Showing posts with label assault weapons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label assault weapons. Show all posts

Sunday, April 3, 2022

ASSAULT WEAPONS = 6 dead...10+ wounded


Six people are now dead from gun violence and more than ten are wounded. Early this morning in Sacramento, California, in downtown, no less, and they haven't caught the shooter yet, as of moments ago. This is the city's second mass shooting in a month and yet another cry for help from gun control advocates to ban assault weapons. Who the hell needs this kind of weapon for anything other than to kill as many people as possible?

The U.S. gun culture has reached its limits when it come to the limits of firearms on the street. There are 393 million guns on U.S. Streets with a population of 326 million people. And do guns make us safer? According to David Hemenway, professor of health policy at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, "there is no good evidence that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury." So why are there so many guns in America?

Because there are so many gun nuts, many of which are not satisfied with just one

gun, but require several. According to Pew Research, two-thirds of gun owners say they own more than one gun, including 29% who own five or more guns. But, admittedly, the major problem recently seems to be mass killings, which usually involve assault weapons. Getting rid of these vast agents of human destruction would, at least be a start.

You can see a collection of my posts on gun violence over the


Saturday, December 5, 2015

Bernie Sanders on gun control

This is what Bernie Sanders wants to do about gun control:

1. We can expand background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. This is an idea that over 80% of Americans agree with, even a majority of gun owners.2. & 3. We can renew the assault weapons ban and end the sale of high capacity magazines — military-style tools created for the purpose of killing people as efficiently as possible.4. Since 2004, over 2,000 people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list have legally purchased guns in the United States. Let’s close the “terror gap” and make sure known foreign and domestic terrorists are included on prohibited purchaser lists.5. We can close loopholes in our laws that allow perpetrators of stalking and dating violence to buy guns. In the United States, the intended targets of a majority of our mass shootings are intimate partners or family members, and over 60% of victims are women and children. Indeed, a woman is five times more likely to die in a domestic violence incident when a gun is present.6. We should close the loophole that allows prohibited purchasers to buy a gun without a completed background check after a three-day waiting period expires. Earlier this year, Dylann Roof shot and killed nine of our fellow Americans while they prayed in a historic church, simply because of the color of their skin. This act of terror was possible because of loopholes in our background check laws. Congress should act to ensure the standard for ALL gun purchases is a completed background check. No check — no sale.7. It’s time to pass federal gun trafficking laws. I support Kirsten Gillibrand’s Hadiya Pendleton and Nyasia Pryear-Yard Gun Trafficking & Crime Prevention Act of 2015, which would “make gun trafficking a federal crime and provide tools to law enforcement to get illegal guns off the streets and away from criminal networks and street gangs.”8. It’s time to strengthen penalties for straw purchasers who buy guns from licensed dealers on behalf of a prohibited purchaser.9. We must authorize resources for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study and research the causes and effects of gun violence in the United States of America.10. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are over 21,000 firearm suicides every year in the United States. It’s time we expand and improve our mental health capabilities in this country so that people who need care can get care when they need it, regardless of their level of income.

Wednesday, June 18, 2014


Hillary Clinton looks to be on her way to the presidency in 2016, that is if she decides to run. That would be a good thing for a lot of reasons but especially because she seems to be a staunch supporter 
Hillary Clinton
of gun control
and isn't afraid to say it. In a Time magazine interview she said gun control opponents hold views that "terrorizes" a majority of the American public. Could she mean the National Rifle Assn. in her definition of "gun control opponents?" Clinton continued, “We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.” She is another who cannot understand how this Congress could not pass universal background checks and thinks the NRA's opposition to this legislation could backfire, "...alienating moderate gun owners." Clinton also endorsed a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, making it a neat gun control package for the future.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

From box cutters to assault weapons in gun control

Sanjay Sanghoee is a blogger on politics and the author of two novels.  He has written several posts for the Huff Post on gun control and has heatedly talked about the 2nd Amendment and its shortcomings and misinterpretations.  He notes that it is time to challenge this part of the Constitution and makes a good case for doing so.  I did the same in a 3-part series back in September of 2011: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3.  And I really like Sanghoee’s take on a “well regulated militia.”

But first, it is Sanghoee’s conclusion that “After three shootings, America needs zero tolerance on guns,” of course referring to Aurora, Colo. the Sikh Temple, and bringing in the most recent incident in Texas.  He says: “If the real purpose of guns, as ratified by the Supreme Court, is defense of one's home, then anything that can be used to fire dozens of rounds a minute, accommodate high-capacity clips of ammunition, or spray bullets, should not be in the hands of civilians. Period.

Box cutter
Then Sanghoee comments on a recent remark from someone who argued box cutters and airplanes were used to kill people and questioned whether they should be banned.  He answers, “…the primary purpose of box cutters is to open boxes and airplanes are used mainly to transport people over long distances; Guns, on the other hand, have only one purpose, which is to hurt or kill another living being.”  Thus, another ridiculous gun rights analogy is deflated.

Many of the gun control advocates, including myself, agree that most firearms owners are law abiding, but continue to disagree that any of them should have the right to own assault rifles or high capacity magazines.  This concept of wanting this kind of weaponry personifies the statement of Sanghoee: “Guns, on the other hand, have only one purpose, which is to hurt or kill another living being.”  Even Supreme Court Justice Scalia deems them “affrighting.”

Wacky Wayne LaPierre speaking on the 2nd Amendment and Arms Trade Treaty 1 month ago:

In his article on challenging the 2nd Amendment, Sanjay Sanghoee actually picks apart the decree on gun rights.  There are three things that he finds unclear in the right to bear arms:

1. What comprises "arms";

2. Whether the "free State" in the Amendment has to be protected from its own government or from a foreign aggressor (such as the British at that time), and;

3. Whether the term "well regulated" means well disciplined or with a clear framework of laws.

He goes on to cite the 2008 ruling District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, that established the individual right to own guns outside a militia.  I might add that it does not specify the right to carry them anywhere you want to and not to be able to stockpile an arsenal like James Holmes did in Aurora, Colorado.  It even specifies the possession of firearms “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” 

Assault weapon

The Founding Fathers could never have envisioned an organization as bizarre as the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) or its wacky leader, Wayne LaPierre.  Had they known of either, there would no doubt have been an addendum to the 2nd  Amendment, 2-A, relinquishing such power from potential gun nuts.  As an example of the ludicrous behavior, Sanghoee compares Middle Eastern militants with homegrown American militias training for battle in some wooded compound in the heartland.
Sanghoee makes a good point in comparing the fact that the NRA and others hold that it is people that kill, not guns.  But if this is the case, he argues, “…then the reason we have crazy massacres in this country is because Americans are a bunch of homicidal maniacs with no impulse control; and if that part is true, then should we really allow this same crackpot citizenry to carry firearms?”  I ask, shouldn’t we at least keep assault weaponry out of their hands?

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Obama’s reaction to Sikh Temple massacre entirely unacceptable

Sikh Temple - Site of massacre
I am picking on the President because I am confident he will win reelection in November, thus, making Mitt Romney’s response irrelevant.  Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a release Monday, “I have nothing new to announce,” following the latest carnage at the Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin.  Seven were killed, including the gunman, three injured; a police officer is in critical condition.  This just over two weeks after the Aurora, Colorado gun slaughter.

If Obama does support renewing the assault weapons ban and new legislation to restrict the sales of high capacity gun magazines, as Carney says he does, why not come out for this forcefully.  Make a stand and challenge Congress, including his own Democrats, to support him in this fight before November.  Gallup does report a change in public opinion banning these firearms: 53% for banning, 43% against, in 1996; reversed in October of 2011, 42% for, 57% against.

These figures do reflect results after the Jared Loughner bloodbath in Tucson in January of 2011, which killed six and injured 13, including U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords.  But not after the July 20, 2012 Aurora, Colo. movie shootings and the August 5 butchery at the Sikh Temple.  If this doesn’t change America’s outlook on these weapons, we have become a hopeless nation of gun worshippers.

In a recent Aug. Reuters article: “The semiautomatic handgun used in the deadly attack on a Wisconsin Sikh temple is the same type used in other recent U.S. mass shootings, including one at a theater in Colorado, and the attack on a congresswoman in Arizona, gun experts said.”  Three major gun massacres in the last 20 months should be enough to convince any rational person that something must be done, and soon to prevent more of the same.

See "Tucson Survivors Demand a Plan" video:

The timing is right and the President should begin now to lay the groundwork for major legislation after he is reelected to office.  I did two posts back in July to prove why the Democrats shouldn’t be concerned over National Rifle Assn. (NRA) influence in the 2012 elections.  “It’s all fiction: NRA has no effectual control over elections,” Part 1 and Part 2, illustrate how the NRA has little, if any control over elections.  Yes, there are solid facts to back up this assertion.

Shooter - Wade Michael Page
Reuters says the gun used on the Sikhs, a Springfield 9mm semiautomatic, is the “weapon of choice” for “mass murderers” like in Tucson, Aurora and the Sikh Temple.  And in the latter incident, it was reported that Wade Michael Page emptied several magazines in the shooting.  James Holmes used a .40-caliber Glock handgun in Aurora and Jared Loughner used a Glock 9mm semiautomatic pistol with a 30-round magazine in Tucson.  All bought easily right off the shelf.

And returning to the White House, Carney added that Obama believes there are broader issues with violence in the country that need to be addressed, one of which was rescuing children from gangs.  With Chicago as the primary example, my take is that if something isn’t done to limit the availability of certain types of guns, there won’t be any children left to rescue.  Mr. President, this is a critical issue and requires your immediate attention now and during your second term.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

It is apathy by the American people over gun control that caused the Aurora, Colo. movie massacre

The U.S. public doesn’t seem to give a damn about the lives of those who die and are injured, some critically, in incidents like the shootings by James Holmes in an Aurora, Colo. movie theatre killing 12, wounding another 59.  There are 11 still in critical condition.  If Americans were really concerned, they would pressure Congress and the White House to strengthen gun laws.  One firearms expert commented that this wouldn’t have happened if assault weapons were banned.

I wonder just how many of the survivors of the 12 killed or family and friends of the 59 injured are against gun control?  If any were, I wonder if they still are?  Similarly, I wonder about those connected to the 569 shootings resulting in 311 deaths since March of this year that I have documented in my Monthly Shootings Report?  I cannot believe there isn’t some consternation among this group over just how easy these maniacs are able to obtain guns to kill.

Richard M. Aborn is president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City and a former president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.  In a recent opinion piece he did in the Washington Post, he said that “indifference to gun violence is a national crime.”  Further, “The debate about guns in the United States has always been between David and Goliath. Last year, the gun lobby outspent advocates of gun control by 11 to 1, or $2.9 million vs. $260,000. Interpreted, gun nuts are much more passionate about their cause.

NRA members and American public join Alice
And that’s because the head wacko of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA), Wayne LaPierre, instills the fear of God in his members that Barack Obama is conniving to take away their guns.  Of course this is bullshit since Bill Clinton didn’t do it and neither has President Obama.  So what will it take to change these “apathetics” as I call them, to support reasonable gun control? 

To start with, we are probably talking banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines, stronger background checks and closing the gun show loophole.

Aborn says supporters of gun control are most likely “…broad-based progressives who also support education reform, reproductive choice, marriage equality and other issues.”  He adds that with U.S. low voter turnout, it is hard to organize around single-issue voting blocs like this, but the NRA is the master using their fear-mongering mentioned earlier.  However, you would think after an incident like in Aurora, Colo. new believers would emerge for gun control.

But have they or will they?  There are three things critical to taking control back, according to Aborn:

  1. Americans must understand that violent crime is still with us, evidenced by incidents like the massacres at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Arizona, and now Aurora, Colorado.
  2. We have to talk to and understand gun owners with the idea of negotiation always open.  90 percent of gun owners support reasonable gun control and don’t want to see more carnage like the above.
  3. We have to establish a national system for tracking the effects of gun control to counter NRA arguments that it does not work.  I suggested in a post yesterday that we identify NRA members involved in any shootings resulting in death or injury.

Over and over, most gun control advocates have indicated they don’t want to take away the basic rights of the 2nd Amendment.  But it should be clear to most of you by now that the NRA’s conception of guns for anyone to take anywhere they want to has not worked.  It is time to change that.

Donald Trump Says He Will Be Indicted On Tuesday

  THAT'S TODAY... Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has brought the case to this point, now looking at a possible indictment. Trum...