So, let me get this straight: After the horrific massacre of 20 helpless children and six staff in Newtown, Conn., Congress has finally decided to take some action to protect the public. But instead of doing anything to get rid of the weapons of mass murder, they are busy arguing over whether every gun transaction should come with a background check and a record of the sale. Say, WHAT?
In the article “Congress will begin debate on gun control legislation” (Page A11, Feb. 24) we learn that Senators Charles Schumer and Tom Coburn are working on legislation that would expand background checks to “nearly all gun purchases,” but that Coburn won’t support a move to have private gun sellers keep records of those sales for fear that, in the reporter’s words, it would be a precursor to a national gun registry.
Comments
If this writer, and more particularly the Obama administration is really serious about automatic weapons control, then they are looking in pretty minor places. The REAL weapons are sitting overseas, in Iran. They are called NUKES! Iran is getting Plutonium now. A small amout of Plutonium can wipe everybody out...And what is OUR DEAR LEADER doing about that? He's just making political points about American gun control....His rhetoric "All options are on the table" with regard to Iran's nukes is not believable by anybody (except by his diehard fans).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9895934/Iran-has-crossed-first-hurdle-towards-plutonium-production-at-nuclear-facility.html
Excellent letter. Great style, too.
Karen: There is no such thing as a "local dealer". One cannot engage in the business of buying and selling firearms as a "dealer" without a federal license. That license requires record keeping and inspections.
Requiring private individuals who make an occasional sale to "keep records" is pretty ridiculous when you really think about it. People move, records get lost, etc. Should an individual who loses a sales record then be criminalized? That is just another law that makes a criminal out of an ordinary citizen.
I agree with your desire "to keep our babies safe". Filling out paperwork doesn't do it. That angry person you describe can walk into a licensed shop and purchase a gun to kill children. That angry person may already have the AR15. If YOU want to protect those kids, you should be working with your local government to get some security in place at your schools. That is what will work right now and into the future.
All this legislation impacts huge numbers of law abiding citizens and has virtually no effect on the insane or the criminals.
Do we reduce drunk driving by making it harder for people to purchase automobiles? No. What we do is have law enforcement look for people who are driving while drunk. People will say that "regulations" prevent drunk driving. No, they do not. People still drive drunk. What has helped is a campaign to educate people that driving drunk is not acceptable. But we still have those who drink, drive and kill others. We always will. It sucks, but that is the price we all pay to be able to drive.
Blame Iran? Blame existing policies and local security in our schools? Blame automobiles? Last I knew, automobiles were not designed to kill people.
We have a long way to go to become a truly civilized nation.
Weapons for hunting animals to put food on the table and weapons to provide personal security which do not provide 30 round magazines or semi-automatic or automatic capabilities seem reasonable to me.
I really don't think gun control advocates want to take away guns. The NRA's agenda of fear mongering has convinced many people that Obama wants to personally barge into her home and seize grandma's gun. Ain't so.
Peter South Dennis, MA
You are right, automobiles are not designed to kill people, and as a matter of fact, automobiles do not kill people. But drunk people driving them certainly do, every day. You can use the tired old arguments that AR15's are designed to do nothing but kill people. But the fact is that they are RARELY used for that purpose. There are over 10 million of them in this country. The VAST number of murders are committed with handguns, not AR15's.
You may not "think" that gun control advocates want to take away guns, but then it becomes obvious you have not read bills like Dianne Feinsteins. Hers wants to ban anything that can take a detachable magazine. Cuomo's, which already passed in NY, in fact bans and eventually confiscates any TYPE of gun that has a magazine that can hold over 7 rounds. It also criminalizes a person in NY for owning a magazine larger than 10 rounds. Just like is done here in MA already. It never occurs to people like you that in most of this country, our fellow citizens cannot commit this "crime".
If you think places like the UK are so "civilized", you missed the story a few weeks ago about 4 individuals using knives and short swords to gut a man in broad daylight on a street in the UK. Yea, they are oh so "civilized" over there with their gun laws.
And of course Obama does not want to "personally" barge into grandma's home. A) He does not have the courage to do something like that himself B) He would like guys dressed in black, carrying FULLY automatic assault weapons to do it for him.
His only problem is that he knows those guys have to live in this country, they are not on rotational tours of duty.
Does someone's wish to have an assault weapon like the Bushmaster take precedence over the lives of the adults and children that have been murdered by them? AR 15s and large capacity magazines are designed to kill lots of people.
You say Cuomo's bill confiscates guns? Source, please?
It is obvious that YOU have not read Cuomo's bill. It does not call for the confiscation of ANY weapons! He considered putting it on the table but did not do so.
Here's what the The Atlantic Wire had to say, "Cuomo, who pledged in his State of the State last week to pass the toughest gun restrictions in the nation, has, meanwhile, made it clear in private that he isn’t interested in trying to “confiscate’’ the million-plus military-style assault rifles believed to be legally possessed by New Yorkers — despite his controversial suggestion a few weeks ago that such a possibility was on the table." http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/what-andrew-cuomos-gun-control-bill-looks/60971/
Quoting one anecdotal story about the UK being civilized? Are you serious? The UK (plus Whales) homicide by firearm rate was 0.07 deaths per 100,000 residents. The rate for the good old US of A? 2.97 http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list Gee, maybe better gun control reduces gun deaths. Yuh think?
Your last 2 paragraphs are unworthy of a response. Your other paragraphs confirm my contention that the NRA's fear tactics have succeeded with many people.
The only way you can walk into a gun store and buy an AR15 (semi automatic) is if you already have a license which takes weeks or months to get,and only IF your local police chief deems you fit. That is, if you are a law abiding citizen, the bad guys are not following the rules. 300 Million guns in private hands in the USA. Want to protect your babies? We do more to guard our money than we do to protect our kids. Easy to dismiss the NRA's proposal but I do not see any better short or even long term solution.
wrhoffman,
Agreed. We value protecting money more than kids.
But even though the NRA opposes background checks you still don't feel there is a better solution? The NRA opposes any kind of restrictions on anybody possessing an assault rifles with 30 round clips and you're comfortable with that?
Yes, we oppose that, and yes, we are comfortable with that. The right to self defense is not based on what YOU are comfortable with.
If YOU are uncomfortable with guns, then do not own one.
Like most hysterical anti gun types, you are raving about an incident that is actually quite rare. What we do not hear you raving about is the much larger number of children that are beaten to death every year by fists, hands and feet. Instead, you would rather create more potential victims for the violent types in our society.
Some of us would prefer not to be beaten, stabbed, clubbed or otherwise murdered while you prance around thinking it is oh so much safer because you limited gun ownership.
History,
How come you didn't supply a link to your outrageous claim that the NY bill confiscates guns? Because it's BS. You made a statement that was completely false and respond by saying you see nothing wrong with selling assault rifles to people with absolutely no background checks.
We are not talking about other methods of killing anyone, stay on topic by discussing guns. When is it ever going to become clear to you that the reasonable gun control policies proposed so far do NOT limit gun ownership except for guns intended to kill vast numbers of human beings in a very short time. Hunting rifles and pistols designed for self defense have never been a part of the discussion on gun control. Most rational people do not feel a need to own an assault weapon.
I do own a gun. As a matter of fact, having a machine gun and an assault rifle by my side while prancing around for one year of my life was essential for my survival.
History,
You continue to ignore my challenge to your BS statement about the NY bill CONFISCATING weapons. Why won't you respond to that? 7 round magazines and 10 round magazines have nothing to do with confiscation.
Lack of knowledge? What skin do you have in the game of using assault weapons in a life or death situation? I posted mine.
"gun hater sloganeering"? When did I say I hated guns? In fact, if you read what I posted, I own a gun. I am in favor of gun CONTROL. As stated earlier, I see the legitimate use of hunting rifles and pistols for self defense, remember?
Are you reading what I am saying or just responding with the typical NRA's leaderships agenda? I say leadership, because studies have shown that the majority of NRA members are reasonable people who favor at least some form of gun control. Not the leadership- they are way outside the norm because their income is based on promoting gun use.
I see you are finally getting it. Congrats. Now let's see if you can get this:
When someone in NY already owns a gun with a magazine with over 7 round capacity, they cannot sell it within NY, can they? (remember, folks like YOU would like this sort of law everywhere, no NEED for more than that)
So where do those guns go? Gun heaven? They would need to be destroyed. That is in effect confiscation.
You keep using the term "assault weapon". That was a term manufactured prior to the 94 AWB. There is, in fact, no such weapon in existence. But it sounds good to the anti gun crowd. The AR15 type weapons you are talking about are now known as "modern sporting rifles". About 10 million are in existence.
You stated you can agree to the legitimate use of pistols for self defense. However, many 1911's are semi automatic pistols that use 8 round magazines and run afoul of the NY law, and Diane Feinsteins proposed bill.
Frankly, you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to this subject.
In a discussion, when one person says the other doesn't know what they are talking about it is clear it's time to end it. I'll sum up my points of view and I'm sure you'll want to do the same.
When NRA field field representative Richard D'Aluoro
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/07/nra_representative_with_alleged_history_of_abuse_barred_from_owning_guns/
has his 39 guns taken away because he threatens his ex wife, THAT'S confiscation. The definition you give of NY guns being destroyed isn't as clear to me- a simple matter of semantics. But the use of the term "modern sporting rifles" is truly laughable. None of my hunter friends would use a Bushmaster to get their deer, they would be embarassed to do so. It in no way qualifies as a "sporting" instrument unless you consider slaying large numbers of human beings sport. That is what those weapons, based on the M16, were designed for.
But let's look at the big picture. If gun control measures fail, which is likely because of Republican beliefs and the NRAs cash, people like yourself will be pleased that they can continue to purchase more assault weapons with no restrictions. The down side is that Americans will be less safe and more mass slayings will take place. If gun laws are enacted, the down side is that your group will feel as though their "rights" have been trampled and it is truly the beginning of the nanny state.
You are probably upset that I said Americans will be less safe. A recent study cited in the March 7th edition of USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/
concludes that states with more gun laws have less violence. Duh.
Which America would you rather live in?