The time is right [for gun control]; says our governor

[krupparms]

Our politicians are the ones that are responsible! They say the police are not here to protect us according to the supreme court. It is your responsibility to protect ourselves. How can we do so when they take our guns. Most politicians don't care as the weaker the gun laws the weaker we are when the government takes all our guns. The AWB was illegal &will be just as illegal as the last one! I expect our governor to calling for a weapons ban ASAP! With all the problems we have now it is a waste of time until our politicians quit breaking the law of the land.

 

[jon_in_wv]

I don't seriously think that efforts to disarm the public are nearly as nefarious as an effort to keep the populace weakened. The fact is the anti-gun folks have a simple and childish fear of guns. They don't care one whit about the safety of others, stopping crimes, or government control. They only fear guns and think the world a better place if they can get rid of them. I've worked in the federal government and the military for 20 years. There is no massive plot to control the populace. There is only fear and ignorance that people are stupid and guns are evil and when mixed together bad things happen. Listen to their arguments. They are based wholly on irrational fear and hatred of guns.

During the Senate subcommittee hearings leading up the assault weapons ban Charles Schumer held up a black shotgun (benelli maybe?) and said dramatically, "LOOK AT THIS! CAN YOU IMAGINE THE FEAR PEOPLE HAVE WHEN A GANG BANGER STEPS OUT OF A CAR AND POINTS THIS AT THEM?!?!" (Like somehow if it was a hunting rifle they would just laugh at him.) His basest argument was that it was SCAREY. This was even after the FBI testified at length that only a small percentage of murders committed in the US were with military caliber weapons and and only percentage of those were even assault rifles. They admitted that an assault weapons ban would have little to no effect on saving lives. Schumers response was, they are scary so we need to ban them. This is the crux of their belief and their argument. Until we elevate the conversation away from the paranoia and fear like the other side we will never convince them. We are the mature ones, not them, and we need to educate them instead of treating them like its a matter of point and counter point. They have no history, facts, statistics, or logic in their argument. We just need to teach the public how foolish the other side is so they will stop voting for them and we can get on the business of attacking the real problems driving crime in this country.

 

[joneb]

If parents were required to register their known disturbed kids in the data base and if the parents were held criminally responsible

The guns used in the New Town murders were stolen from the shooters mother.

Things are different now. As a youth I walked the streets with either a shotgun or a 22 rifle to get to my hunting or shooting spots, nobody seemed alarmed.
We never used to lock the doors of the house, the car was in the drive way unlocked with the keys in the ignition. And Guns without safes was standard storage, well things have changed

If you have guns make them hard to steal.

 

[jon_in_wv]

When I was in middle school we could bring a gun to school with us for firearms safety day. Funny we didn't just shoot each other huh?

 

[.333 Nitro Express]

Guys, I think we won't be 100% effective until we understand what motivates the antis. There are mainly two groups of anti-gun people:

1 - The first is made up of well-meaning but generally-misinformed or uninformed people who think that if you just make it harder to get guns, society will get safer. These are the ones who only know guns through Hollywood or the Liberal media, and couldn't tell you the difference between a shotgun and a rifle, let alone between a semiauto and a full auto. While many of them are close-minded, others among this group can be swayed by calm reasoning and statistics (which are in our favor).

2 - The second is the truly dangerous group. It is made up of the ideologues, the Leftist opinion leaders and the committed statists. To them, private gun ownership is a metaphysical sin--a thumb in the eye of statism and collectivism. Since they define social justice as the state being above the individual, they won't rest until this powerful symbol of the sovereign citizen is rubbed out, neutered or at least greatly inconvenienced.

Group 2 are the ones waiting with bated breath for the next tragedy so they can whip group 1 into a panicked frenzy and send them tugging at the government's skirt demanding gun control. They are the Machiavellian demagogues. They couldn't care less if more CCWs lead to less crime (I believe that deep down they know it): to them, the problem to solve is private gun ownership, not crime.

I think it's important to target our arguments carefully if we are speaking to group 1 or group 2. It's vital to persuade group 1 that statistics, reason, the Constitution, psychology and history all point to looking for more efficient and effective ways to combat crime. But with group 2 those arguments are a waste of breath: the only realities they understand are fear of political defeat, boycotts and ridicule.

So, you're never going to persuade a committed Leftist ideologue like the Governor of Colorado that more guns lead to less crime. He must feel political pressure, and be flooded with "not in your wildest dreams, buddy" letters, emails and phone calls.

I think the calls for gun control will die down soon, once the attention span of the media turns towards the next D-R fight over the fiscal cliff or whatever have you. But I think it pays to keep in mind who we're talking to, when and how, so that we may maximize our effectiveness when making our case.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

 

[Billy Shears]

There is something I think everyone here should keep in mind. Right now, politicians are under tremendous pressure to "do something" to prevent more tragedies like this. And at a moment like this, the antis have the ability to exploit public anguish and public desire to see an end to horrors like this to shout down any opposition to the gun control measures they trot out in the wake of such incidents. I think this means we need to do more than just oppose gun control.

We need to reframe the argument. Make it known, be loud and clear, that we are just as committed to seeing an end to horrors like this latest mass shooting. But the way to accomplish it is not to take guns away from law-abiding people who had nothing whatever to do with the incident, but to keep them out of the hands of the kinds of deranged individuals who commit crimes like this. I think it is vital that anyone who intends to contact his governor or legislator to register his opposition to gun control should do more than just that. Give the politician a practical, and politically feasible alternative to just voting against the antis. Remind him of the need to make it more difficult for the non-adjudicated mentally ill to come into possession of weapons. Right now, not enough is being done, the medical community — psychiatrists, therapists, school counselors and the like — are worried about privacy issues and the legal liability they may face for violating them. Right now, states aren't submitting records of people who are supposed to be ineligible under the 1968 gun control statute, and a federal database with the names of mentally ill people barred from buying guns still lacks millions of records it needs to be effective. See: http://www.npr.org/2012/08/16/158932528/states-arent-submitting-records-to-gun-database

So don't just write your politicians and say: "don't you dare support gun control." Write to them and say: "don't support gun control, because it doesn't work, and it's not the real problem. The real problem is keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people, and here's what you need to do about that..." Then explain the need to change whatever state or local laws are helping to prevent the records of people who have been involuntarily committed off the database of people ineligible to purchase a firearm.

 

[ACP]

"we all know the majority of the people who make up this group that want to ban guns."

More and more everyday it is NOT the "libs" and the "antis" but everyday people -- your friends, neighbors and co-workers -- who see mass shootings with legally owned firearms, and ask -- rightfully -- why??

Lots of reflection and SOME NEW THINKING is required by gun owners here, and NOT the reflexive statements like the "if only the kids and teachers had guns!" drivel that is put out by pro-gun groups. NOBODY believes that.

Maybe a common theme to focus on here is SECURING your firearms and COMPREHNSIVE BACKGROUND CHECKS everyuwhere. Why are these young white males with mental health problems able to get handguns and rifles?

 

[.333 Nitro Express]

ACP,

"Lots of reflection and SOME NEW THINKING is required by gun owners here, and NOT the reflexive statements like the "if only the kids and teachers had guns!" drivel that is put out by pro-gun groups. NOBODY believes that."

I think you are caricaturizing what is instead a very sensible line of thinking, which is far from being drivel: letting teachers who have CCWs carry their guns in school is only politically unthinkable because we as a society have let it become so. And even then, there are states and municipalities that are seriously considering doing this, and we may live to see the day when an adult's 2nd Amendment rights don't stop in a school's parking lot.

"Maybe a common theme to focus on here is SECURING your firearms and COMPREHNSIVE BACKGROUND CHECKS everywhere. Why are these young white males with mental health problems able to get handguns and rifles?"

Care to elaborate? Securing how? Are you talking mandatory trigger locks, disassembled storage and/or safes for everyone, a la Great Britain circa 1990? If so, look how well that turned out.

I honestly think that the only sensible thing to do here is to CALM DOWN. Laws passed in the turbulent climax of a moment like this are always emotionally-based and end up making problems worse on one hand while restricting people's liberties on the other.

 

[jon_in_wv]

I also don't believe armed teachers is the answer. First of all it WILL NEVER HAPPEN. If you ever want to find and anti-gun group its teachers. What can be done is improved security of schools and armed security. The NEA would crush any effort to give the teachers guns or make them carry them, I believe they would get behind stronger security as long as it didn't effect their own fat paychecks to pay for it. If the state says the school is my child's guardian when at school I would like more effective security than just happy thoughts and the unlikelihood something bad will happen.

 

[Billy Shears]

I also don't believe armed teachers is the answer. First of all it WILL NEVER HAPPEN. If you ever want to find and anti-gun group its teachers. What can be done is improved security of schools and armed security. The NEA would crush any effort to give the teachers guns or make them carry them, I believe they would get behind stronger security as long as it didn't effect their own fat paychecks to pay for it. If the state says the school is my child's guardian when at school I would like more effective security than just happy thoughts and the unlikelihood something bad will happen.

While I would support any effort to make it possible for teachers to carry (and would oppose any to make them do so), I also don't believe this will ever happen. On the other hand, I can't see armed guards being much of an answer either. First off, how are we going to pay for it? Too many states already are looking at massive budget overruns, and billions in unfunded liabilities down the road. How on earth are we going to afford more state employees, complete with benefits, pensions, etc.? Where's the money to pay for all this going to come from. Second, consider the caliber of the likely employees in this capacity. Most cops have a very low opinion of security guards, and for good reason. Too many of them are police wannabes who couldn't get on any department they applied to, and for the rest... well, the pay isn't enough to attract the caliber employee you'd want.

I still think the best way is to direct all the outrage and desire for some sort of response from lawmakers into an effort to improve the reporting of mentally ill people by the medical community for background checks. The more of these shootings there are, the more it will give support among non-shooters for a reinstatement of the "assault weapons" ban. We need to come up with an alternative that we can point out to the non-shooting public as better and more effective, and which just might have some real effect in heading off a few of these incidents.

 

[Coltdriver]

It would be most effective if we were able to shift the argument to mental health and away from guns.

I will be calling Hickenlooper the next time he is on the Mike Rosen show.

The argument needs to be put into the public domain in order to get it moving.

That "uninformed crowd" also known as low information voters could be swayed.

We will never change the minds of the wannabe communists/tyrannical government types.

But the public could be rallied behind the management and correction of the root cause of these shootings which in every instance is mental illness.

 

[elwoodm]

good point about the teachers are mainly anti gun bet that thinking now might change. well back to the point of co. gov. my sister lives in aurora and has said in the last few years the amount of people coming from ca. has changed everything about the place. maybe this gov. is trying to pander the new crowd that has packed the u-haul with ca. liberal ways and now wants to shove it down co. people's necks. maybe that's why my sister is moving to n.c. next year had enough. lets pass a law that says ounce you have been raised in a liberal bastion you can't relocate to spread the sickness that you have absorbed.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Hickenlooper said the issues that merit discussion include "things like, do we all need assault weapons?" which he said are "designed for warfare" and "designed to pierce bulletproof vests and body armor."

Which true answer to go with though? That is doesn't matter if we need them or not, because it's our right? Or that the fact is "YES" we DO need weapons designed for warfare as the 2A was written directly after a war with a tyrannical government.

 

[ACP]

Mandatory trigger locks required at time of sale?

Yes.

Penalties -- including mandatory minimum jail time, monetary fines and loss of your firearms -- if someone gets ahold of your firearm and uses it to commit a crime??

Yes.

The strictest background checks imagineable -- personal interviews, fingerprints, military background check, domestic abuse and drug abuse checks, etc. etc. etc. -- for everyone, every single time, including gun shows and personal sales??

Yes.

Mandatory safety and legal use training before purchase??

Yes.

Mandatory police re-interviews and re-qualification and re-testing every 3-5 years to maintain permit?

Yes.

 

[leadcounsel]

Well, to those supporters of Democrats, who pounded their fists saying that Obama wasn't going to ban guns, now we can say that we told you so.

His speech Friday called for gun control, and now we've got a Democtratic Senate that will push for it and a President who will eagerly sign it. And we also have states now pushing for it. Shameful!

I don't think it will make it through the House, or the Senate, but we are in REAL danger if it does because Obama will sign it in a heartbeat.

The assault on guns is on!!! (BTW, Romney wouldn't have signed it I don't believe, despite his MA history).

It's shameful that these morons in office can't read or comprehend the 2A. CT governor said that you don't "hunt with assault weapons," clearly clueless of the intent of the 2A and making statements from emotion.

So, my activism is posting all over facebook and other media to encourage others write their representatives, and I am going to do the same.

This is a reminder to all gun enthusiasts, VOTES MEAN SOMETHING!!!! We are in a real pickel here, that we wouldn't be in if those gun owners voted better.

I would also suggest that the 'victims' families sue the HECK out of "gun free" zones like the Aurora Theater, schools, etc. If a single responsible armed person were there, or guards even, many lives could be saved!

 

[joneb]

"YES" we DO need weapons designed for warfare as the 2A was written directly after a war with a tyrannical government.

I agree.
As we mourn the loss of innocent children we cannot loose sight of the dangers of being a unarmed society.
We cannot forget the crimes against humanity committed by such as Stalin ,Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Hitler and ect... where Millions were killed because they could not fight back.
If you think things are different now and it could never happen again, You are dead wrong it is happening as I type this.

 

[Billy Shears]

Penalties -- including mandatory minimum jail time, monetary fines and loss of your firearms -- if someone gets ahold of your firearm and uses it to commit a crime??

Yes.

So if you buy a gun, and someone breaks into your house and steals it, along with your laptop, the family silver, all the jewelry in the house, etc., and then kills some one with it, YOU go to jail?

I don't think so. Try again.

 

[.333 Nitro Express]

Sorry, ACP--I don't think so either.

I respect your point of view, but I think you consider gun ownership to be a concession from Government that we must go begging for, hat in hand, every three to five years. And just who is going to ensure that our enlightened betters will not clamp down on approvals as the political winds shift? No, thanks.

Besides (and this is not aimed at you), I find this obsession on "opportunity" to be peculiar--typical of the American deterministic mentality (with which I vehemently disagree). The gun made him do it. I wonder what would happen if we all of a sudden started focusing with equal tunnel-vision on "motive," and we went after the 1st amendment rights of journalists who lionize the monsters who commit these crimes. Hey, I'm a pathetic loser, but I'm a few dead bodies away from being plastered all over the news: let them all hear how I was such a nice, quiet kid, who loved animals and always took out the trash. Indeed.

I don't want to get off topic, but in this society, we must choose between true freedom (which behooves a nation of moral, self-restraining adults)--or to be a bunch of overgrown kids who behave like animals as long as our government child-proofs our world for us. And sorry, but our government doesn't need any encouragement in this regard, much less from us.

Over and out.

 

[friscolatchi]

There are plenty of teachers here in UpstateNY who carry and would do so on the job.

 

[DAP90]

Anyone interested in contacting an elected official?

I am. It might be helpful to craft some talking points people can make.

 

[JERRY]

its uncomfortable for politicians to place the blame on the mental illness which caused this, much easier to blame the object.

akin to blaming general motors for dui car wrecks.

 

[Green Lantern]

.333 - great post, reminds me of a John Connor column in American Handgunner, "Chalk and Cheese."

I am. It might be helpful to craft some talking points people can make.

IMO, it needs to be about more than making sure we law-abiding gun owners aren't all punished for the actions of a monster. That's important, yeah, but MORE important is making sure that any action taken will actually keep people safe! Paint gun control as a feel-good solution that will only grant the ILLUSION of safety, and ideally offer up some better alternatives.

 

[CoRoMo]

I don't like talking points because I don't want every email that my state's elected class receives to contain the very same list of remarks. They will too easily disregard those letters and emails.

Just speak from the heart. Tell them what to do and what not to do because they are our servants in government. If you hold dear to any belief in regards to RKBA, speak it forth to the ones who would destroy those dearly held beliefs.

 

[MR2Aaron]

Isn't "keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable" technically gun control?

It's just smarter gun control than an outright ban.

 

[ACP]

With "freedom" and rights come responsibilities. It's as simple as that.