Has The Terrible Shooting In Tucson Finally Convinced Gun Enthusiasts That We Need To Have Gun Control In This Country?

[Carmel]

According to an MSN article, Arizona has the most permissive gun laws in the country. How very ironic....

[Salhford]

Cease and think a minute. Only a quite couple of fringe varieties what limitless access to guns. Most of the millions of gun owners in this nation have only 1 or two weapons, one particular that stays home, and maybe a hurting arm. The majority of these folks are accountable and law-abiding, and have no desire to have a gun capable of firing twenty or thirty rounds(unless you are a actually, truly undesirable deer hunter). The difficulty is the criminal element. They don't worry about gun manage, now do they? As extended as guns are abundant, and available about the globe stricter gun laws do Absolutely nothing!   maggo 36 months ago

[joseph]

The difficulty with gun handle laws is only sincere citizens adhere to them... criminals ignore them. Criminals aren't the least bit concerned about breaking 1 more law when they commit a crime. Washington DC has the strictest gun control laws in the nation... and they are consistantly ranked at the best of America's violent crime statistics. I offer this quote: "Gun handle has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and a single of the highest murder rates. It really is faster to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you happen to be getting robbed." Lt. Lowell Duckett, Special Assistant to DC Police Chief President, Black Police Caucus, as quoted from The Washington PostPenalizing truthful law abiding gun owners will not deter or reduce violent crimes in this country. It has been established time and time once again. In a 1982 survey of 1900 imprisoned felons in eight various states, 80% of the respondents stated they were more afraid of armed victims than the police. I saw an interview on youtube of convicted felons in prison on one particular of these news shows like 20/20 or comparable. Please forgive that I can't bear in mind the precise show. They agreed they avoided a potential victim if they even thought that individual was armed.Laws written by these with the best intentions carry no weight with criminals. The threat of bullets coming at them does. With the exception of States that have adopted the Castle Doctrine, most States call for their concealed/carry license holders to use deadly force only as a last option. Carriers have a 'Duty to retreat' to stay away from elevating the conflict. Only if deadly force is initiated by the attacker, or there is no choice to retreat and the victim has a reasonable worry that his/her life or the life of yet another is threatened can they draw their weapon. Penalties are extreme for violating these guidelines. In reality, in Ohio just drawing your weapon(with no firing it) is considered deadly force. If it wasn't justified, you will be arrested and prosecuted.?The second amendment isn?t about duck hunting? Dr. Suzanna Gratia-HuppIf you do not know Suzanna's story, Google it. Immagine yourself in the very same situation.I know this is an emotional problem for some folks in this nation. But becoming angry at or penalizing genuine, accountable gun owners is just silly. The guns never fire themselves. The guns don't make choices to break the law. A lot of folks break the law each and every day. Are you going to blame the vehicle for the driver speeding? Are you going to pass laws making it difficult or downright not possible for citizens to purchase cars? We are never going to eradicate the criminal element in this country. Because of this, there will always be a want for citizens to have the correct to protect themselves. Period.   IndependentStevo 25 months ago

[Elmir]

I would love to say yes, but I am reminded of "Every problem has an easy solution and it is wrong."Prohibition does not work. It did not work for alcohol. It does not work for drugs.And it does not work for guns.We wish it would, but it does not.So does the perfect have to be the enemy of the good?The true solution is to have a society where people are allowed to have guns and they do not shoot without reason.Switzerland is like that.They have few gun laws and no gun crime.Guns are part of every home that has a military reserve member. And that includes anti-tank weapons. Short of reforming our society, what can we do?I suggest that one armed guard could have stopped the killer.If we do not want armed guards and can not afford them, perhaps an armed person could have stopped the killer. The people who did stop the killer were unarmed. But tht was much more difficult and dangerous.I do not have a solution.I just know what has not worked.If some way to identify peole with mental problems and prevent them from owning guns can be devised, I am all for it.But until then, we ought to see what works and try it.What we have now does not seem to work very well.   Gary4books 36 months ago

[Haven]

Your right about the menality,and isn't there a two week cooling off ,thing about purchasing a gun in your country??And firearms do have a place in society with hunting and shooting sports,and yes people should take courses in safe handling and storage of their firearms before owning a gun.Look I drive transports for a living and say I just snap and drive into and wipe out a bus load of kids,are people going to say we should make semi's illegal? NO they are just going to say some nut job went crazy driving a big truck!The only thing criminals understand is jail,if you do the crime you do the time!So make the nut jobs pay for their crimes,and leave us working joes firearms alone,PLEASE!And please,note the little thing about the big truck,is more people are killed in auto accidents by bad and drunk drivers every year,than are killed by guns,and nobody is saying we should outlaw cars and trucks.Have a super great day. SQUEEKY   Squeeky-changes-suck 36 months ago

[stefan]

My pleasure! Couple other things came to me as I revisited this thread. The comments some people are making about assault weapons and how the founding fathers would be shocked at the citizenry owning them. I have a different take. During the Revolutionary War, the state of the art weapon was the musket and bayonet. Every modern army of the era used this weapon. It was the assault rifle of it's day. Similar to, but different than hunting muskets. The militias that formed our Revolutionary Army, made up of local farmers and businessmen, were issued this choice weapon of the day. After the war they were encouraged to keep their weapons of war. It was the basis of the 2nd amendment. The idea being that an armed citizenry would deter any ideas or notions of tyranny by the governing bodies. Fast forward to today. What is the standard 'state of the art' weapon preferred by all of today's modern armies? The assault rifle. So, in the spirit of the 2nd amendment, and after being put in proper context, do you really think the founding fathers would be so aghast at the citizenry owning assault rifles? No. I'm pretty sure they would find it appropriate. In fact, I think they would chastise us for 'coddling' criminals. I think the founding fathers would be more shocked at the perversion that has become the Federal Government. Spending money we don't have... at mind boggling numbers. But, that is another topic, and I won't delve into it now... lol!A little about concealed carry licensees... at least in the state of Ohio. First, I had to attend 10 hours of classroom instruction that included, but wasn't limited to, types of handguns, the basic parts of a handgun, basic operation of a handgun, proper handgun handling, ammunition, carrying concealed and the law, "No Carry" zones, understanding 'Duty to retreat', minimum criteria for using deadly force, repercussions for not following the law, the Castle Doctrine, and more I can't remember off the top of my head. We were tested. After passing the test we were required to spend 2 hours on the gun range. I had to prove weapon proficiency in front of a certified instructor. I went through 300 rounds of ammunition. After qualifying on the range I earned my certificate of completion to meet the minimum requirements for concealed carry. Then it was off to my county Sheriff's office. There, I filled out an application to carry concealed(4 pages long), show my certificate, get fingerprinted, and pass a background check. Which I passed. I was then issued my license. As of the day I was approved, there is an electronic 'tag' on all my automobile license plates and my driver's license. If a police officer runs either it will come back that I am a CCH license holder. Woe is the poor soul who doesn't identify themselves as a CCH license holder upon immediate contact with any law enforcement officer(it is the law). Because at least with traffic stops, they know before they even talk to you.Concealed carry license holders are the good guys. We can't have any felonies or drug convictions of any kind. We don't look for trouble... but if trouble finds us, we are prepared. We have made a commitment to not be a victim. But with that commitment comes awesome responsibility. The vast majority of us take that responsibility very serious. I'll leave you with this phrase on a T-shirt my friend's wife wears(she carries a CCH license):"Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."   IndependentStevo 25 months ago

[chay]

Nice comment, Gary!   MorningDew 36 months ago

[Attkins]

I want to commend Goldie for her observation about the semi-automatic rifles. The Second Amendment was always a bit of a mess. I'm satisfied that the Supreme Court has clarified it, but I suspect that the Founders would have written it very differently if they had foreseen the availability of weapons like this one.It wouldn't have clarified it any more for them than it has for us, only made the decision more murky. We can go only on the text of the law, which the Court has managed to make as clear as it's going to get. Nor is it likely to be changed, given political realities. But I'm quite certain that it's false to say that the present situation was the intent of the founders.They were astonishingly wise and far-sighted, and I wish we had some more of their caliber(pardon the pun) to help us plot a future course.   PamPerdue 36 months ago

[Janaya]

" People DID need guns to protect themselves."Don't we need to protect ourselves now?Some of the unsaid reaction seems to be based on the feelings that we can not protect ourselves because we do not know how. I suggest that with so many returning veterans that many can use guns very well and perhaps they should be the ones to protect us.   Gary4books 36 months ago

[Wayne]

I've suggested on occasion that there should be an independent agency placed in charge of setting and maintaining standards of education and competence that are prerequisite for purchasing and owning firearms.(with the mandate that they destroy records rather than cooperate with a government attempt to infringe upon the second amendment right to bear arms.)   TheLightWorks 36 months ago