E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAs Vice President Joe Biden prepares to present sweeping gun control proposals, residents of Newtown are speaking out. Meanwhile, investigators continue to examine what triggered Adam Lanza's rage. NBC's Michael Isikoff reports.
NEWTOWN, Conn. – Police Chief Michael Kehoe has a message for the White House: “Ban assault weapons, restrict those magazines that have so many bullets in them, shore up any loopholes in our criminal background checks,” he said in an exclusive interview with NBC News.
As Vice President Joe Biden prepares to present his gun violence proposals to the White House this week, the residents of Newtown — including first responders and some families of the victims — are speaking out on gun policy for the first time.
Few have a more personal connection to the issue than Kehoe: He was one of the first on the scene at the Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14 after reports came in of a shooting. He says he’s still haunted by flashbacks of what he witnessed when he entered the school from the rear -- the eerie silence in the hallways, the smell of burnt gunpowder and then the bodies of dead children on the floor of the classrooms.
“I was sickened. I was angry,” he said. “It was something I never could have imagined could have happened in any school in Newtown.”
But as a veteran law enforcement officer, what was most striking to Kehoe was that the gunman, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, had heavier firepower than Kehoe and his officers. The police had Glock pistols with 14-round magazines; Lanza had a Bushmaster assault-style rifle, two handguns and multiple 30-round magazines that allowed him to squeeze off an estimated 150 shots.
Although it’s still not clear if Lanza ever fired at responding officers — Kehoe thinks he took his own life when he heard the police sirens — the disproportionate balance in firepower bothers him.
/
Newtown, Conn., Police Chief Michael Kehoe at a news briefing on Jan. 2.
“We never like to think we’re going to be outgunned in any situation we’re dealing with," he said. “We do a good job of securing dynamite in our society. … (Assault rifles) are another form of dynamite. … I think they should ban them.”
Kehoe’s comments come as a new grassroots group — called Sandy Hook Promise — is planning a news conference Monday in which residents of Newtown and some of the victims’ families plan to call for a “national conversation” on gun violence, mental health and school safety. The goal: to prevent “similar tragedies from ever taking place again.”
But there is far from unanimity about what should be done about guns.
Marie-Claude Duytschaever, the grandmother of 6-year-old Noah Pozner, the youngest victim that day, said she, too, wants a ban on assault rifles.
“Noah had the right to go to school safely,” she said. “He had the right to live, to have a job and a normal life. I think that’s more important than to have a gun that can obliterate a whole room in seconds.”
Sandy Hook Promise group will not call for specific gun control measures at Monday’s press conference and a few have expressed concerns that the White House is moving too rapidly with its proposals — and without seeking input from the families of the victims of Newtown.
Vice President Joe Biden will present his task force's gun policy recommendations this week – among them, most likely, to reinstate the assault weapons ban. NBC's Peter Alexander reports.
The national headquarters of the National Shooting Sports Foundation — the trade association and lobbying arm of gun manufacturers — is just down the road from the Sandy Hook Elementary School. Its representatives met with Biden’s task force last week, and this week it will hold its annual SHOT SHOW in Las Vegas, an event at which major gun makers get to exhibit their wares.
The group didn’t respond to requests for comment. But last week it posted this statement on its website: “Semi-automatic firearms are now the most popular type of firearm in America and are used for a wide variety of legitimate sporting purposes, including hunting, small game control, target shooting and personal defense. They should not be banned.”
It is not clear whether Biden will include a ban on assault weapons in the proposals he submits this week. Any effort to ban the rapid-fire rifles in the United States is expected to face tough opposition in Congress.
More from Open Channel:
- 'Zero Dark Thirty,' the CIA and 'enhanced interrogation techniques'
- Exclusive: DEA agents arranged prostitute for Secret Service agent
- Rossen Reports: Metal water bottles can endanger kids
Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns.
Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.
How many people make up "a militia ?
My friend and I formed a well regulated militia. I let him be in charge, cause he has a current badge. I'm second in command.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people.... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.... " --George Mason
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.
Sign this petition on https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/enact-legislation-will-provide-mental-health-assessments-people-currently-owning-guns/ZDmYD9M1
Enact legislation that will provide mental health assessments for people currently owning guns who may be having mental health issues. While background checks need to be mandatory for all purchasers we need a mechanism to address the problem of current gun owners or people residing with them who may have slipped into mental illness.
There should be a way for family, law enforcement, neighbors, and other concerned citizens to request an evaluation. If the person is found to be mentally ill by a competent mental health professional, a legal hearing should commence to adjudicate the removal of the guns and that name be placed on the registry to prevent further purchases.
Great idea @sea2see!
There are several people on this board that definitely need re-checks.
Speed limits don't prevent all accidents...but we have them.
Tax laws don't stop all tax cheats...but we have them.
Libel and slander laws don't prevent people from saying damaging things about others...but we have them.
We have laws and regulations to establish boundaries on our freedoms in order to insure a civilized society.
The opposition to reasonable boundaries on guns,ammunition,ownership (not for the mentally ill) is a contributory factor to the increased mayhem we have experienced in our public places over the past 50 years.
Holding extreme and selfish positions on guns will,I believe,fundamentally hurt conservatives in the majority of elections in the future...and.... Thank goodness that in a civilized democracy, where change is brought about by voting and not by threatening other with guns...... we have them.
The U.S. is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic that uses a democratic process to choose its representatives in high offices.
Note that in a Constitutional Republic the Constitution is the highest law. We can only take away someones rights if that person has committed an act to warrant taking away rights.
We also have regulations against killing people. but some still do. Banning guns won't stop that.
Well,after 2014, a majority of those Representatives in both Houses are going to be Democrats. When that happens, the Constitutional Republic will begin to make progress on the gun issue..... and the knucledraggers in the South and the yokel states, will probably do their best ,violent imitation of armed resistance to laws they oppose. The traitorous Confederates tried this over other issues in 1860.That turned out real well... didin't it?
and BTW tumbleweed...nobody wants to ban guns...just the semiautomatic killing sticks and ammo clips that are used in mass murders....
Less than 3% of homicides in the U.S. are committed using a semi automatic type rifle and most of those are justifiable homicides where law enforcement was the shooter. Look it up on the Uniform Crime Report.
earsport: THAT'S A LIE. Many are advocating the ban of all guns. You may THINK you're important enough to speak for everyone, but that's just your fantasy.
And: NO ONE WAS KILLED AT SANDY HOOK WITH A RIFLE.
@TONY- If you came to a mans door and spoke to him the way you speak here online do you expect he would invite you in to share his dinner or would you expect a somewhat different reaction?
Well yeah, banning assault weapons is just common sense. They have zero use for the general public and crime was down when the ban was implemented. Easy choice.
You are just talking nonsense Bill. Gun crimes rose slightly during the Clinton assault weapons ban, and after they have dropped steadily to low late 1960s murder numbers.
Rifles accounted for 346 murders in 2011, of those 346 about 1/3 were assault rifles. Makes real sense to target the least used weapons in murders for a ban. Go do your homework and look at the FBIs own stats, it may surprise you, or you might not care. Too many people like you in our nation, this will change.
More murders each from bats, hands, feet and pipes then assault rifles. Just illogical and unintelligent you are.
You are wrong Bill. Crime continued to fall at the same average rate as it did before the ban showing that the ban had no net effect on violent crime.
Assault rifles are already VERY hard to get and VERY expensive. VERY strict regulations were placed on them in 1934.
there is no evidence to suggest that.....
No gun ban is going to happen. Maybe a few new regulations will pass, maybe some more money will be put toward gun control studies, but no actual gun ban is going to happen. Not enough votes in congress, and the president cannot use executive powers as loudmouth Biden claims. I wonder if after this pathetic, un-American and impotent gun grab fails if most on the left will finally realize Obama is a fraud?
It's both sad and comical to see the gungrabbers go crazy on this, but it will be sweet justice to know after this failed push that millions upon millions of more guns were put into the hands of Americans because of this coup against the 2nd amendment. Almost worth the temporary rise in ammo prices.
OK....now explain to me all the guns you consider assault weapons and then explain how banning these weapons would have stopped any of these tragedies.
In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime.
Many things cause more death than guns. Like, but not limited to automobiles, and swimming pools. I'll NOT give up my right to own them, either.
Technically driving is a privilege.
Sorry. Driving may be a privilege. Ownership is NOT. I only know of one state, (California), where automobile registration in mandatory.
Less than 3% of homicides in the U.S. are committed using a semi automatic type rifle and most of those are justifiable homicides where law enforcement was the shooter. Look it up on the Uniform Crime Report.
According to John Chapman an expert in defensive tactics who trains military, law enforcement and civilians the AR-15 chambered in 5.56mm NATO is Ideal for home defense as it is easy to point, has low recoil and is easy to train with. The 5.56mm round is less likely to over penetrate or pass through walls with enough energy left to seriously injure anyone on the other side unlike 00 buck from a standard shotgun.
Any restriction on any gun is a chip against the 2nd Amendment and must be fought with every once of strenght. Hitler took away guns and then took away the peoples freedom. Obama was elected Presient not King. "From our Cold Dead Hands" says it all
Taking Guns awway from Law Abiding Citizens worked for Hitler. It will not work for Obama
I have a question for the Chief? What's an assault weapon?
The most dangerous weapon in the country is the automobile. It not only accidentally kills, it also is used almost every day by murderers. When you have this weapon at home, no law says you must have it locked up. No law, (except California), says you must have it registered. You MAY carry this weapon ANYWHERE in the country, (so long as it doesn't touch a public highway), without ANY permit.
Banning the automobile won't help, because horses can also be dangerous.
To both sides of this debate:
Be very careful, this could touch off a violent revolution in this country; with everyone involved.
Does either side really want violence? Do anti's really think that they will be safe if an armed conflict arises to take guns? Do pro's think that they will be any safer?
I am not a gun owner, nor do I have political affiliation, nor a NRA member.
Limiting guns or ammo is NOT the answer.
Perhaps, when someone tries to buy a gun and is turned down, LE should visit them right away to see why they are trying to get one. If they try again to get one right away, arrest them to see what they are up to because they (buyer) knew they can't have one right then. It would depend if they were banned for life or just temp for some reason.
Every gun purchase should require reasonable background checks.
Taxing the heck out of ammo or gun purchases is NOT the way to go; its discriminatory.
A background check will get your name on a "list". Then a newspaper can publish your name and address.
I think that newspaper should be shut down for that stupid move.
It was illegal to steal his mother's guns,
It was illegal to shoot his mother in the face,
It was illegal to steal his mother's car,
It was illegal to take the guns to school,
It was illegal to force his way on to school property,
It was illegal to shoot any one.
We don't need more Legal laws which the mentally insane and criminals don't give a @!$%# about.
I hope people take a serious look at the information I have provided on this thread. It may cause some to reconsider their position on this subject matter when they consider the facts.
Not to mention, we here in Connecticut already follow an assault weapons ban...
@Ray Kane- This is the problem with all the gun grabbers... they don't seem to grasp that 10000 new laws against gun ownership will NOT matter a whit to someone bent on mayhem, mischief, or murder. The only people affected by new laws are the law abiding citizens that already OBEY the law!
I wish people would reflect more BEFORE they speak (or worse, before they ACT)!
Name one time an assault weapon was used for "good" in normal, every day society.......
So by this logic.....given the fact we imprison people (or even put them to death, in some states) for things like murder and murder still exists every day; why even bother having those laws?
Mine protects my house...that's enough to justify them. Considering they are used in less than 1/10 of 1% of crime, they are justified as a legitimate tool for society.
Andy,
So you are saying you have to have an assault weapon to "protect your house"?? Give me a break....we don't live in Yemen for God's sake.
Assault weapons are not available at any gun shop, sporting goods store, pawn shop or online.
@Dr. Logic-
"So by this logic.....given the fact we imprison people (or even put them to death, in some states) for things like murder and murder still exists every day; why even bother having those laws?"
You're making a huge leap of illogic. I'm not saying this at all. I'm merely observing that you can make laws forever, outlawing whatever you want, and those reprobates in society that do not feel bound by them, will ignore them anyway. Laws exist for the vast majority of us who abide by them. If you think that more laws is the answer to gun violence, you are seriously kidding yourself...
ANother great example where the 1% of instances create such a stir that it effects the entire nation. Ridiculous. Personal responsibility people.
An opportunistic attack on the second amendment.
You don't even know what the legislation is yet....and already you deem it "an attack on the second amendment"?
Any further restrictions are an attack. I am already infringed. I should be less infringed, not more.
The issue of gun control is complex. The debate so far has been characterised by simplistic views from both sides. But the NRA takes the cake for the dumbest comments, which is a bit of a worry. See this satirical piece on the NRA's views:
Not complex. Very simple.
Gun control in illegal.
Top Cop or PC bottom feeder, the school shooter was MENTALLY ILL, we as a nation should be working on a way to help the ill and not harass innocent people who simple wish to enjoy owning,shooting and having legally purchased firarms!
The school shooter did not use an assault weapon,he used normal firearms, he broke the law ,he murdered, the rest of use do not !
Thanks to the Government backed WAR on crime,drugs,terrorism and Profit my nation is a dangerous place and being armed is the smart,safest and best way to be, only the dumb believe a gun free sign or a home alarm system is any type of protection!
The Ban on booze caused thousands to die and didn't work, America= Freedoms, Gun Bans=More Crime
The irony here is that some of the pro-gun folks are advocating that a civilian militia shooting whom they determine to be law breakers are able to shoot people at will. At what point does this civilian militia become liable for "jumping the gun" (pun intended) and shooting another civilian too soon?
The big problem is the pro-gun complete resistance to doing something....ANYTHING...regarding safety of firearms in our civil society does NOT equal freedom. Quite the contrary; people living in constant fear that any nutcase they come across has a gun or that they could be victim to some vigilante's gunfire is hardly a free society.