The problem is clear. And the solution should be just as clear. But with the dust settling from the Aurora tragedy, and both presidential candidates eager to return to safe campaigning grounds, it seems that the message might again be lost, and gun laws will remain an untouched political issue.
We shouldn't be surprised that the presidential candidates are calling for a time of mourning, not a time of reform, or that Congress is ducking its cowardly head and waiting for the media spotlight to pass. We shouldn't be surprised that this incident, like every other mass shooting in the past decade, has failed to spark progressive changes in gun laws.
In fact we shouldn't be surprised that this incident occurred at all. What can we expect in a country that allows a person to legally acquire an arsenal of weapons and ammunition of a murderous magnitude? No one should be surprised that unrestricted access to guns leads to unimaginable violence. With military combat-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips readily available to virtually anybody without even a background check or ID, unnecessary deaths become routine and fear becomes the norm. And when Congress doesn't lift a pen or even acknowledge the need for change, it sends the message that this is an acceptable reality and leave many Americans feeling that public safety means being prepared to open fire whenever they feel threatened.
But what if Congress did have a spine and it did value public safety over private interests and its political future? What kind of regulation would reduce gun violence? And where is the evidence? The data is clear and strongly confirms any common sense hypothesis. Easy access to guns equals more violence.
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, between the years of 1994 and 2004 under the federal ban on assault weapons, there was a 66 percent reduction in assault weapons being linked to crimes. It's simple: assault rifles are often the weapon of choice for gang members and mass murderers, so remove them from the legal gun trade.
In 2004, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney signed a permanent state ban on assault weapons and said they "have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
In addition to restricting assault weapons, Massachusetts has some of the most effective laws controlling access to firearms and despite being an urban industrial state, it boasts the lowest firearm fatality rate in the nation. Massachusetts is one of the only states to require gun licensing, registration and training, the first state to require consumer protection standards for firearms, and is one of 17 states that require criminal background checks. In Massachusetts, firearms kill three out of 100,000 people each year, compared to national average of 10 out of 100,000, a difference that can only suggest that restricting access to gun reduces the likelihood of gun violence.
But outside of Massachusetts and other progressive pockets, 33 states, including Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont make guns readily available from private dealers without ID or background checks. Not only do these states have remarkably higher firearm fatality rates, but they undermine stricter, more responsible laws in bordering states. Of the guns used in crimes in Massachusetts, 80 percent of them come from out of state where they are more easily accessible.
We need uniformity, because gun laws are less effective on a on a state-by-state basis. We need firm national consumer protection standards that treat guns as the dangerous products that they are. We need to make it harder for guns to circulate freely and end up in the wrong hands by requiring background checks in all states. We need to renew the federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips. We can no longer accept the irresponsible and dangerous gun policies dictated by the NRA that allow 83 Americans to be killed by guns every day and have made mass killings commonplace in our supposedly civilized society.
We must hold Congress accountable. We shouldn't let money and backwards ideologies run our government and hide the facts from the public: gun violence prevention laws are a "no brainer"; they save and protect lives, while reducing crime. Yet we watch idly while Congress collects tens of millions in special-interest blood money in the form of campaign contributions and 150 more Americans are shot today and every day. Congress should be forced to accept responsibility for making this country safer, and they should recognize that they are accountable for the 30,000 Americans killed by guns every year. And if they don't, shame on them. Shame on Congress.
now you can buy one for $500
assault weapons bans only make gun dealers rich.
As to your issue with assault weapons, can you tell me how you define what a assault weapon is?
See, I can make ridiculous calls for authoritarian nonsense too.
Almost everything he claims is a 100% total lie. Not an exaggeration or a mistake, and outright, bold-faced lie. It's entirely and completely wrong in almost every factual claim, and supposed conclusion.
The killings done "every day" in America in no way compare to lives saved.
The killings done "every day" in America in no way compare to the lives LOST by governments killing their own people, when only governments have firearms, for the "good" of the nation, to "protect" the public from firearms.
"six times as many people died of democide during the 20th century than in all that century's wars combined."
Hundreds of millions of innocent unarmed- disarmed- civilians killed by police and government, because the government is "safe" when only they have guns.
"In Power Kills, R. J. Rummel argues that the more power a government has, the more it tends to kill its own citizens and make war on other countries. Conversely, the less power a government has over its citizens, the less it tends to kill them or to launch wars of aggression."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Rummel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Kills
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM
First, provide factual historical and technical data from reliable sources that demonstrate the ACTUAL risk to the public of "assault weapons" as compared to all other currently lawful firearm types.
Second, define precisely the purpose of the "assault weapons" ban in terms that will permit objective measurement of the success or failure in accomplishing the desired goal of the ban if implemented.
Third, define exactly what an "assault weapon" is in terms that differentiate it from all other firearms in ways that will produce the desired effect of such ban. Your "legal" definition of what an "assault weapon" is may not be vague; it must be sufficiently specific so that it attains the desired goal without infringement of rights pertaining to all other types of lawful firearms.
If you wish to remove existing “assault weapons” from circulation, proceed to step 4.
Fourth, explain the procedure within the constraints of constitutional law that you wish to implement that eliminates the 20,000,000+ "assault weapons" currently in circulation.
Fifth, produce the estimated public cost to pay just and fair market compensation to the private owners that will be forced to forfeit their currently owned and legal personal property or have it seized.
Sixth, explain where and how the funds required in paying just and fair compensation will be budgeted out of public funds.
This is the fifth time I’ve posted this and I’m still waiting for an intelligent response........
Only your 5th post and you think that's enough time for a liberal to answer? Most can't even answer a question and the rest just have a smartass response or a "yea but" response
It is always the same with the ban the guns crowd. They just want another "feel good" law that does nothing but cause harm to law abiding gun owners.
So wrong. Rifle's only account for about 5% of firearm homicides a year - gangs typically use handguns. If you want to fight the battle that would actually accomplish something, fight handguns but good luck with that.
And, of course, please compare the per capita murder rate last year with any year since 1964, and get back and tell us which is lower...
http://www.wkrn.com/
The Becker case in Massachusetts revolves around a man who allowed the permits for his arsenal to expire. He also had 2,000 more bullets than the police had him DOWN for.
Last I checked firearms ownership was a right. It seems the good people of the Bay State think rights can expire when you run out of money to exercise them or someone in government thinks your papers are out of order.