lott, it's stood the test of time).

This article is full of inaccuracies and errors

As an example of journalistic bias it is perhaps useful,

but not as an example of factual reporting.

If anyone requires evidence of the failure of so-called

"gun control" they need look no further than D.C.

As for recent mass shootings, ask yourself why they weren't

occurring in such frequency in the days before so-called

"gun free zones"?

Criminals do not obey ANY law which inconveniences them.

It really is true:

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

Biased article

"And in 2005, Congress gave gun manufacturers immunity to lawsuits if their firearms were used in crimes."

This was passed because under the Clinton administration they fugured out they could use predatory lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The law suites may not have a chance, but the legal cost was going to push them out of business, the goal of the anti gunners.

This law would have not even shown up if it were not an anti gun tool.

Thanks for not giving a full story here.

USE YOUR COMMON SENSE IF YOU HAVE ANY

Haha, you silly little sheep.

The NWO will take your guns and there is nothing you can do about it.

They decide what happens in this world, not you.

They care not for laws or pawns like to get in their way.

After all, if I were in the same position the elite are, I WOULD NOT EITHER. I would have taken your guns LONG ago.

You do not deserve freedom if you don't even know what it means.

You deserve to be betrayed from within like the germans.

"Those who are willing to give up freedom for security, deserve NEITHER"

While you got the chance GET AS MANY GUNS AS YOU CAN AND HOLD ON TO THEM UNTIL YOU NEED THEM. You will know when you need them. The day that someone knocks on your door asking for your handgun is the day that your freedom really does go down the drain.

That day, will be the end of the end. Not the beginning of the end. The END of the END.

The only thing stopping them from total control is YOU. They fear you. They are cowards. The elite are smart, but they are cowardly perverts who can't get erections and had no friends in school. They are cowards.

They can't fight on GUN on GUN. It has to be you unarmed and them ARMED (using your tax payers money of course).

And even then... the elite don't have to get their hands bloody themselves. They just send your own troops or foreign troops against you.

I am glad

I am glad I didn't buy this magazine to contribute to the biased propaganda I just read for free online.

The author is clearly for gun control. How can she say that the polls show people want to protect gun rights (even if they don't own firearms), and then bash the fact that the government isn't giving gun contol any teeth?

How about enforce the laws we have and let's not government decide whats good/bad for us? I am glad I am from Missouri, a state that recognizes this.

Dems less committed to gun control????

How will the Democrats approach the gun-control issue now that Washington D.C.'s admittedly hard-line gun laws (ban on handgun ownership; rifles and shotguns need to be locked up or disassembled) is up before the Supreme Court? The local ban on functioning firearms will certainly be invalidated, but the high-court justices certainly will provide for an N.A.R. (no-absolute rights) loophole that at least will allow many state, local, and even federal guns laws currently existing to already stay in place.

Note that Democrats appear to be less committed to pushing sweeping federal gun restrictions than they were in the year 2000 (the same year their party lost the White House).

Since the Supreme Court obviously will allow for a N.A.R. loophole in it's interpretation of the Second Amendment, that will encourage Democrats to spport such a constitutional interpretation.

Gun owners should not worry about the mainstream Democrats pushing for federal legislation requiring owners to be licensed or guns be registered, for bth Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in a January debate in Nevada both rejected the twin ideas of national/federal licensing and registration.

There is the question of whether or not Dems should try to renew the old federal ban on military-style semiautomatic weapons (1994-2004). Maybe not.

Certainly, one idea that might gain more adherence is federal funding of gun buyback programs, where people are paid money or some other prize for turning in their firearms-a practical, voluntary approach to gun policy. If it's voluntary, it has to be constitutional.

Buyback programs could not only receive federal funding, such programs could also be narrowly tailored to target (albiet voluntarily) certain types of firearms: the aforementioned, so-called assault weapons; 50-calibre rifles (especially powerful, miltary-style guns), and fully-automatic machine guns.

The 2008 Democratic platform could propose a moderate plant on guns: enforcement of existing federal laws by hiring more federal agents, support for a moderate Supreme Court decision on gun rights to recognize both the rights of private citizens AND an N.A.R. loophole, states' rights on licensing and registration (instead of making them federal policy), and federally-funded, voluntary buyback programs.

The issue is not the diffrence between Democrats and Republicans on guns, but between 2008 Democrats and the same party five-to-10 years ago, or between pre-2000 and post-2000 Dems.

Nonetheless, some gun owners are NOt willing to forgive and forget Democrats for "past sins", and consequently vote Republican.

Its simple people

You can go to any prison and ask anyone in there who used a gun to harm or scare anyone who theyre most afraid of, a citizen or the cops. I GUARUNTEE you they will say the civillian. They dont know if a civillian is armed. They are AFRAID of the unknown! They already KNOW cops carry guns...they already KNOW WHO TO AVOID. But how can you avoid the unknown? Simple, if EVERYONE had a gun....the criminals would know who to avoid....everyone.....

Cenario #1: Somone came to rob your local bank and everyone in it had a gun and everyone but the robber is aware of this. The robber pulls out his gun yelles "Everyone down floor!" I bet that even before he could finish that sentence he would have a room full of guns in his face.

Cenario #2:The bank was a gun free zone and everyone left their gun in the car. Robber knows this, its says gun free zone plaque by the door. He waltzes in and yells "Everyone down on the floor!" as he brandishes his gun. Teller inconspicuously hits the call button to call the cops. Cops take a few mins to get there. In a few mins that guy could kill more than one persone, maybe even everyone if he really wanted to. Who would have egg on their face?

In cenario #2 the robber broke the law by entering a gun free zone... your chancing it by waitinfg for the cops. They are just people who carry guns for public protection for themselves...and to protect you if they want to. If somone is going to break the law, they dont give a damn about the law... what makes you think they are the ones who are going to think twice before they hurt you?

What is the cure for ignorance? EDUCATION!! How is that so hard to understand? Those who are afraid of guns are those that dont know anything about them. Other than what they've been TOLD to believe. The only "Research" they do is BIASED research which is AGAINST those that support guns. Why? Because they have been made to believe without a doubt that guns are bad. So then, is ignorance bliss? I would argue not. If little Timmy cant recognize the diffrence between a toy and something thats truly dangerous because no one educated him.

There are toy knifes, how many kids get hurt from stabbing themselves with real ones? Where is the research on that? We know knifes hurt, we know they kill, they're easyer to conceal than a gun. The truth is scary, best you recognize it before it sneaks up on you and takes you by surprise.

Guns do NOT shoot themselves ok... Guns CAN NOT magically jump up and start firing itself, if so, then you have some SERIOUSLY DEFECTIVE merchandice and, if you survive the crazy magical gun that seems like it jumped out of the Disney movie "Fantasia" you should get a refund..... PEOPLE shoot the guns...ok...

On Democracy, Tyranny, and Permits

I have to take issue with several things written herein.

First, we are not a "democracy," but a Constitutional Republic. By that, I mean that our Constitution guides the government, with the Bill of Rights limiting what government can do to the individual's rights. In most cases it is nothing whatsoever. Those that try, and succeed, are treading on dangerous ground, acting in a treasonous manner, and against the oath they took to "protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic/" The problem is that once they suggest, vote for, or sign laws which abrogate the rights of the citizenry. they fall into that area which becomes treason to the very government they have sworn to uphold.

Certainly, there are many tragic deaths because of gun control, but as Thomas Jefferson wrote to Archibald Stewart in 1791, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree." The end result of this is further tragedies, played out daily in our media, as rogue elements of criminality use guns to perpetrate criminal acts, often in places where no law abiding citizen could be armed.

Mary May of MO states guns killed those people, not protected them. The problem could be that all those people were either under age based on the laws, or in (law abiding citizen) gun free zones.

She states she wants to control my guns. Well, well, isn't that quite tyrannical of her? When she runs for office, people had better vote against her right away, or the next thing you know you'll only be able to eat mashed up potatoes, and boneless chicken, and fish. Do-gooders are all around us, but those who wish us well through tyrannical means haven't a clue as to where their righteous indignation may lead, nor, do they care.Edmund Burke related, "The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts (encroachment: see meaning of infringe)...the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Thus, people like MM of MO, are in essence, tyrannical, evil, and wholly unfit for office, let alone prepared for what life has to offer.

Finally, let me let all of you in on a dirty little secret the government has been hiding, and the major pro-gun groups are unwilling to press. The fact is there are three rulings which have determined that permits for rights are unconstitutional censorships, or prior restraints, on the individual. This means that pistol permit, or other gun permit systems are unconstitutional on their very face, yet, the pro-gun groups keep pressing for these permit systems as if this is suppsed to make them look like such nice fellows. After all, here they are, willing to submit themselves to the government for record, and background checks to determine their worthiness. The founders must be turning over in their graves.