Could mass killing be a gun-control tipping point?
WASHINGTON (AP) - The question surfaces each time a mass murder unfolds: Will this one change the political calculus in Washington against tougher gun control?
The answer, after the Virginia Tech killings, the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords, the Colorado movie-theater attack, the Wisconsin Sikh temple shootings, and more: No.
But now?
The massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., the bloodiest attack against youngsters in the nation's history, stands as a possible tipping point after Washington's decade-long aversion even to talking about stricter gun laws.
So it seems in the stunned aftermath, judging from President Barack Obama's body language as much as his statement. "We have been through this too many times," said the famously composed president, this time moved to tears. "We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."
It remains to be seen whether Sandy Hook will break the usual cycle of universal shock fading into political reality. That reality is based on a combination of powerful gun lobbying and public opinion, which has shifted against tougher gun control and stayed that way. However lawmakers react this time, it's the president's call whether the issue fades again or takes its place alongside the legacy-shaping initiatives of his time, with all the peril that could mean for his party.
With the murder rate less than half what it was two decades ago, and violent crime down even more in that time, gun control has declined as a political issue.
But New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun control advocate, heard the familiar in Obama's initial response, despite the striking emotion.
"Not enough," Bloomberg said of Obama's words. "We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership - not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today."
The Newtown shooter brought three guns into the school, and the weapons were registered to his slain mother, according to a law enforcement official who was not authorized to discuss information with reporters and spoke on condition of anonymity. The official said a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, and a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle were found in the school after the attack, and a fourth weapon was recovered outside.
One certainty in the weeks to come is that both parties in Washington will carefully watch public opinion on gun control and the Second Amendment, and whether any impact lasts. Opposition to stricter laws has proved resilient.
In July, a gunman opened fire on Aurora, Colo., theatergoers watching the Batman movie, "The Dark Knight Rises," killing 12 people. The next month, an Associated Press-National Constitution Center poll found that 49 percent of Americans felt laws limiting gun ownership infringe on the right to bear arms, while only 43 percent said such laws do not infringe on those rights.
By many measures, Americans have changed on the question since the 1990s, when people favored gun control over gun rights - by a 2-to-1 margin in polling after the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Colorado. In a Gallup poll last year, 55 percent said gun laws should stay the same or be more lenient, while 43 percent wanted them toughened.
None of this is lost on Washington, where most Democrats long ago abandoned their advocacy of gun control, convinced that it is a losing issue for them. Obama has proposed reinstituting a federal ban on military-style assault weapons that lapsed years ago, but he's put no weight behind it, while signing laws letting people carry concealed weapons in national parks and in checked bags on Amtrak trains.
After the movie-theater attack, Obama declared "we should leave no stone unturned" to keep young people safe in a speech indicating he would challenge Congress to act on gun control. That expectation lasted for one day. The White House swiftly clarified that Obama would not propose stiffer gun laws this election year and favored more effective enforcement of existing law - a position hardly distinguishable from that of his Republican rival, Mitt Romney.
Likewise, early last year, Obama weighed in on guns after an assailant killed six people and wounded 13, shooting then-Rep. Giffords in the head outside a grocery store in Tucson, Ariz. The president called for "sound and effective steps" in gun laws as part of a "new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people." He soon went back to silence on the topic and gun-control advocates waited in vain for the steps.
With his last presidential campaign behind him, Obama is freer to take up contentious matters that he wouldn't touch when he was an incumbent seeking re-election. Odds are favorable that he will have at least one vacancy to fill on a Supreme Court now closely divided on gun cases.
The Aurora attack happened in the heat of the campaign, when Democrats wanted no trouble from gun owners. In its first official response to the killings, Obama's White House pledged to protect fundamental gun rights. Obama and his spokesmen never failed to couple his wish for "common-sense measures" with his devotion to the Second Amendment.
But after the massacre of children Friday, Obama spoke mainly of the anguish, and the need for action, and not at all about the right to bear arms.
By the standards of gun-control politics, that alone was a crack in the status quo.
___
Associated Press writer Matt Apuzzo in Newtown, Conn., contributed to this report.
The answer, after the Virginia Tech killings, the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords, the Colorado movie-theater attack, the Wisconsin Sikh temple shootings, and more: No.
But now?
The massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., the bloodiest attack against youngsters in the nation's history, stands as a possible tipping point after Washington's decade-long aversion even to talking about stricter gun laws.
So it seems in the stunned aftermath, judging from President Barack Obama's body language as much as his statement. "We have been through this too many times," said the famously composed president, this time moved to tears. "We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."
It remains to be seen whether Sandy Hook will break the usual cycle of universal shock fading into political reality. That reality is based on a combination of powerful gun lobbying and public opinion, which has shifted against tougher gun control and stayed that way. However lawmakers react this time, it's the president's call whether the issue fades again or takes its place alongside the legacy-shaping initiatives of his time, with all the peril that could mean for his party.
With the murder rate less than half what it was two decades ago, and violent crime down even more in that time, gun control has declined as a political issue.
But New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun control advocate, heard the familiar in Obama's initial response, despite the striking emotion.
"Not enough," Bloomberg said of Obama's words. "We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership - not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today."
The Newtown shooter brought three guns into the school, and the weapons were registered to his slain mother, according to a law enforcement official who was not authorized to discuss information with reporters and spoke on condition of anonymity. The official said a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, and a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle were found in the school after the attack, and a fourth weapon was recovered outside.
One certainty in the weeks to come is that both parties in Washington will carefully watch public opinion on gun control and the Second Amendment, and whether any impact lasts. Opposition to stricter laws has proved resilient.
In July, a gunman opened fire on Aurora, Colo., theatergoers watching the Batman movie, "The Dark Knight Rises," killing 12 people. The next month, an Associated Press-National Constitution Center poll found that 49 percent of Americans felt laws limiting gun ownership infringe on the right to bear arms, while only 43 percent said such laws do not infringe on those rights.
By many measures, Americans have changed on the question since the 1990s, when people favored gun control over gun rights - by a 2-to-1 margin in polling after the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Colorado. In a Gallup poll last year, 55 percent said gun laws should stay the same or be more lenient, while 43 percent wanted them toughened.
None of this is lost on Washington, where most Democrats long ago abandoned their advocacy of gun control, convinced that it is a losing issue for them. Obama has proposed reinstituting a federal ban on military-style assault weapons that lapsed years ago, but he's put no weight behind it, while signing laws letting people carry concealed weapons in national parks and in checked bags on Amtrak trains.
After the movie-theater attack, Obama declared "we should leave no stone unturned" to keep young people safe in a speech indicating he would challenge Congress to act on gun control. That expectation lasted for one day. The White House swiftly clarified that Obama would not propose stiffer gun laws this election year and favored more effective enforcement of existing law - a position hardly distinguishable from that of his Republican rival, Mitt Romney.
Likewise, early last year, Obama weighed in on guns after an assailant killed six people and wounded 13, shooting then-Rep. Giffords in the head outside a grocery store in Tucson, Ariz. The president called for "sound and effective steps" in gun laws as part of a "new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people." He soon went back to silence on the topic and gun-control advocates waited in vain for the steps.
With his last presidential campaign behind him, Obama is freer to take up contentious matters that he wouldn't touch when he was an incumbent seeking re-election. Odds are favorable that he will have at least one vacancy to fill on a Supreme Court now closely divided on gun cases.
The Aurora attack happened in the heat of the campaign, when Democrats wanted no trouble from gun owners. In its first official response to the killings, Obama's White House pledged to protect fundamental gun rights. Obama and his spokesmen never failed to couple his wish for "common-sense measures" with his devotion to the Second Amendment.
But after the massacre of children Friday, Obama spoke mainly of the anguish, and the need for action, and not at all about the right to bear arms.
By the standards of gun-control politics, that alone was a crack in the status quo.
___
Associated Press writer Matt Apuzzo in Newtown, Conn., contributed to this report.
New Liberal rules to control gun ownership: Mental Health Test,
Â
"So, Mr. Jones, is it true that you want to buy a firearm for personal protection?"
"Yes sir."
I'm so sorry Mr. Jones, but you failed the test."
"But I haven't taken the test yet."
"That was the test. Clearly anyone who wants to own a firearm is crazy."
Â
"NEXT!"
Â
Â
This comment has been deleted
@Fed up Fed @Scotty9 what about the Empire State Building shootings where 9 (nine) people were shot by the cops?
 @The Resistance  @Fed  @Scotty9Â
Â
Very unfortunate. The police violated one of the cardinal rules of shooting-know your backstop. That said, all the training in the world often times won't win out over fear. In a shooting that it s over in a couple of seconds, people, cops included, get tunnel vision and don't see the full picture. It is almost impossible to not engage a threat when your life is on the line. Thankfully, none of those people died except the bad guy.
How about passing a law that states that all murder/suicides must commit suicide first.
@Fed up Fed
Statistics and bogus research are another common tactic of the gun control crowd. The Kellerman research has serious issues and has been discredited.Â
Â
The bottom line is that you cannot prevent a nut from getting a gun if he's truly determined.  There are already laws and rules in place to try and prevent that, but they are easily circumvented. So you install a law that says that anyone who want to own a firearm needs a mental health evaluation. That only works if the nut goes through legal channels. I'm sure that the criminals in our country will be happy to get checked out before buying their gun. So what you end up doing is creating more legal loops for normal, law-abiding citizens to jump through, costing tons of money and having little or no effect on the problem, but hey, we'll all "feel" really good about ourselves and "feel" like we did something about the "gun problem"
Â
The real problem that no one wants to address is the moral collapse of our society. The violence in our country is a symptom of a much larger problem that won't be solved by laws and feel good legislation.
 @Fed up Fed  @Scotty9Â
Â
1. Of limited usefulness. You and I both know how easy and fast a magazine can be changed. A little bit of training in tactical reloading negates your chances of taking the shooter down. The vast majority are taken down by their own hand.
Â
2. Again, of limited value. Easily circumvented. Might be helpful for screening those that wish to legally carry concealed, but again, the criminals and mentally ill don't follow rules.
Â
3. No problem with that, though there are laws already in place, again of limited value since the horse is already out of the barn at that point and deterrent value of the law is debatable. (Do you think you can punish a parent any more after his child has killed himself with an unsecured gun?)
Â
4. Not a problem with that to a point. I don't think that it needs to be to the degree of a cop, but certainly a lot more than is being done right now.  The training must be available to all who are lawfully able to carry, even those who can't afford to pay for the training. If not, only the wealthy would be allowed to carry.
Â
These solutions are basically feel good measures. They will have little impact in the real world, but I have no problem as long as they are not part of an incremental plan to ban guns outright.
@Fed up Fed
"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."Â Ayn Rand
Â
I will admit you are making me mad, and anger is always fear. I am afraid people will believe your argument, because it is seemingly persuasive. However, it rests on several false premises'.
Â
First, I will state my credentials: I am a trained, very educated researcher, with a penchant for methodology who now works law-enforcement. Also, when I was pursuing a mere Bachelor of Science, I was able to best Arthur Kellermann in the eyes of my anti-gun liberal PhD (actual researcher) professors in research and data design classes, and it was easy. Now I will state the credentials of your main source,  Arthur Kellermann: He is a medical doctor (M.D.), not a research degree, he has a master's in public health (M.P.H.), not a research degree, this particular degree is related to the practice of public health, not research, and he is a Fellow of American College of Emergency Medicine, a post-nominal title, not related to research.
Â
Kellermann, is not a researcher, and one does not have to be a researcher to get published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJofM). In other words, the NEJofM  has a very lofty sounding name, but it is not that discriminating ( read picky) when it comes to objective science.  and his research into guns being dangerous to those who possess them rests on the premise that guns are only useful if there is a body count of the bad guys. The problem with his "study" is he does not take into account the usefulness of firearms in deterrence. The latest from the FBI is that 750,000 incidents of self-defense with firearms occur per year (a term that means as little as merely mentioning "leave or I'll shoot you," and often means just displaying the gun of the citizen to the criminal). The FBI study appears to be the minimum, others, including John Lott, an actual researcher (as opposed to Kellermann), put the figure at around 2,000,000 incidents per year. So when you quote Kellermann and show that gun owners are "...4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault if you're carrying a gun than if you're not." you and Kellermann are only using the data that resulted in the bad guy getting shot. How cynical is that?
Â
And despite your attempt at using the logical fallacy of the ad hominem (gun nut and global warming denier)  with those that chose to argue the legitimacy of "Global Warming," I will address it here with brevity: Global Warming science is "science" based on consensus rather than the facts. In other words a large group of "scientists" have decided that waiting for the facts to come in is too risky, and have decided that moving toward policies that would restrict their idea of the most important green house gasses is too important to wait for the truth, because of the "what if." That is not science.
Â
I am not addressing every minute aspect of your "argument" because what I have written should suffice to convince those thoughtful enough to realize that criminals don't believe in laws, that's why they are criminals. However, I would like to address one more thing, you said,  "... I'm also a Veteran, and a gun owner. But I also have specialized training and, unlike most gun owners, can actually defend myself instead of just talk about it." The problem with most training is the trainers marketing of their training, which is always something to the effect of "follow me and you will be better than those that have not had my training." So I am not surprised that you are human and have been brain washed in this manner. I will say that in your favor, that your specialized training gave you a sense of superiority (sometimes attitude is everything) which probably enables you to protect yourself and others in your military squad or law-enforcement unit at a distance. Most gun owners only have to protect themselves or loved-ones at arm's reach, or just a tiny bit further. So your specialized training is nice to have, but try not to discount whatever training "most gun owners" have because specialized means specific but may not be the best for mere personal self-defense.
Â
As far as your solutions, "you think..." does not make your Ideas true or even useful.
 @Fed up Fed  @Scotty9Â
Â
Whatever makes you feel better. The fact is that the guns and crazies are here to stay. What is your solution?
Here's the gub he used: http://www.slickguns.com/product/bushmaster-trs-25-red-dot-64999-store-cabelas. Essentially an AR-15 Explain to me why anyone needs or should have a gun like this. The issue isn't gun control, it's public safety.
@blotto Wow such logic! Why are the highways clogged with SUV's the size of small busses being occupied by one person needed? Why do people own more than one home? Why does an individual own an airplane? Why is it necessary that Obama saddle taxpayers with a $4 million bill to fly to Hawaii for a 3 week vacation when 30 thousand people are without power and countless without homes because of Sandy?
All of the gun rules and regulations around schools has only provided target rich low risk environments for these kind of events. When will the liberals learn that their ideas just don't work? Why do they insist on sacrificing our children by removing any protection that could stop these acts?
Â
Sure! These acts need to stop! But it will never happen by punishing legal law abiding citizens for the acts of the criminals!
I certainly hope so, even if it means passing a mental stability test
 Law officers have to do this. yet Police officers have gone on shooting sprees in the past few years. So this wouldn't help!
 @Luckylucy Except that to Liberals you must be mentally unstable if want a gun.
 @Scotty9  @Luckylucy Scotty, this is not about liberals or conservatives.  In your mind, the country may be broken down into two sides, liberals and conservatives, but it just isn't true.  There are liberals who support the NRA and conservatives who recognize that something should be done about our gun violence epidemic.  Making this discussion an attack on liberals and everything you think they stand for is just a diistraction.
Â
We have an epidemic of gun violence in America. The death rates from breast cancer and guns are about equal. Â Twice as many people die from guns in America then die from HIV/AIDS. Â With over 30,000 gun deaths a year and 80,000 non fatal injuries, it doesn't take a genius or a liberal to see this as a public safety, public health issue. Â In my view, people like you who argue against reasonable gun policies share some responsibility for this tragedy. Â It was not unforeseen.
Â
Reasonable gun policy does not mean depriving citizens of the right of self defense, it only involves developing sensible weapon safety policies. Â We have already decided that there are arms citizens shouldn't own, for example, nuclear weapons, surface to air missiles, grenade launchers, etc. Â Since arms control is already in place, the discussion really comes down to where to draw the line.
Â
The weapon used in this attack was a Bushmaster 223, essentially an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Â It usually comes with a 30-round magazine, but you can get a 40-round magazine. Â Explain to me why you think it is the public interest for people to own this type of weapon.
@blotto @Scotty9 @Luckylucy ---Keep drinking the koolaid!
 @Scotty9  @Luckylucy I think a limit on magazine size would be a good idea.  I would also like to see a ban on semi-automatic weapons.
 @blotto  @LuckylucyÂ
Â
We have an epidemic of violence in this country, guns are merely the tool many people use to express it.  All the gun laws in the world will not stop a determined person from getting and using one. Look and D.C. and Chicago as examples.
Â
The fact is that 250 million guns are here and even if a complete ban and confiscation was ordered the majority of them would still stay in private hands. Most of them in the hands of criminals and people that don't follow laws/rules in general.
Â
It is clear that the Left in this nation, not all, but the majority, want severe gun control if not a total ban on guns. I have no problem with reasonable rules and regulations, even a psych eval is fine with me as long as it's strictly controlled and not taken advantage of by the government. But from experience we know that politicians and extremists always try to get there foot in the door and the next thing you know they're all the way in and demanding things they promised they never would.
Â
As for the guns used, the facts are still out. Some say that the Bushmaster was used other reports say it was not. Regardless, having an "assault rifle" doesn't guarantee success. The Clackamas mall shooter fired over 60 rounds and hit 3 people.
Â
Actually the AR 15 typically comes with a 15-round magazine. So you would be okay with them if they only had 10-round magazines? I'm okay with that.
Ever notice these  mass shootings  ALWAYS  happen where there are not supposed to be any other guns???
 @kramr I came to the same reckoning yesterday.  Guns not allowed in schools or movie theaters.  Almost anywhere else, a legally armed citizen could be encountered.  I'm sure the pros have this profiled.Â
"""""Could mass killing be a gun-control tipping point?""""""
Â
Only to the small minded people who can't separate  the difference between  an inanimate  object  and the human  it REQUIRES  for  bad things to happen with said inanimate object.Â
Â
Anyone who believes gun control is the answer  believes  spoons are a cause of  morbid obesity
Â
Â
 @kramr Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people!
@blotto   when was the last time a nuclear weapon went off on its own WITHOUT HUMAN setting it to go off
@blotto @kramr --I have a dirty bomb I would like to send you. ;-)
@blotto @kramr blotto, you are an ingnorant idiot.
 @kramr Exactly my point.  I should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon.
While I'll admit it ISÂ extraordinary to have 3 events like this, nearly back-to-back, blaming guns is NOT the answer, disarming lawful citizens is NOT the answer, subverting the constitution is NOT the answer.Â
When a dog kills or mames someone you blame the owner. When a gun kills or injures someone you blame the gun? I guess I should lock my dogs in a safe and let my guns run free in the backyard. I have bought several of my guns used, and not knowing the previous owners, I do not know their bad habits so now I'm a bit worried that they may run out on their own and shoot someone. That would be terrible as I'd hate to see them put down. Well my guns are now curreled up on the couch and my dogs have trigger locks around their snouts. I feel safer now, DO YOU?
 @GregFromOregon Sadly, the same day as the tragedy in Newton, a man in China stabbed 22 children and an 85 year old woman.  If their government confiscates every knife in China, will the problem be solved?
 @Sam in Wa State  @GregFromOregon Your example actually highlights the problem with assault weapons.  Here's a quote from the news report on your example.  "A Guangshan County hospital administrator said there were no deaths among the nine students admitted to the hospital, although two badly wounded children were transferred to better-equipped hospitals outside the county."  It is still tragic to have 22 children stabbed, but they all survived.
I am curious as to why this AP writer failed to mention Chicago's skyrocketing murder rate (most by gun) as part of this "gun control tipping point," article? The victims,while mainly gangbangers,also include innocent children ,high school sports stars,the elderly and everyday innocent bystanders, and as of 12/03, 485 murders had been committed.Keep in mind, when a post weekend news headline shows up on a Monday,it could read "8 Killled,40 Wounded In Weekend Violence," so the total number of people injured in shootings could be 4-5 times the murder rate...... Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country,don't they? .
 @angry1Â
Here is the link for the latest killings in Chicago.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-shootings-violence-december-14-december-15-20121214,0,912168.story
Â
And here is the very restrictive gun laws in Chicago. Basically only criminals are allowed to have guns because, they don't respect laws.
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/About%20CPD/Firearm%20Registration
Â
Chicago is an excellent example of how restrictive gun laws don't work.
@RalphCramden WOW!! Absolutely unbelievable !! I wouldn't even want to try registering a gun there after reading the registration link..
 @angry1Â
It is pretty insane and designed for the rich and well connected. Common citizens need not apply.
It is anti-social behavior that is causing this. you can do your whole day and week without talking to, or relating to someone. I see people spending hours on and the whole day even on the computer or playing violent video games. Even checking out at a store, there is U-scan. When I make a delivery, I am yelled at, and for interrupting one's show or game or self-medicating. Our lives are easier with technology, but realize we still need to be social and still need to be human and step out of your alternate universe and the drug element doesn't help either!
 @Randy Duyck "Your own creations will be your own destructions" Peace
sad reality is, this nut could have easily walked in with any number of things, gas, etc, and caused as much or more grief/horror. train and arm techers? maybe.
 Being the avid hunter and Gun enthusiast i am, I must say I am all for making it tough for certain people to obtain guns in general, but ya know folks, really there is not much we can do. Think about it, what would happen if one would get a gun illegally? send him to jail? he already has a death wish he could care less. We are living at a time when a Dangerous, Evil individual can threaten us all. And if we make it extremely difficult for one to get their deadly hands on a gun, then they will resort to the next level.....a bomb!....and that folks is something we all should be very careful in making decisions on gun control,Â
These kinds of people are getting more dangerous and nutty every day, and we as American citizens  must make a decision on whether  if we want our loved ones taken home in a body bag or garbage bag, because if someone wants to make a death with himself and can not get a gun, he will make a human bomb, and the after effects can be absolutely like nothing you have ever scene, will not take a hour or two to identify a body it could take weeks.,
Â
 Please understand I am not trying to be sadistic here it is just the facts, there may not be as many as our shooters we have had lately, but one well placed human bomb in a school lunch room or movie house can kill and Mame hundreds, thus killing way more than a shooter who may kill a few before he takes his life.....so i say don't make the gun laws to strict that one would go to the next extreme means, I know how morbid this seems but folks we are not dealing with the normal killer here we are dealing with ones who just want to prove a psychotic point and could care less if they go out in a blaze of glory or not. ....and dont ever think "OH people are not that screwed up!" O yes they are! , if one will not think twice about killing young beautiful children....then they could not care less on how they would do it , by any means possible .
We do a fair job of trying to keep rapists, pedophiles and known sex offenders away from schools and children. Why couldn't we do a better job of keeping mass killing style video games and real weapons away from mentally messed up people? And why in the heck did his mom have guns in the house with a known mentally  ill kid?
 @last boyscout I tend to agree.  Was this kid known to be mentally ill?  Obviously he was, but his behavior must have tipped off his mother prior to the episode.  I don't mean to be cruel but this could have been prevented.  I'd urge others who live with people with such disorders to be the one who prevents this from happening again.
 @last boyscout More like, why did mom not have a gun safe and the weapons locked up?Â
 @Saltire Correct. I should have said why did his mother have accessible guns in the house? Â
The solution is to attempt to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. There is no perfect solution to this, however, I believe that anyone who owns a gun,or wants to buy a gun should have to take a psychological exam to determine mental stability. The license would have to be renewed every few years with another exam. Guns can be stolen, or borrowed by family members so this is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.
Gun control will be as effective as drug control.
@Chris Somethingoranother Probably even less effective than drug control. Drugs were never as much a part in American culture as guns are now.
@HuskyKMA More of our kids are on prescription drugs than have EVER fired a gun. More of our kids have used illegal drugs than have EVER fired a gun. 41% of adults in America have admitted to smoking pot unless you talk to the pro pot crowd who say that number is more like 60%. I doubt 60%, or even 40% of adults in this counrty have fired a gun.
Oh, I wish I could disagree, but you are probably right. If my dreams came true, we would have Canda style laws: All guns are registered, and no handguns at all.
@Mechanic Ya, I can see all the criminals running right down to their local police dept. and turning in their handguns, just like they do when they find someone selling drugs.
I don't know if it would stop the killing, but poll after poll shows most Americans support some reasonable gun control. Â There is no support for getting rid of guns, but people support limiting magazine size and some sort of limit on semi-automatic weapons. Â The thing is the NRA and gun lobbies give more to the government so they buy out legislators' votes. Â
Â
Take the recent murderer. Â He wasn't macho. Â Any of the women teachers could have taken him out. Â But, with a gun, he was formidable. Â Go ahead and make all the guns don't kill people arguments. Â This guy couldn't kill his way out of a wet paper bag without guns.
He would be just as formidable with a truck on a sidewalk...........
 @Jeepers It is a public safety issue.  Why don't we allow citizens to have grenade launchers, surface-to-air missiles, machine guns, etc.?  There is already a line, it is just an issue of where the line is drawn.