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:
So now deranged people who murder for firearms can kill more slowly?
This is brilliant solution! NOT!
Why isn't the social issue addressed? One can use cars, tools, IED, natural gas, all kinds of things to kill unsuspecting citizens. We need to address the fabric of our society and the needs of its citizens.
Curtailing legal rights is not the solution.
This is a patently ridiculous argument. Cars, tools, etc. original intent is NOT to kill another living thing.....that IS what a gun is manufactured for.
Two things.....first, that exactly IS what is being established....what is legal. Second, what exactly IS the solution from your perspective?
The energy of a car is designed to propel a vehicle from one point to another just as the a gun is designed to propel an object (bullet) at another object. The choice of object is ultimately up to the end user in either case as with any tool. The purpose of cleaning supplies is to clean your house but I sure could make one hell of a poisonous gas by combining some those together....the point is that anything in the hands of the psychotic or whatever you deem those hell bent on going on a murderous rampage is deadly. But statistically speaking you're trying to empty an ocean with a thimble by attacking assault rifles in order to lower gun violence which is ridiculous anyway since the real concern should be violence in general. Enforce the laws we have and look at the issues that are causing the degradation of society.....guns are not causing the degradation of society however the degradation of society is causing more violence and more gun violence.
Doctor Logic,
How exactly will an additional law that tells someone to do something prevent these tragedies? Murder is already illegal in every state!
Change....
Right.....but the intent of cleaning products is to clean. The intent of a car is transportation.
OK...you're probably right. However, just because it is a small step (thank you for admitting that this isn't going to take all your guns).....as a matter of fact, if we had 1000 thimbles, we'd empty it 1000 times as fast!
Exactly. This is NOT a gun issue, it is a mental-health issue. Guns are just a more efficent way to get the job done. Let's focuse on WHY these people are killing, instead of HOW they are killing.
Wombat....
What if the reason they are killing is because they have access to firearms? For example, there is no evidence to support the notion that Adam Lanza would've gone out and got weapons on his own if they weren't in his house. He might have.....it is impossible to say. What is NOT impossible to say is that if he had a more difficult time getting his hands on guns in the first place, perhaps his mania would've been turned elsewhere.
The sheer notion that we need to accept these mass killings as part of society until we "solve mental illness" is ridiculous.
Whoa! I never said to accept mass killings, I said the focus should be on mental health. We are paying the price for gutting programs in almost every state that would have identified people at risk & provided treatment for them.
I agree 100% with your statement about access; this mother should have never left a firearm where this child had easy access to it. Knowing her son she shoukld have at least invested in a gun case, even better store thge weapons somewhere else.
I don't think that is your intent. Plus, I also agree that more should be done with mental health....but to NOT do anything about these weapons or how they're obtained is implicitly saying we should accept mass killings, given we're not doing anything about it.
The far right who is often the chorus talking about "mental health" are also the same folks who refuse to insure the millions of people who have physical health problems that can be seen......I have a REALLY hard time believing that they are going to willing to invest in folks who have problems that are NOT able to be seen.
If thats the case would not the other millions with firearm access be shooting up the schools?
You have to find out what is different about people who do this,unfortunately the investigations and information only seem to be concerned with what type weapon he used and magazine size.
We know more about his gun than we do about him,thats a pretty shallow investigation of a personality disorder.
Doctor Logic,
There is no evidence to prove that if Adam Lanza had not had access to guns he wouldn't have used another means even more devastating! He was internet savvy and it's not hard to find how to make all sorts of things that could have been equally if not more devastating than the guns he used,
If the administration wants open discussions about the issues then why are all of these discussions occurring behind close doors? We had 24 hour coverage of the tragedy in Newton and we have 24 hour coverage of sporting events why aren't the doors open and the cameras rolling for all of us to witness the discussions. Then why not put out a an online survey for a 2 week to 1 month period asking direct questions with multiple choice answers to gauge as many peoples opinion on what should be done.
In reality each community should be left to come up with there own solution. What works for one community may not be the best answer for other communities. We do not need more federal government oversight. Each community can decide if they want to enact additional gun laws. There have been people who accuse the NRA of wanting to go wild wild west style and give everyone guns. I'm not saying that putting armed guards at schools is the right answer, but the argument that most of these politicians children have armed guards at their schools does give some merit to that argument. I'm not saying to give everyone guns, but in referring to the wild wild west recall that some towns it was illegal to have your firearm inside of town limits.
john...
Let's take an extreme......let's say the only weapons that were allowed were front end loaded muskets.....would Lanza have killed as many kids as he did on that horrible day? The obvious answer is no.
Also, a gun has a handful of moving parts that operate the same way each and every time, while a human being has billions of synapses firing at different times all making that individual unique. It is a false equivalency to compare how a gun works and how the human brain works.
The obvious answer is not NO.In colonial times after you got your one shot,you went to work with your hatchet.
Could you or me or anybody kill 20 unarmed children with a hatchet,you bet we could,no sweat.
If you want to do the deed,it will be done.
The gun did not make him do it.
That's a disturbing comment.
If it is just as easy to kill with one shot and a hatchet....why do we even bother with assault weapons? As a matter of fact, you are making the argument that we DON'T need guns at all....all we need is a hatchet in our holster.
This is a really, really stupid conversation.
You were the one who started with the muskets,as if there were no mass massacres in colonial times.
The chief is entirely correct in pointing out that allowing these sorts of weapons presents a real hazard to the legitimate law enforcement personnel who police our communities in the United States. Watch the video of the California bank robbers who terrorized a community a few years ago who had more fire-power on them than the police did. The main point of a lot of these gun nuts is that they are anarchists who do not want anything known as a legitimate policing authority authorized by "We, The People" to keep peace and order in our communities. They refuse to understand the concept of authority unless they themselves are the ones exercising it, in which case the rest of us should obey them without question. (Look at all the gangs in the U.S. who refer to themselves as "militias" and give themselves all sorts of military- or police-sounding titles that are supposed to sound authentic. The Ladies' Garden Club now has a "unit captain," a "colonel," and a "sergeant at arms.")
So the fact that semi-automatics are "popular" with people who like to play shooting sports is an excuse for keeping legal a machine that poses obvious risks to the health and safety of the general public. Why can't these people find another way to have fun? They can play baseball or take up gourmet cooking, play checkers, or "shoot" using a camera instead of an automatic.
You miss the whole point..The 2nd is to protect US from a tyrannical government or its agents(hmm, police?) The California shoot out taught the state one thing..Arm your cops with the equipment equal to or better than the thugs..In that shoot out the cops had to go to a sporting goods store and BORROW AR-15's from the owner who also GAVE them ammo. Now the California cops carry AR-15's in their patrol cars. EXCUSE???. We don't need an excuse....It is GUARANTEED BY THE 2ND...IS IT NOT. Next time you have a home invasion...try this...cook the thug a gourmet meal, or play checkers with him, or better still...ask to take his picture..you can take his photo while he rapes your wife and daughter...Get real...Get a life and put the bong down.
FYI, the 2nd does not mention target shooting or hunting does it...It is to protect us from a tyrannical government..Power to the people...ever hear that before.
You miss the entire point of the 2nd Amendment, which was to address the problem of repelling a foreign invasion bent on destroying the newborn U.S. Government at a time when there was no standing army and every farmer had a musket or similar. The "tyrannical government" rhetoric is always spewed by the dupes who are afraid that the legitimately elected government (the one brought to us by that funny "of the People, By the People, and For the People" thing) might tell them "no" about something. The 2nd Amendment wasn't intended as a protection for these spoiled brats and anarchists who are offended that they aren't allowed to interfere with or mistreat their neighbors. They use the word "tyranny" when the government acts to protect the rights of others whom they want to dominate.
In this particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
You will be surprised what small arms in the hands of 10 million Americans will have on our platoons. Some of the people with small arms will be ex military who is capable of flying a f 16 or a m1 Abrams tank. Ban our 2nd amendment rights and you will get the mother of all civil wars such as the world has never seen before. We will protect our Constitution to the end.
ii305....
What about other people's Constitutional right to persue life and happiness? If guns are infringing on their rights, are YOU not the ones who are destroying the Constitution?
Really? So you're saying that simple restrictions on the size of magazines or a national registry for guns will lead to the "mother of all civil war that the world has never seen before"? You're worried about slight restrictions in the interests of public safety while we actually HAD a civil war in our history regarding the ability of people to own other human beings.
Slightly hyperbolic, wouldn't you say?!?!
ii30511: Nonsense. These people would not be "protecting the constitution". They would be attempting to destroy the freedom of the rest of their fellow Americans and destroy the very country they are supposed to love. What you are describing is a traitor, and you are making it sound like our military is infested with traitors. There are plenty of uniformed types where I work. Should I question everyone in a uniform or fatiques as to their loyalty to the U.S.?
It would show unreasonable paranoia to be fearful of a gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen, unless of course you intend to give him/her reason to use it.
If that is your fear than feel free to move to Mexico where it is illegal for common citizens to possess firearms.
Dow...
You are right, 99% of gun owners are legitimate and law abiding. The problem is, the 1% that are not wind up killing thousands of people each year with them. After all....that is what a gun is intended for.
If the 99% of responsible gun owners would recognize that the very items they possess are executing innocent people, including children, across the country...maybe we could have a rational dialogue so YOUR rights are protected as law abiding gun owners, but, we take steps toward protecting the innocent civilians in this country.
It is completely counter productive that the loudest gun owners are the crazies who say that ANY safety measures are infrigement on our 2nd Amendment rights....I then have very little sympathy for the gun owners who choose to be silent and let the crazies speak for them.
DocL- You are falling for a gun control myth. Please go through the 10 posts that breafly explain the myths of gun control as researched by Duke U.
How would anyone know that another person is a "law abiding citizen" until it's too late? Use the words "unreasonable" and "paranoia" prudently. And remember that we have a demographically diverse country in which some citizens are wary of others based only on bodily appearance. Guns leave too much discretion in the hands of the individual. Look at all of these people being shot in ordinary situations and the shooter tells some story about how he "thought" the person he shot "might" do something, or "appeared" to "have something in his hand," or didn't stop when I approached him on the street," etc. What is to stop some moron who wants to play cop and shoots anyone who won't play with him?
I own a few guns not many but a few for different purposes. I have yet to see one of them go out and harm anyone.
Pattie- You too are falling prey to myths propagated by the main stream media.
You have no more reason to fear a gun than you do to fear a person because of skin color.
Doctor Logic
By your argument we should most definitely outlaw knives, cars, baseball bats and many other tools/objects....since we are holding the many responsible for the action of the few. Mass murders are horrible but so is any murder and unless you can get all of the criminals to turn in their guns you're going to eliminate less than 100 deaths a year (rounding up there if you look at the last several years) and leave about 10,000 to 11,000 deaths....
And again I ask anyone in favor of more gun control.....why are these meetings behind closed doors? Why are we not seeing any more information regarding the incident that caused this stir? Why is the only thing they are announcing or addressing that they are going to limit is guns?
These discussions should be televised and a website for feedback setup...if they really care what we the people think should be done.
I don't think so at all. We all have to deal with reality here, and a lot of what is being said in "the main stream media" is just that. I think the biggest myth is the one being spread by the gun nuts--that we have such a huge criminal element that we all need to stay up all night, every night, in wait of somebody trying to break into our homes. It's paranoia to an exponential degree. Who are all these terrible people whom we need to fear so much? I've always lived in urban areas, too. Yes, there is crime, as there is in every society. And we are talking merely about banning rapid-fire weapons capable of spewing out hundreds of rounds in a very small time, not having a six-shooter in your nightstand.
Okay ... anybody with a specific goal in mind ... lets say some sort of criminal activity ... knowing that they will be facing competition ... lets say law enforcement officials ... will be thinking about an "edge." Knowing that initial police response will be from on duty officers who carry standard side arms (with high capacity magazines), then you make sure your "edge" is better than theirs. The second responders will come armed to the teeth with all sorts of assault weapons (with high capacity magazines) and a whole host of other weapons of "mass destruction." Even if the United States were to "outlaw" all firearms, there is not a law enforcement agency in this country that would even consider giving up their guns. So Mr. Police Chief, how about equipping your standard patrol officers with military style uniforms, equipment and weapons ... then you will have the "edge."
I find it interesting that the Newtown police chief is unaware that so called 'ASSAULT WEAPONS' are already banned in the State of Connecticut. US Senator Chris Murphy is in the same boat. NONE of the weapons used were assault weapons, as none of them could fire full auto. As the Bushmaster was legally owned, in Connecticut, by one of the victims, it isn't an 'ASSAULT WEAPON'!
Splitting hairs. It is not just the assault weapons it is also the large magazines. The bushmaster and similar rifles and pistols must be banned. These are the weapons and clips that cause mass casualties. Also, we need to do a better job of registration, mental illness screening and protecting sites that normally draw in mass shooters. We must attach the problem on all fronts.
Actually....he is "aware" of this and has spoken regarding it. The discussion is whether or not a national ban would be more effective. Right now, there is a patchwork of states that have the ban...making it easy for people to buy them. Heck, the Connecticut "ban" if you want to call it that actually absolves those who are selling them at gun shows because the seller is based outside the state.
DoctorLogic- Please go back and read all of my posts. If it is information you seek I have provided a great deal of it. Start on page 2.
It's amazing the misunderstanding about assault rifles. Why are they called assault rifles? Any weapon used in a crime is an asasult weapon. Just because it looks different. I can buy a semi-automitic hunting rifle with a 20 or 30 shot clip. This is not considered an assault weapon. I for one do not want to give up my constitutional rights. The left wing/liberals want to take our rights away one at a time. They do not care about the constitution. The forefathers put this in the constitution to protect us from a tyrannical government. The type that the liberals want to give us. Also, statistics show that there are more people are murdered with about a dozen different types of weapons, than with the so called assault weapons. More people are killed with a bat or hammer or with handguns. You are barking up the wrong tree.
Hey Chief Kehoe.....the reason you have a job...is that crooks don't obey laws....Whatcha afraid of...the law abiding citizen. I hear Chicago has some openings and with your kind of thinking you would fit right in..Get real. If you are that stupid you need to find another kind of job.
Sorry Brian but LIBERALS call it progress. The VALUES which once bonded us as human beings, have been replaced by a "new norm", insensitivity and entitlement. Want to see the face of the next mass murderer?
Just look around you, that person is self absorbed and oblivious to others around them. Either listening to an IPOD, or on a cellphone, and cutting you off in traffic because THEIR time is more important, and you are merely in THEIR way.
Make no mistake, liberals do not care about the children who were killed in Newtown, liberals murder a million a year at abortion clinics and say its "their right", this is simply an attempt to advance liberal agenda and "take out the NRA", who contributes to conservatives.
What a LYING, DECEITFUL HYPOCRITICAL COWARD. He wants to ban certain firearms and take the right for law-abiding, taxpaying citizens that pay his pathetic existence to protect themselves, but wants to retain his right as a policeman to carry, own and possess the very same weapons he doesn't want you to have. I guess the very second he retires he will turn ALL HIS FIREARMS over to the state won't he? People like this literally make me vomit. The only way to enact a ban on semi-automatic weapons is to confiscate every last one of them in the entire nation (literally, physically and logistically impossible). Then let's have all the cops go back to carrying revolvers. Fair?
So you disrespect cops. What legitimate authority DO you respect? Any at all, or are you an anarchist? Calling this police chief a coward is ridiculous to the extreme. Calling him a liar is ridiculous to the extreme. You sound like a gang member who wants to be able to commit crimes without anyone coming after you.
You're an idiot.
You're a moron. And, you are probably a member of one of those white criminal gangs like "Christian Identity" or that ROHOWA bunch of toy soldiers. Stop watching Hollywood movies, get your tatoos removed, learn to respect other people, and go cuss out your parents for the miserable job they did.
All law enforcement in this country supports assault weapons and large magazine clip bans. It endangers the police officers. I support law enforcement.
mark- I did not know that you speak for all LEO's. Where did you get that info or did you just make it up?
2 of my neighbors are law enforcement officers and both of them think a ban is ridiculous.
Oh yeah and they say that their chiefs think a ban is ridiculous too!
It saddens me to know a police chief has no more common sense than the rest of the white house. it not the guns fault. so what do away with the 30 round clips then they have to reload twice to kill as many people, and guns dont reload themselves. this is a people problem not a gun problem, we have taken prayer out of school. We say we teach in school but we dont teach what is right and what is wrong.
The government has put their socialist spin on this heated issue. They will pass, ban or otherwise try to take away the rights of the non-criminal element in this country so we can sit behing closed doors and fear everything. You want to really make this country a safer place, get rid of the crap in the white house.
and to be honest at 20-25 yard i had rather face an assault rife than a shot gun with buck shot
You appear to know nothing about guns.
Do you realize how ridiculous this statement is?? The same people who are backing the statement, "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" are the same ones who supposedly give a **** about God and the Bible. Sorry Earl, that statement alone defies everything in the New Testament of the Bible......so you want to pray in school.....about what?
What the **** is that looney statement about?
no i just own more than the average Bass Pro shop
Check out the photo of pellet spread at 25 yards:
http://www.realpolice.net/forums/firearms-4/27706-shotgun-spread-patterns-pics.html
you all must be left wing nuts and i noticed all the shootings were in Blue states, that just goes to show your all ready crazy
Right Earl......all shootings are in blue states. (severe sarcasm)
Why bother making ludicrous statements like that?
Earl, typical Republican response; when losing an argument, post an insult.
Earl. Is Virginia Tech in a blue state?
Police Chief is a political job,he is appointed by politicians,he will say what they want him to say.To do otherwise would be damaging to his career.
It sure would have been nice to have an armed person in that school to stop the killing while they waited for the undergunned chief to arrive and draw chalk lines around the bodies.
When seconds count,the chief is minutes away.
What on earth does an ordinary citizen need an assault gun with a 30 round clip for?
For.......um........well......let me see.....well if you lo........hmmmmm....2nd AMENDMENT, 2nd AMENDMENT!!!
Pretty much sums up every discussion that is had. It always comes down to the slippery slope nonsense to tyrannical government. (sigh)
30 round clip is not needed, but assault guns have been banned for years. NONE of the guns used in these mass shootings were "assault rifles". They looked like the big bad military weapons, but they weren't.
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.
Dow....
THANK YOU! I hope you realize you are making the argument FOR gun control! By citing the reasoning you've given, you are therefore saying that there are other guns that are NOT good for home protection and therefore should be controlled.
Personally, I couldn't care less about which guns do and do not qualify as assault weapons....I'd rather focus on their ability; as you've pointed out.
Kennyboys
What is your definition of an assault gun?
Dow, I Googled John Chapman and couldn't find any reference to him as an expert in defensive tactics.
Docotr Logic,
Dow....
THANK YOU! I hope you realize you are making the argument FOR gun control! By citing the reasoning you've given, you are therefore saying that there are other guns that are NOT good for home protection and therefore should be controlled.
Personally, I couldn't care less about which guns do and do not qualify as assault weapons....I'd rather focus on their ability; as you've pointed out.
The primary weapon they are focused on is the bushmaster AR-15 type weapon that's what started this whole thing and it use the round that dow refers too...so the ban directly impacts these weapons and much more is at stake than home defense
golf- John Chapman is the founder and director of LMS Defense.
Golf: It is a weapon that can switch from semi-automatic to fully-automatic. All the legal guns used were semi-automatic because fully-automatic has been outlawed for years. If you know what a Ruger 1022 is, you would also know you can buy all the accessories needed to make it look like a military assault rifle. But in the end it's a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle, NOT an assault rifle.
Yearly mental health screening for all gun owners fully paid for by the gun owner, $1,000.00 yearly permit for each each firearm, limit three firearms. 1 six round handgun, 1 single shot rifle, 1 single shot shot gun, there you have your right to bear arms.Forgot to mention $100.00 per round ammo tax.
Garbman- Now you want to violate the 4th Amendment with unwarranted exams and searches. Than subject a portion of the population with unreasonable taxation without representation. That is just discriminatory.
garbman,
should be a tax on you of $1000.00 per breath
Dow there is no violation of the 4th amendment. Unwarranted exams is not part of the 4th Amendment. No exams are needed at all unless you want a gun permit.
The exam would be an unwarranted violation of my person therefor a violation of the 4th.
Your not required to take an exam. You opt to take the exam. No violation.
The main problem with gun-control laws is that they don’t work. Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck, a political liberal and one-time supporter of gun-control laws, has been studying guns and their effect on violence and crime since 1976. What he’s found is that gun-control laws have no net effect on violence or crime rates, because the benefits of widespread gun ownership cancel out the costs.
And there are benefits of widespread gun ownership. For one, guns deter criminals. Burglars are less likely to target occupied homes or businesses in countries with high rates of gun ownership than they are in countries with low rates of gun ownership, probably because they don’t want to get shot. Guns also level the playing field between victims and their attackers, who tend to be young men. According to Kleck, “There are perhaps 600,000-1 million defensive uses of guns each year, about the same as the number of crimes committed with guns.” And contrary to popular belief, gun-wielding victims of assault or robbery are less likely than unarmed victims of assault or robbery to be injured.
"The main problem with gun-control laws is that they don’t work."
They worked very well in Australia.
Golf- You have also fallen for a myth.
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:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
Ban "Assault Weapons" not just rifles, all of them, including pistols, and shotguns. Use the accepted defintition (accepted world-wide as listed in every dictionary). Do not attempt to come up with an unaccepted definition. We already know that leads directly to failure (Feinstein's Law was an absolute failure by any measure including those of the Brady Anti-Gun Group and that failure was due to her attempt to create a new definition for the term "assault" weapon). So stick to the accepted definition, don't make the same mistake twice. PS. by mistake I am referring to the fact that during the era of the Feinstein Law it did not prevent mass murder just like Newtown and that is an undeniable fact (except by Feinstein). Do the right thing this time, ban the real "assault weapons."
All you gun owners claim to be law abiding citizens, step up to the plate and take a yearly mental health exam and pay for it. You want the rest of us to just trust you will do the right thing with your guns. After Sandy Hook things have changed my friends, its now called trust but verify.
As in its no longer Annie get your guns, Its now Annie we are coming to get some of your guns.
Garbman please justify your post. What have all gun owners done to warrant your discrimination. Should all black men be jailed since over 40% of murders are committed by black men.
Ban violent TV shows on NBC. Ban violent video games. Ban violent Movies. Ban everything and anything that Adam Lanza watched or read or games he played. And, ban the gag order imposed on releasing any of that information to the public by the police chief.
Will...
So you are willing to throw the First Amendment into the trash barrel....even though there is absolutely no link from the TV shows or video games to what happened. But, we know guns killed the 26 people on that day and we do nothing about the very things we KNOW had a link to the killings.
That's flippin' looney-toons.
Guns did not do the killing any more than the car he drove. They were both just the tools of a criminally insane person.
Traitor!
If I was the owner of a crate of dynamite, I'd be a very responsible owner and wouldn't cause harm to anybody. The majority of us dynamite owners would never use it with malfeasance. We would use it to hunt animals, for small game control, and to defend our property from intruders. Why is it that just because there's a few wackos out there, my right to own dynamite has been infringed upon? Urge Congress to pass the 28th Amendment allowing law abiding citizens the right to keep and bear dynamite!
Ban the High Capacity pill bottles. Everyone of these Shooters have been on Psycotropic Drugs. Funny how the media doesn't report this!
Anybody diagnosed with depression, bi-polar automatically end up on a no gun list when they pick-up their prescription. Sound like a place to start!
Im curious to see the reaction im going to receive for this. I bet the gun grabbers will totally ignore this.Because there views are so one sided!
The message to those with emotional problems will be as follows:
Do not, under any circumstances, seek mental health services unless you want to be uploaded into a national database to be discriminated against on multiple fronts for the rest of your life.
Smart plan there, eh? While gun sales are soaring, I would bet my bottom dollar that intakes at mental health clinics are plummeting.
I love how some of the gun nuts here offer veiled or direct threats of violence against the State whenever the issue of gun control comes up. The thought of a "militia" of chubby, untrained yee-haws armed only with firearms waddling into battle, guns in one hand and donuts in the other, to take on a professional military armed with the most advanced weapons the world has ever seen... well, the thought has me wanting to stock up on popcorn, pizza, and soda to watch the pwning on live TV. Within the first hour, the score would look something like this:
Military - 1,000,000
Yee-Haws: 0
"Johnny Boy, there's an M1A1 Abrams tank coming! Quick! Fetch me yer grand-daddy's shotgun so I can take 'em out!"
LOL
Sum- If you knew the law you would know that it is illegal for the POTUS to use the military in any combat action against the people of the U.S.