All of a sudden the call for gun control -- shouted down by the NRA -- makes sense again. The horrific shooting of 71 people at the opening of a movie in Denver has given a new voice to calls for stricter guns laws, as advocated by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
"I don't think that there's any question that we would be a far safe nation if we had fewer guns and certainly if we had stronger gun regulation," Dennis Henigan told Lawyers.com. He is the Vice President of Law and Policy at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Nearly half of all Americans -- 47 percent -- now own firearms. And the killer who gunned down moviegoers in Denver obtained all his weapons legally. Reasonable minds question if it's a good idea to introduce hundreds of millions of firearms into the general public.
"The American people don't want to live in a society where there is literally no place they can go and escape the guns," Henigan said. "Individuals who don't have criminal records -- we thought they were law abiding citizens -- until the moment they fired a gun in anger, and then suddenly they are a criminal."
Gun-related homicides have risen each year since 2002 to the point that the gun homicide rate in America is 10 to 20 times greater than in other industrialized countries, according to the Brady Campaign. Regardless, pro-gun advocates are constantly in the news, arguing that the proliferation of guns makes our neighborhoods safer.
Henigan says we can thank the NRA for the ubiquity of guns. "The gun lobby is very good at threatening politicians and working its will in far too many legislative bodies including the United State Congress," Henigan says. "There ought to be a right to take your kid into a Starbucks without having to confront a loaded weapon at the table next to you."
Content concerning legal matters is for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon in making legal decisions or assessing your legal risks. Always consult a licensed attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction before taking any course of action that may affect your legal rights.
Follow Larry Bodine on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@larrybodine
What the hell does this even mean. This comment prove that the Brady bunch does not want us to have guns at all because we are all potential criminals. So I guess any who drives a car is one as well because they could all make the choice to drive drunk. Next the star bucks thing. If you don't support star bucks for following what the law is then don't give them your business. A person has no right to go to another person place of buddies and complain about some things that are their. Dont like it don't go their.
The Theater shooting was the perfect example of why gun control does not work.
The shootings in gun free zones where the criminals have the upper hand, are more than the rest of the US combined.
That is not support for more gun restrictions, but prosecution of antigunners
You could take away the guns and these sorts of people will still find a way to commit mass murders.
What you going to do now...ban gas?
You could take away the guns and these sorts of people will always find something else to use in a killing spree.
You going to outlaw gas?
Frankly, we are SICK TO DEATH of being denied our right to defend ourselves, and having some go-gooder who has never been to a range in it's life playing god with our lives!
I am going to start pushing for prosecutors to start levying charges on anti-gunners when someone they disarmed gets hurt because of it, and let's see if a few muti-million dollar lawsuits will not make then stop playing with our lives!
And a quick trip to the FBI's UFR quickly prove that the Brady bunch is lying.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
If those minds were so reasonable, they would know that having a well armed general public means that the general public can not be slaughtered at the whim of a tyrannical government (Libya and Syria for example).
No, these so-called reasonable minds want government tyranny and they only way they can get it is to disarm the populace.
What good is a gun if you have no access to it?
Read between the lines here and you'll see that means other industrialized countries (most of which have criminalized private gun ownership) have some level of gun-related homicides. (For the slow among you, I'll only say 10 (or 20) times zero is still zero. Figure it out.) What this tells me is that the criminals in these countries have guns and their victims' only means of self-defense is to bring a knife to a gun fight.
Or, if they don't have a gun then they pick up a knife when they get angry, or a frying pan, or a baseball bat -- or just get in their car and run someone over. Then they are just as much a criminal and their victim is just as dead. It's possible to kill someone with a toothpick, so banning or restricting guns won't make any individual any less likely to commit a crime. And if you required every citizen of voting age to own a gun and to pass a course in gun safety you wouldn't make any individual any more likely to commit a crime. If you don't want to own a gun, don't buy one. But don't make your neighbors - many of whom currently own at least one - into criminals by banning or limiting civilian gun ownership. Remember, when you criminalize gun ownership, only criminals will own guns. Personally, I like my odds of surviving a home invasion or a mugging a lot more if I have a gun, even if the perp has a gun, versus going up against a criminal in a knife fight.