Giffords asks Congress for bold gun control bill
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a dramatic appeal, wounded former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords urged Congress on Wednesday to enact tougher curbs on guns, saying, "too many children are dying" without them.
"The time is now. You must act. Be bold, be courageous, Americans are counting on you," she told the Senate Judiciary Committee at Congress' first gun control hearing since 20 elementary school children were shot to death in Newtown, Conn., late last year.
Gifford was not on the list of witnesses released in advance of the hearings, and in an unusual show of respect, members of the committee greeted her warmly outside the hearing room as she and her husband, former astronaut and retired Navy Capt. Mark Kelly, made their way inside. The former Democratic congresswoman was grievously wounded in an assassination attempt in Tucson, Ariz., a little more than two years ago, and has become a public advocate for gun control.
In the aftermath of the Newtown, Conn., massacre, President Barack Obama has issued a call for gun control legislation.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat and member of the committee, has introduced a bill to ban numerous assault-style weapons as well as high-capacity ammunition magazines.
The prospects for Senate passage are not strong, in part because of opposition from the NRA and in part from a reluctance among rural-state Democrats to support limitations on firearms.
Republicans pledged to listen carefully, and no more.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Tuesday that reviewing the issue was timely.
"But I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment," he said citing the constitutional provision that guarantees the right to bear arms, "and I don't intend to change."
Giffords' appearance - not only her words, but her obvious difficulty in speaking - served to underscore the emotion surrounding the issue of gun curbs. "Speech is a distant memory" for his wife, Kelly said in remarks of his own after his wife had completed her brief plea for action.
The gunman in Tucson, Jared Loughner, used a 9 mm Glock pistol with an extended ammunition magazine in the attack that wounded the former congresswoman and killed six. The handgun would not have been illegal under a federal assault weapons ban that lapsed more than seven years ago, but the magazine that held more than 30 bullets would have been prohibited.
The chairman of the panel, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said it is "a simple matter of common sense" that there should be a strengthening of background checks and that doing so would not threaten gun owners' rights. The checks are currently required for gun purchases from licensed dealers but not at gun shows or other private transaction.
At the same time, he said the Constitution's second amendment "is secure and will remain secure and protection....No one can or will take those rights or our guns away," he said.
He added, "let us forego sloganeering, demagoguery and partisan recriminations. This is too important for that."
Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the panel's senior Republican, said that while the shootings in Arizona and Connecticut were terrible tragedies, they "should not be used to put forward every gun control measure that has been floating around for years.."
He also said any serious discussion of the issue 'must include a complete re-examination of mental health as it related to mass shootings."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., indicated that whatever the committee produced wouldn't necessarily be the final product, saying the package would be debated by the full Senate and senators would be allowed to propose "whatever amendments they want that deal with this issue."
Despite the horrific Newtown slayings, it remains unclear whether those advocating limits on gun availability will be able to overcome resistance by the NRA and lawmakers from states where gun ownership abounds. Question marks include not just many Republicans but also Democratic senators facing re-election in red-leaning states in 2014. They include Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
Knowing that television cameras would beam images of the hearing nationally, both sides were drumming up supporters to attend Wednesday's session.
A page on an NRA-related website urged backers to arrive two hours early to get seats, bring no signs and dress appropriately. The liberal BoldProgressives.org urged its members to attend, saying the NRA "will try to pack the room with their supporters to deceive Congress into believing they are mainstream."
Earlier this month, President Barack Obama proposed a package that includes banning assault weapons, requiring background checks on all firearms purchases and limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
Giffords underwent a lengthy rehabilitation process and has regained some ability to speak, but has retired from Congress. A gun owner, she and her husband Mark Kelly, a retired astronaut, have formed a political action committee called Americans for Responsible Solutions to back lawmakers who support tighter gun restrictions.
In testimony prepared for the hearing but released Tuesday, Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, said such steps had failed in the past. He instead voiced support for better enforcement of existing laws, beefing up school security and strengthening the government's ability to keep guns from mentally unstable people.
The massacre in Newtown has also set off a national discussion about mental health care, with everyone from law enforcement leaders to the gun industry urging policymakers to focus on the issue as a way to help prevent similar mass shootings. The issue of mental health has arisen in four recent mass shootings, including Sandy Hook, the Tucson shooting, the incident in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater last year and Virginia Tech in 2007.
"Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals," LaPierre said in his statement. "Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families."
While not yielding on specifics, much of LaPierre's statement had a milder tone than other remarks the NRA has made since Newtown.
That includes an NRA television ad calling Obama an "elitist hypocrite" for voicing doubts about having armed school guards while his own children are protected that way at their school. While Obama's children have Secret Service protection, officials at their school have said its own guards don't carry guns.
Feinstein said Tuesday that she will hold her own hearing on gun control because she was unhappy that three of the five witnesses testifying Wednesday are "skewed against us."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Tuesday he would wait to see what legislation Democrats produce. Republican leaders of the GOP-run House have expressed similar sentiments.
"The time is now. You must act. Be bold, be courageous, Americans are counting on you," she told the Senate Judiciary Committee at Congress' first gun control hearing since 20 elementary school children were shot to death in Newtown, Conn., late last year.
Gifford was not on the list of witnesses released in advance of the hearings, and in an unusual show of respect, members of the committee greeted her warmly outside the hearing room as she and her husband, former astronaut and retired Navy Capt. Mark Kelly, made their way inside. The former Democratic congresswoman was grievously wounded in an assassination attempt in Tucson, Ariz., a little more than two years ago, and has become a public advocate for gun control.
In the aftermath of the Newtown, Conn., massacre, President Barack Obama has issued a call for gun control legislation.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat and member of the committee, has introduced a bill to ban numerous assault-style weapons as well as high-capacity ammunition magazines.
The prospects for Senate passage are not strong, in part because of opposition from the NRA and in part from a reluctance among rural-state Democrats to support limitations on firearms.
Republicans pledged to listen carefully, and no more.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Tuesday that reviewing the issue was timely.
"But I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment," he said citing the constitutional provision that guarantees the right to bear arms, "and I don't intend to change."
Giffords' appearance - not only her words, but her obvious difficulty in speaking - served to underscore the emotion surrounding the issue of gun curbs. "Speech is a distant memory" for his wife, Kelly said in remarks of his own after his wife had completed her brief plea for action.
The gunman in Tucson, Jared Loughner, used a 9 mm Glock pistol with an extended ammunition magazine in the attack that wounded the former congresswoman and killed six. The handgun would not have been illegal under a federal assault weapons ban that lapsed more than seven years ago, but the magazine that held more than 30 bullets would have been prohibited.
The chairman of the panel, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said it is "a simple matter of common sense" that there should be a strengthening of background checks and that doing so would not threaten gun owners' rights. The checks are currently required for gun purchases from licensed dealers but not at gun shows or other private transaction.
At the same time, he said the Constitution's second amendment "is secure and will remain secure and protection....No one can or will take those rights or our guns away," he said.
He added, "let us forego sloganeering, demagoguery and partisan recriminations. This is too important for that."
Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the panel's senior Republican, said that while the shootings in Arizona and Connecticut were terrible tragedies, they "should not be used to put forward every gun control measure that has been floating around for years.."
He also said any serious discussion of the issue 'must include a complete re-examination of mental health as it related to mass shootings."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., indicated that whatever the committee produced wouldn't necessarily be the final product, saying the package would be debated by the full Senate and senators would be allowed to propose "whatever amendments they want that deal with this issue."
Despite the horrific Newtown slayings, it remains unclear whether those advocating limits on gun availability will be able to overcome resistance by the NRA and lawmakers from states where gun ownership abounds. Question marks include not just many Republicans but also Democratic senators facing re-election in red-leaning states in 2014. They include Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
Knowing that television cameras would beam images of the hearing nationally, both sides were drumming up supporters to attend Wednesday's session.
A page on an NRA-related website urged backers to arrive two hours early to get seats, bring no signs and dress appropriately. The liberal BoldProgressives.org urged its members to attend, saying the NRA "will try to pack the room with their supporters to deceive Congress into believing they are mainstream."
Earlier this month, President Barack Obama proposed a package that includes banning assault weapons, requiring background checks on all firearms purchases and limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
Giffords underwent a lengthy rehabilitation process and has regained some ability to speak, but has retired from Congress. A gun owner, she and her husband Mark Kelly, a retired astronaut, have formed a political action committee called Americans for Responsible Solutions to back lawmakers who support tighter gun restrictions.
In testimony prepared for the hearing but released Tuesday, Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, said such steps had failed in the past. He instead voiced support for better enforcement of existing laws, beefing up school security and strengthening the government's ability to keep guns from mentally unstable people.
The massacre in Newtown has also set off a national discussion about mental health care, with everyone from law enforcement leaders to the gun industry urging policymakers to focus on the issue as a way to help prevent similar mass shootings. The issue of mental health has arisen in four recent mass shootings, including Sandy Hook, the Tucson shooting, the incident in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater last year and Virginia Tech in 2007.
"Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals," LaPierre said in his statement. "Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families."
While not yielding on specifics, much of LaPierre's statement had a milder tone than other remarks the NRA has made since Newtown.
That includes an NRA television ad calling Obama an "elitist hypocrite" for voicing doubts about having armed school guards while his own children are protected that way at their school. While Obama's children have Secret Service protection, officials at their school have said its own guards don't carry guns.
Feinstein said Tuesday that she will hold her own hearing on gun control because she was unhappy that three of the five witnesses testifying Wednesday are "skewed against us."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Tuesday he would wait to see what legislation Democrats produce. Republican leaders of the GOP-run House have expressed similar sentiments.
Good Lord. 40 replies sitting in my email since my last post and all from the gun worshipping extremists - Sorry man, I just don't have time to read them just to rehash that we aren't going to agree. Â
Â
Learned a lot: While there are some very decent, Â responsible, even tempered gun owners out there, there are also those who live off the grid of reality, and for whom gun ownership means power and gives them a "Winner take all" view of the world. Â
Â
The sane people need to be diligent about keeping lethal weapons out of the hands of narcissists and anger junkies.
Â
One critical issue of being so anxious to use your Assault Rifles against other humans who've survived a major disaster, is that after you've murdered a fellow human that YOU DECIDED was a threat on a snap judgment, you may well have sealed your own demise. You won't be the only survivors and other people will notice if you are randomly killing people.Â
Â
We're either going to progress as a species or die out. Â Â
 @Smokin Bear Spoken like a true liberal. Bashing all that do not share or understand your view of things. In one post calling people who defend their right to have an "AR" as insane (or at lease affirming Costas' opinion of the same). In this post calling them "gun worshipping".Â
Â
Makes me cringe when I read either side call the other names because they have a different opinion and then wonder why no one will take them serious.
 @Smokin Bear Well said.
More Liberal media brainwashing, we are actually safer with private citizens owning guns it's a proven fact. We need to address the gang and kids growing up without responsible parents problem, that's an epidemic ? But Liberals just throw money at the problem and dodge the real issues.
This comment has been deleted
Hey, I wanna go sit before congress too! I pay my taxes just like her and her hubby.
Â
As for Feinstein, what a fine piece of work. Don't like the results, pick some witnesses on your side and try again.
Â
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely
Â
Â
Can't believe that you people are STILL at this. Â
Â
People who are not fans of guns will not likely be induced to change their opinion by those who are insistent that ARs must be made available because it's their right. Â It is what it is. Â
Â
While this is a polarizing issue, I still believe that middle ground can be achieved without extremism driving the conversation.
Â
I plan to make my voice heard through writing to my congressperson. Â
Â
Just saw Bob Costas on the Daily Show and he had some very interesting things to say  regarding our gun culture.  Very affirming when he stated, "...sane people recognize that we don't need AR among the civilian population or high capacity clips."  Â
 @Smokin Bear I have been a positive and contributing member of this society for 48 years and I tell you right now that I do need AR-15s and high capacity magazines. I need them in case of a natural disaster like a massive Earthquake that brings our infrastructure to a dead halt and stretches our emergency response beyond the ability to provide protection. I need them in case there is a regional or national emergency where I am the only source of protection to defend myself, my family, my property. I will join others in my neighborhood to help maintain order in these emergency contingencies. I need these weapons to defend against criminal assault. Stop telling me I do not need these things. I resent you people blaming me for the unlawful murderous actions of psychotic mass murderers. STOP IT.
 @Rick4001CS Ya, OK. Rick I hear you but really, if there is a massive earthquake and the Cascadia Subduction Zone rips from Vancouver Island BC to Northern California, I don't think that an assault rifle is going to help.  If you survive the 9+ M quake and the likely massive tsunami, I think that a cooperative spirit toward helping other survivors might be a better choice.  Just sayin'.Â
 @Smokin Bear  @Rick4001CS I can think of a few dozen reasons where a 30 round AR would be handy. It's for the insane actions of a few who would do something I'd never dream of, that I bought one.
 @OrcasThunder  @Smokin Bear  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS Yeah, Sorry about that. This commenting system SUCKS, KOMO (the comma is important, there). The new forum kluge-ware doesn't do threading and replies for beans. Forget about it. We can continue on when the next gun story comes along. We likely have better things to do for a few days :-)
Â
Catch you on the next go-round!
 @RN1  @Smokin Bear  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS "Thus proving you don't"
You know, it would really help if you included a snippet of what was posted in your response so the other person can find what you are responding to...it's bad enough that I have to click through pages of posts to find the one I am looking for, it would be nice to have a clue as to what you are referring to with such a nebulous post.
Â
 @OrcasThunder  @Smokin Bear  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS Thus proving you don't know much of history or human nature when civilizations are stressed.
 @RN1  @Smokin Bear  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS "you are equating, directly, being able and ready to defend self and family in a crisis to being a homicidal nutjob"
No, I am simply equating the vast majority of people as being willing to help others in such a situation.
 @RN1  @dg54321  @Smokin Bear  @Rick4001CS "major roads will be down, there will be wide-spread basic utility disruption (water mains, sewer lines, gas lines, etc will get broken in many places)."
And yet these bad guys will get here to Northgate from White Center on these destroyed roads and bridges...how?Â
 @RN1  @Smokin Bear  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS "Stupidity and greed may be bad, but not nearly as bad a stupidity and making laws."
Did you think that up all on your own? If not, fire your copywriter. That is a superbly asinine statement.
 @RN1  @dg54321  @Smokin Bear  @Rick4001CS "No, capitalists don't do that"
Ah, my bad...it's the gun nuts who are running roughshod...good to know that you admit that Capitalist are only interested in taking everything from everyone else.
 @OrcasThunder  @Smokin Bear  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS So, now you are equating, directly, being able and ready to defend self and family in a crisis to being a homicidal nutjob. You are not exactly helping your case, here. You really, REALLY, don't know much about disaster preparedness, do you? No wonder you rely on the State to protect you.
 @OrcasThunder  @dg54321  @Smokin Bear  @Rick4001CS The difference between Sandy and here are huge. The damage there was mostly confined to a fairly narrow coastal band so help was geographically very near, it was seen coming days in advance so things could get pre-positioned, there was little damage to underground utilities outside a few coastal places, etc. When the CSZ fault blows, we will have no warning, the "near help wll be on the other side of the cascades and major roads will be down, there will be wide-spread basic utility disruption (water mains, sewer lines, gas lines, etc will get broken in many places). It will be a totally different animal.
 @RN1  @Smokin Bear  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS "equating an average gun owner with a total homicidal nutjob."
And yet when you rant about all the looters and criminal rushing in to take whatever you have left, you tend to make that equation yourself.
How many guns do you have hidden in the backyard, safe from being covered when you house collapses? Unless you walk around the house - and go to bed - wearing a sidearm, chances are if you are home when the disaster hits, chances are very good that you won't be able to GET to that closet or locked safe to get your weapons.And, if there really ARE so many of the berserkers running around looting, maiming, raping and beheading, how much ammo did you remember to bury with the guns?
 @dg54321  @Smokin Bear  @Rick4001CS "is far worse than when St Helens blew
Only to the people who are outside the disaster area.
Look at what happened after Sandy - there were rumors of wide spread looting, but little fact behind them. Instead, we had neighbors helping neighbors, people rescuing the injured and retrieving the dead. The same as in New Orleans, where most of the "looters" were simply finding what they needed to survive - food, blankets, diapers...in stores that were abandoned and which had insurance to cover the goods that could not have been sold anyway.
Then read this article. which shows how people come together:
"The Civilizing Power of Disaster Where was all the chaos, looting, and mass-panic during Hurricane Sandy?
Â
On Thursday, three days after Hurricane Sandy swept across the Eastern Seaboard, darkening power grids, flooding neighborhoods, and killing at least 74 people, former Star Trek actor and social-media dynamo George Takei posted a lovely photo to his Facebook timeline. It showed two power strips draped over the gratework of a fence, phone cords tendrilling from each one. A sign said, âWe have power. Please feel free to charge your phone!â
Elsewhere on Facebook, a user from New York described what happened a few hours before the storm hit on Monday when a man attempted to steal a womanâs pocketbook:
Immediately, people were at their windows yelling âStop that guy!â and then, it was as if all the people on the sidewalk immediately conspired to do just that. A couple with a stroller blocked the guy from running east, a man appeared and chased him across the street where a woman with a dog forced him to stop so the man in pursuit could tackle the guy in the middle of the street. The purse was wrested from the thief, who got up and ran away again, only to be caught by an older guy on the opposite sidewalk who pulled him out to the street where the woman ⦠could identify him.
And the roll call of small mitzvahs and impromptu cooperation surrounding Sandy keeps expanding. Asked about conditions in post-hurricane New York, a Quora contributor mentioned the restaurants handing out free bread and coffee; the taxi drivers accepting whatever passengers have in the way of cash; the motorists waving walkers across the roads. In addition to rainwater, cities struck hard by Mondayâs gale seem to be awash in the milk of human kindness."
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/11/looting_after_hurricane_sandy_disaster_myths_and_disaster_utopias_explained.html
Â
My faith in people is stronger and bigger than your pathetic paranoid fear of the world.Â
 @OrcasThunder  @Smokin Bear  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS BTW - the BATF, the guys you want to be in charge of approving (or not) gun sales - they can't even keep track of their own machine guns, or lists of ATF agents. Note: not just semi-autos, but fully automatic weapons, and not just office-jockeys, but under-cover agents.
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atfs-milwaukee-sting-operation-marred-by-mistakes-failures-mu8akpj-188952581.html
Â
THOSE are the guys you want to put in charge of YOU or a family member being able to buy, or not, a gun. THAT"S your "solution."
Â
 @OrcasThunder  @Smokin Bear  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS Stupidity and greed may be bad, but not nearly as bad a stupidity and making laws.
 @OrcasThunder  @dg54321  @Smokin Bear  @Rick4001CS running roughshod - No, capitalists don't do that, they look to make a profit. GOVERNMENT runs rough-shod over everything without a care.
 @Smokin Bear  @RN1  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS "I'm not hearing a whole lot of common sense from you guys - and that is the best argument for banning ARs"
Well said!
 @Smokin Bear  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS "Paranoia and ARs are a bad combination."
And add stupidity and greed, even worse...
 @RN1  @dg54321  @Smokin Bear  @Rick4001CS "People can be *quite* nice when cooperation is the low-cost solution."
Then explain the 2 convicts who jumped into a river to rescue 3 kids...
 @dg54321  @Smokin Bear  @Rick4001CS "They will run roughshod over you and your family, take what they want and leave you for dead."
Yes, that is always a problem with Capitalists...
 @Smokin Bear  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS And there you go, again, equating an average gun owner with a total homicidal nutjob. Very kind of you to lump us all together. It's called "stereotyping," and it leads directly to bigotry.
 @Smokin Bear  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS (blarg - I hate this commenting systems total barf on proper threading)
Cascadia zone rupture - it'll be from the CA-OR border to British Columbia, most major bridges down, air-port liquifaction making them usable for helicopters only, ports out of commission, major passes totally closed, most major water and gas and sewer lines broken in a major way, etc. The NG won't dissapear - it will simply be totally overwhelmed.
You are arguing a really stupid position - because my pantry might get flattened, what good was stocking up? One - it most likely won't, but if it does the stuff doesn't vaporize, it just needs to be dug out. Two - you'd prefer I *plan* on being unprepared and throw myself on the mercy of the FEMA, et al? Three - you are assuming that all my supplies are in one place, and that I do not have any sort of similarly prepared friends, family, acquaintances. four - you seem to be assuming that keeping well supplied with food and arms means that I don't have any other survival skills or supplies, which is a very bad assumption, almost as bad as assuming that your "keeping warm with simple materials" or purifying water won't put you into competition with others who see you keeping warm and drinking and decide to take your stuff because they are cold.
 @RN1  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS Nope.  Just don't want you to have one. Â
Based on your remarks, you don't give the impression of a  responsible gun owner - too quick to rage and that makes you one of the problem people. Â
Â
Three people shot in Phoenix yesterday. Â
A family of five murdered in Albuquerque over the weekend. Â
A fifteen year old girl shot in Chicago. Â
A bus driver shot dead and a five year old boy abducted by a sixty-five year old gun freak/survivalist. Â
Â
The list goes on and on. Â
Â
At what point are you going to support responsible gun ownership and use? What are you doing to help curb gun violence?Â
Â
Â
 @Smokin Bear  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS As opposed to your attitude of "if I don't need one, NO-ONE needs one?" Here's the thing - I will be ABLE to offer help, because I've taken care of my self and family; the refugees looking for a handout will NOT be able to help anyone. They are the ones that will be dependent on the NG coming in to give them "free" food and stuff, while complaining that it's not enough, or fast enough, or whatever.
I do what I do because I study history, events, human nature, etc., and I see the possibilities. when others don't because they can't (too poor, for example), I don't begrudge them doing only what they can. When I see people who CAN do much more but choose not to, then I let them make their choices, *and suffer the consequences." The low-income family at the end of the street who are without food, I'll help considerably. The high-income, vacation-taking, late-model-BMW-driving, have-every-gadget but no food or guns or generator or *anything* - they'll get a bit of rice, maybe. Choices have consequences - I believe in both free choice, AND letting folks reap the rewards, both good and bad.
 @RN1  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS So are you saying that the entire National Guard will disappear if Cascadia ruptures? Â
Â
I know plenty of people who are ready if disaster strikes. In addition, basic survival skills will go farther than stocking up for the big one: If your pantry or shed or bunker are destroyed in an earthquake, what good was stocking up? Â If you know how to purify water and how to keep warm using simple materials, you'll have a better chance of survival. Â
 @RN1  @Smokin Bear  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS Why do you assume that anyone who isn't in *your* club is ignorant or uninformed?Â
Â
The fact that you and your pals have demonstrably engaged in so much anger so quickly gives the appearance of instability -someone I'd wouldn't want handling a gun, much less an AR, in a crisis. Â Â
Â
The "I gotta get mine" culture in your rhetoric smacks of supreme selfishness with no thought for anyone else - sure wouldn't expect to see you offer a helping hand to anyone in a serious disaster situation. Â
 @Smokin Bear  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS Why do you assume all these actions are mutually exclusive. You can own a rifle like an AR, AND have a decent food stock, AND be a "normal" working family, AND be trained in CPR, AND know your neighbors and get along with them well. We are not "insecure lunatics." We are independent, *secure*, knowledgeable, educated, employable, folks who know a bit about history, science, and human nature.
 @Smokin Bear  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS Mt St Helens was VERY localized compared to the Cascadia Subduction Zone fault. When it goes, it WILL get ugly. How many people do you know that are prepared to go it alone, just them and their neighbors, for 4-6 WEEKS? Food, water, diapers, sanitation... "simple" things like that.
 @dg54321  @Rick4001CS Did I say anything about refusing to prepare for a disaster?  No.  But because my view does not align with yours you assume a position of 'reason' that has no real basis in fact.
Â
Outside of an asteroid impact, any natural disaster is an isolated event to the effected region. Â The National Guard and Military will not disappear from the planet and would be deployed to handle riot/looting issues. Â They don't need paranoid gun packing nuts getting inthe way. Â
Â
Ever been through an earthquake bigger than our little 6.8 shaker back in 2001?Â
Â
During the 7.0 Lome Prieta quake in 1989, there was no widespread killing among private citizens. Â People banded together to help one another, Â risking their lives to pull the injured and dead from the Nimitz Freeway collapse, evacuations, helping with food and shelter.
Â
Your comments indicate that you are just itching to shoot at people with your toy. Â Scary. Â
 @Smokin Bear  @Rick4001CS The situation you describe above is far worse than when St Helens blew. More like Rainier, which would be far worse. Many more dead. Much more chaos. It is a real possibility, although the chances are still low. I would die a happy man if I'm never put into that situation, but refusing to prepare for it is foolish. Beyond that I can see you don't know anything about the plot of the games you posted as none of them have anything to do with natural disasters. Heck, DOOM is about fighting demons from Hades. What does that have to do with anything? We are talking about reality here. Look at Katrina, look at other natural disasters throughout the world. When real devastation hits, if you are one of the lucky ones to survive you will need to be able to protect yourself and your family from looters and criminals that will no longer be checked by law enforcement. LA riots are another example. You are free to be ignorant of the possibilities if that is your choice but I will not be. The only one not making sense here is you. History has proven me and people like RN1 right time and time again. If the "big one" occurs and society is in disarray for some time after, what will you do to defend your family? Will you tell them it is better for them to die than defend them with necessary violence?
 @RN1  @dg54321  @Rick4001CS Yeah, ok.  So when your house has collapsed during a major earthquake, crushing your children and husband or wife,  your legs are broken and you are pinned under a part of what used to be the ceiling, and you can't reach your gun, how much good will an AR do? Or, if in a partial collapse, you have access to the gun but you are so badly injured that you can't move, will you shoot a neighbor who comes to check on you or tries to help you?Â
Â
I'm not hearing a whole lot of common sense from you guys - and that is the best argument for banning ARs. Â The truth of the matter is that they are nothing more than big toys. Â In the hands of people who need to be in control of others means that there is a whole lot of potential for misuse. RN1 claimed that I characterized gun owners as insecure lunatics. Â Didn't come from me, but from your own comments. Â
Â
I don't have to have an AR to live peaceably among good neighbors and in a very safe neighborhood.  It is alien to me that anyone couldn't live without an assault rifle handy. Â
 @dg54321  @Rick4001CS That's assuming that survival of a natural disaster is certain.  Most people are in shock afterwards. Â
Â
 In addition, the National Guard, Red Cross, Military  and other organizations are there to help in a crisis. Â
Â
When Mt. St. Helens blew, were people killing each other? Â
Â
It sounds like you're counting on a worst case scenario directly out of Mass Effect, DOOM, Borderlands, et al. Â
Â
Paranoia and ARs are a bad combination. Â
 @dg54321  @Smokin Bear  @Rick4001CS Yup. An neighborhood watch all with visible rifles and side-arms tends to encourage the honest, hard-working cooperative spirit, and discourages the base instincts to simply take what you want. People can be *quite* nice when cooperation is the low-cost solution.
 @Smokin Bear  @Rick4001CS That's gonna be a big help for the people that don't feel the same way. They will run roughshod over you and your family, take what they want and leave you for dead. It's been proven time and time again, that human beings are capable of great evil when pushed beyond their limits. Criminal minds do not care about your "cooperation", they want to take as much as they can. Only force convinces them otherwise. I wish I was wrong but history and human nature has proven me correct time and time again.
@Rick4001CS, easy there pardner'. Nobody here is telling you to do or not do anything. I understand your desire for a high capacity semi-auto and support your decision.
 @Smokin Bear Yeah, I took a long break, but I'm convalescing after surgery and don't have a lot to do. It's been a week and I can't wait to go back to work.
 @SargeMcC Understandable Sarge - Hope you're feeling better soon and have a good person caring for you.Â
 @Smokin Bear  @SargeMcC Clubs like the WAC don't have this loophole. Only members can buy guns and to be a member you must have a carry permit, which requires a background check. I would support an 'owner permit' Basically, it says you have the approval to own guns, but isnt tied to the serial number of a particular gun.
 @OrcasThunder  @dg54321Â
Â
You're 70? Well, you slick operator, you! Go get 'em!
Â
Â
 @dg54321 "They refuse to acknowledge that people are capable of great evil against those who would seek peace."
I have known thousands of people in my 70 years, men, women, gays, of every race and many cultures, young and old, smart and not...and as far as I know none of them have ever done something "evil"...stupid, perhaps. But never ravage people's homes, run a-muck shooting people, stealing things from damaged homes. On the other hand, the vast majority of them seemed to be reasonably capable of helping others in an emergency, and willing to do so.
 @RN1  @OrcasThunder  @SargeMcC THAT is the singularly most ignorant, racist, narcissistic, narrow commentary you've puked so far. Â
Â
 For all of your claims to historical study, you clearly have no knowledge of the Metis people or the history of voyageurs. Â
Â
 You selectively read garbage, not actual history,  that supports your bigoted, self-righteous position then spew your hate all over any person who expresses an intelligent or thoughtful insight on this forum.
Â
The fact that you have to have a gun to make you feel like an adult is pathetic.Â
 @OrcasThunder  @Smokin Bear  @SargeMcC As you side-step the other reasons given for Canada vs US crime rates being different. Very transparent of you. Ignore four other facts so you can nit-pick one.
 @OrcasThunder  @Smokin Bear  @SargeMcC YES. Both gun-related crimes, and crime in general. But you have already been told that. Several times. But, because it interferes with your world-view, you ignore it.
RN1, no point in wasting your time further with these people. They are so enamored with the all powerful infantilizing state that they cannot imagine a world without it. They refuse to acknowledge that people are capable of great evil against those who would seek peace. That is their right, to be ignorant. People like you and I will be prepared in case the unlikely happens and we have to defend what is ours against those who would seek to take it in a crisis. They will not. If it never happens they will never know the truth of the matter, and will continue to enjoy the ignorance they so cherish. If it does....well I think we will fair better than they. So be it. No point in arguing with the ignorant by this point. Let them revel in their fantasy world.
 @RN1  @Smokin Bear  @SargeMcC "why is it that crime rates in the US generally FALL when gun carry laws are relaxed?"
Is that "gun related crimes", or all crimes?
 @RN1  @Smokin Bear  @SargeMcC "They don't border Mexico."
And yet I hear that a lot of the "Mexican" druggists are shipping to Canada because it's easier to get into the US from there...
So...it's not REALLY about the guns after all...it's your fear of "Mexicans"...
 @OrcasThunder  @SargeMcC  @Smokin Bear And saying there is a government-mandated solution for every problem is the method of the idiots, the statists, or the ignorant. You always *assume* that the best answer is MORE government, even when the evidence is contrary.
Basic question - let's say you mandate a background check. You get a guy at a DUI checkpoint who isn't in violation of anything, but you note he's got a gun in the car. How can he PROVE he's got it legally, with a background check done, and NOT have a defacto registration list?
All you ever consider is the potential benefits, not the easily (virtually guaranteed COSTS) of you proposed solutions.
Â
But first - a clear problem statement: What is you final, end goal of background checks, an end to private sales, etc? What problem *specifically* are you trying to solve, or what condition are you trying to achieve, and what is the maximum acceptable cost?
@RN1@SargeMcC@Smokin Bear
"We can eliminate drunk drivers by having camera/brethalizer interlocks on ALL cars, with a death penalty for even attempting to circumvent them."
Well, as usual you spend more time bouncing off the wall than in addressing the real situation...
No - the DUI patrols have not eliminated the problem, but they HAVE REDUCED the problem substantially. They work because people actually MADE them work. They made the providers - bars/taverns - liable if they knowingly provided a drink to someone who should not have any more. They made the offenders aware that they face significant penalties if they drive under the influence. They made family and friends aware that they need to be active participants in preventing drunks from getting behind the wheel.
So, simply throwing your hands in the air and crying that we can't do it, so why try, is a cop-out. IT'S THE COWARD'S WAY OUT of facing a problem that we all know isn't going to get better until there are fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
First, let's cut the number of private sales where the seller wants the money more than being sure the buyer is upstanding - require the background checks for ALL sales, make them easy and cheap - and make the penalties for not checking far more expensive in time and money than it's worth...and have active (and widely publicized) enforcement stings to get te word out that we are serious about this. That removes a significant portion of the problem.
Then apply the same efforts and more to the fringe sellers, push them hard, arrest and send to trial those we can, and have even harder penalties for KNOWINGLY selling to a bad guy. There are going to be a lot of empty cells when pot becomes legal in the US - plenty of space for the "I don't give a dump" sellers and buyers.
 @OrcasThunder  @Smokin Bear  @SargeMcC See above response. For more info, read Kopel's "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies". Or, of course, you could read all the replies that have given you the answer before.
 @Smokin Bear  @RN1  @SargeMcC "Please explain why Canada has so few gun crimes in comparison to the United States."
That's like x 10!
 @Smokin Bear  @OrcasThunder  @SargeMcC Um, because they are different. They don't border Mexico. Their minority populations are not low-income blacks and Hispanics (which in this country have a FAR higher crime rate) but mostly upper-middle and upper class Asian (with a very LOW crime rate) and First Nations peoples (who mostly commit crimes among themselves for a variety of historic reasons). They have many fewer high-population-cities with large lower-class minorities. Because they have a much less tumultuous frontier history (for example, in most provinces, the Mounties and law-and-order came *before* large populations of people). Lots of reasons.
But the *real* question is why didn't Canada's crime rate fall further with the imposition of increased gun controls? And, related, why is it that crime rates in the US generally FALL when gun carry laws are relaxed? *THAT* is the real question, not "why are Canadians and Americans different?"
 @RN1  @OrcasThunder  @SargeMcC Glad that you brought up Canada - Please explain why Canada has so few gun crimes in comparison to the United States.
Â
 @OrcasThunder  @SargeMcC  @Smokin Bear Here's the problem - none of this happens in a vacuum, and every action has both reactions and side effects. They tried registration in Canada (generally MUCH more law-abiding than the US), and it was such a colossal failure that after spending more than ten times their original budget for it, they concluded that NO crimes had been prevented or solved by it, it was intrusive, the money could be better spent elsewhere, and it was *totally* scrapped. Make it tight enough to screen out the people you REALLY don't want to have guns, and it'll have a very high false-positive rate, will have enough data to be easily abused and it will enable a police state, it'll be VERY expensive, and (just like prohibition) it'll drive a lot of otherwise law-abiding folks into the arms of the underworld (thereby (promoting gangs, corruption, etc) or at the very least build a sense of contempt for the law and law enforcement.
We can make it impossible to have a mass public school shooting easily - ban public schools. Or ban gatherings of more than seven people.
We can eliminate drunk drivers by having camera/brethalizer interlocks on ALL cars, with a death penalty for even attempting to circumvent them.
You must look at and consider likely COSTS (not just money) as well as benefits.
My second paragraph doesn't negate the first - it shows a way to enhance the current system by providing one that is much less prone to abuse. (of course, NO system CAN'T be misused).
 @OrcasThunder  @SargeMcC You're right - there's always hope.  I have lost any faith in the ability of our government to create lasting positive changes while lobbyists and special interest groups hold sway over our legislators.  Greed sucks.Â
 @Smokin Bear  @SargeMcC I'm feeling that we are at a tipping point, and we have a better than even chance of getting a reasonable process in place by the end of the year. Something seems to be triggering more of the shootings like these, and people are simply going to get angry enough to actually do something - despite the NRA, which will be seen as impotent when LaPierre implodes...
 @RN1  @SargeMcC  @Smokin Bear "Short version: you CAN'T enforce it with the people you most want to get screened out, because there are simply too many ways around it"
So, your answer to a difficult problem is "Let's not even bother to see if we can!"?
There are DUI patrols tonight - do they expect to nab all of the DUI's? Or will some of them be "smart" and take side streets to get around the patrols? Should we stop since there is no way to guarantee that we will get them all?
I don't know what America YOU grew up in, but the one I was raised in would consider the challenge worth the effort. That's how we got to the moon and back, by taking on massive challenges and solving them using logic and engineering and simple determination to do it, and when things went wrong, fix it and get on with the work. We CAN do these things, MUST do them, "not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."...
And it is interesting that your second paragraph negates the first...
 @OrcasThunder  @SargeMcC  @Smokin Bear Short version: you CAN'T enforce it with the people you most want to get screened out, because there are simply too many ways around it (including things like the fact that it would actually *encourage* gang membership, because they have "the connections" to get guns). Also, just about any really detailed background check will necessarily be expensive, intrusive, and can be abused and/or used to make registration lists.
You can encourage honest private sales checks (that is, a Good Guy selling to, say, his neighbor, who he *thinks* is good but want's to be sure) by having a system that is *guaranteed* to not enable a registration list. An example: Have a "prohibited user blacklist" that gets distributed to FFLs on a quarterly basis on CD (no online connection). You go in to the FFL, they charge a nominal fee (say, $5) to run the neighbors ID against the prohibited list (but no gun info), and it gives a PASS/FAIL light to the sale, with no reason as to *why*. If there is a FAIL, you also get a number to call in order to straighten out any mistakes in the database.
 @OrcasThunder  @SargeMcC  @Smokin Bear Good points, all.  Wonder how this will play out.  My guess is that nothing will change for quite a while.  Hoping I'm wrong.
 @SargeMcC  @Smokin Bear "How do we enforce back ground checks for private sales?"
Not easily - but if the gun seller is one of the "good guys" who doesn't want to see the gun go to a "bad guy", wouldn't they welcome the ability to run the check if it were reasonably easy? That should eliminate a fair portion of questionable sales. For the other side of the issue, the guy who doesn't care, put penalties with teeth on violators, and put a bounty on those who don't - pay anyone who reports someone who doesn't run the check, and have a running sting operation where the wrong people never know who is buying. Big Brother? Not really - after all, if they are following the law why worry?
I like the incentive idea though. You might have something there.
 @Smokin Bear Silly bear. HEY, LOOK OVER THERE!! Is that a pickinika basket??
 @SargeMcC Well forget it then. I'm coming over there to violate your privacy right now! HAHAHAHAHAHA!
 @Smokin Bear Now we're getting somwhere. I agree, and being an NRA member I support compromise that assists Law Enforcement. I'll do what I can to seek a middle ground, so long as personal rights and privacy aren't violated. I'll let you get back to your 12 oz. My vicodan is kicking in. Talk later.Â
 @SargeMcC One other thought occurs - Appeal to their greed - give them tax credits or even a rebate for every thousand background checks they run - it's actually do-able and if somebody wanted to create a micro sized fingerprint scanner  tied into the AFIS system for restricted access, that could work. Â
Â
For legal sales, but there's the problem of straw men. Â What can be done about them?Â
 @SargeMcC I agree but how to go about it is going to be a mess, I'm afraid.  One thing we can count on is S-L-O-W congressional progress to address the problem. Â
Â
I do think that rational gun owners like yourself can be very influential in encouraging your fellow gun owners or potential buyers to volunteer for checks. Â That may be very helpful. Â
Â
Another avenue is to put pressure on the NRA to support law enforcement rather than tie their hands. Â
Wayne LaPierre was telling fibs today and it was very frustrating to hear him accuse the government of not enforcing the gun laws when he lobbied to prevent the enforcement. Â
Â
I think that the NRA has the potential to be a great organization but the members will have to defy the leadership to keep it honest.Â
 @Smokin Bear I'm still for universal back ground checks. Something needs to be done.
 @SargeMcC Yep, very true.  Um...well in that case we give each person a tolerance test - leave me in a room with them long enough to annoy the bejezus outta them and see how long it takes for them to go ape-o .  If they can get past 30 minutes, they get to buy a gun. LOL!
 @Smokin Bear Psych evals are subjective to the interpretation of the evaluator.
 @SargeMcC Well, there we are. Â
Â
That is the best idea that I could come up with, but of course if a nutball has no police record, his or her prints would come back clean so that is no guarantee  of safety  for anyone else. Â
I dunno, so from there do we administer a psych exam?
Â
You'd think that greed in a number of professions would contribute to creative and annoying BG checks.Â
 @Smokin Bear I agree. Very plausible, but how enforceable. On a purely moral standing you would think that salesmen would want to ensure that the gun they were selling was being purchased by a reputable person. But, then you get the downfall of all societies; GREED. How do we ensure back ground checks for ALL gun sales?
 @SargeMcC Actually that is the sticking point. Â
Â
 Having worked with AFIS many moons ago ( that is Automated Fingerprint Identification System which is a world wide network of fingerprint data ), and with advances in Point of Sales technology, it seems to me that there should be a way to incorporate fingerprint identification with point of sales. Â
 Do you remember when secure keyboards first became available about ten years ago? They had a screen - you placed your finger on it and it unlocked your computer system booting it for use. Â
 There is no reason that the same principle couldn't be applied for gun show background checks.  Theoretically, they could network with law enforcement for AFIS access to scan and send fingerprints of potential buyers. Â
Â
 No, it's not foolproof but it would simplify the initial problem of  how to work with travelling gun shows.
Â
 Yeah, I know it's very "Orwellian" but with the increasing gun violence, seems like the trade off  that needs to happen.
 @Smokin Bear It's only 7:45. Humor me. Answer??
 @SargeMcC AH....just inches from a clean get away....Yes?Â
 @Smokin Bear So while you're there, let me bounce this. I'm very pro-gun and won't vote for anyone who is anti-gun. To be passive just goes against my grain and I can't comprehend how anyone would allow themselves to be victimized. I am what has been referred to as a 'Sheepdog'. I'm pretty sure you know about sheepdogs, wolves, and sheeple. As a gun owner, and someone who is limited law enforcement, I can get on board with universal back ground checks. I, nor the NRA, want to see criminals have access to guns. So, I'm all for background checks. the question now is, "How do we enforce back ground checks for private sales? At gun shows, reputable dealers will run a quick NCIS background check before selling a gun, but it's not mandatory, and it's not always done. How do we enforce back ground check requirements? Â
 @SargeMcC *Raising a a mug O' suds* Cheers, man!
Thanks.