E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIf the White House gun violence policy announced today had been in effect, would it have changed the outcome of recent mass shootings?
It's impossible to say for certain, but here's a look at what it might have meant.
NEWTOWN -- A tough assault weapons ban might have blocked the sale of the Bushmaster XM-15 that Adam Lanza's mother bought legally and which police say he used to kill all his victims in the school. A ban on high-capacity magazines might also have reduced the killing power of the weapons he brought to the school.
Jason Reed / Reuters
President Barack Obama signs executive orders on gun violence during an event at the White House in Washington, January 16, 2013.
AURORA -- As with Newtown, a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines might have reduced the killing power that James Holmes brought into the movie theater.
TUCSON -- Federal law bars gun sales to anyone who "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." When Jared Loughner attempted to enlist in the Army, he admitted he was a drug user. That information was never reported to the FBI for inclusion in the background check database, because a Justice Department policy dating from the Clinton administration directed federal agencies not to report information volunteered by drug users, for fear that it would deter drug users from seeking treatment.
We are waiting to hear from the administration on whether President Obama's executive actions announced today will rescind that Clinton-era policy.
VIRGINIA TECH -- The dealers who sold Seung Hui Cho the guns he used in the Virginia Tech shooting followed the law to the letter, because there was no information in the system indicating that he was not qualified to buy a firearm. Federal law bans gun sales to anyone found by a court to be a danger to himself or others because of mental illness, but under the law then in effect in Virginia, the state entered people like Cho into the gun check computers only if they'd actually been admitted as patients to a hospital. Virginia has since eliminated that loophole to bring its practices in line with federal law.
As for requiring universal background checks, two examples come to mind:
COLUMBINE -- Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were both under age 18, the minimum age under federal law to buy a rifle or shotgun from a licensed gun dealer. They recruited an 18-year-old Columbine High School senior to help them buy several guns used in the killings. The three went to a gun show in Adams County, Colorado and bought a semiautomatic assault rifle and two shotguns with cash. Klebold and Harris also bought an assault pistol from a private seller who had bought it at the gun show. These were the four weapons used in the Columbine attack.
L.A. JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER -- In 1999, Buford Furrow, a white supremacist, shot and killed a letter carrier then entered the LA Jewish Community center and shot five other people, including three children. He bought the gun, without a background check, at a gun show in Washington state. As a convicted felon, he could not have passed a federal background check.
Leave a Comment:
There was a shooting in Kentucky on Tuesday that killed three at a community college? Including a 12 year old girl. So sad this wasn't newsworthy.
The killer obviously didn't use an "Assault Rifle" or a "High Capacity" magazine. If he had, the story would have saturated the media even through today.
LMAO at all of these might haves......Obama failed to mentioned the massacre at Fort Hood...Oh yeah Obama said that was "work place violence" doen't count....name any proposal that would have stopped the 500 murders in Chicago, or the killings in detroit and philly ...or for that matter any place in America....Is the ignorant people at NBC and MSNBC going to go door to door in Chicago and report who has illegal guns? LMAO i hope they do......Obama drenched himself in the blood of dead children, only to promote his euro-socialist agenda.. Stalin used children for props also
Lets send the clowns from the MSM door to door to police America for illegal guns
Well, they pretty much seized the AR's in Afghanistan. We can't return fire until we're dead.
Approximate causes of death per year:
500,000 – Tobacco Related
200,000 – Medical Errors
100,000 – Alcohol Abuse
40,000 – Vehicle Accidents
30,000 – Suicide
25,000 – Drug Abuse
8,500 – Firearm Homicide
323 – Rifle (all types) Homicides In 2011 (FBI data)
Limiting the number of certain types of semi-automatic rifles being sold will have no impact on the number of people dying in this country. It is only a feel good reaction by politicians meant to get votes on election day. Why should anyone be surprised that Obama would rather play the political game rather than doing something of real value for the American people.
Peter, thank you for mentioning 3 HIGHLY regulated areas such as alcohol, vehicles and tobacco in which we have been able to lower death rates. Let's do the same with deadly weapons that are used PRIMARILY for fun?
In terms of "personal freedom," I think we will find it better to restrict weapon types than to "regulate" human behavior BEFORE a crime is committed. The latter is a far, far more slippery slope than banning a type of gun and restricting magazine capacities.
We'll also need to ban recipes for explosives, poison gases, incendiary mixtures, and powerful vehicles.
You do realize that a higher capacity magazine is easily made using a hacksaw and duct tape .... ?
We have rules and regulations regarding explosives, poison gases, etc. And, even car manufacturers have been held responsible IF they have safety technology that may reduce injury available, but do not use it in their vehicles (e.g. air bags and the threat of liability suits w/o them).
Yes...I may imagine a higher capacity magazine may be relatively easy to construct. Laws against them would not eliminate their use...MOST law is a "deterrent," not an absolute prohibition.
I am not against a school board voting to put armed security guards into schools, if the local community supports such action. Why do you think we need a "national mandate?"
That article was complete bullsh!t. They are assuming that a ban on "assault" weapons would have reduced the number of deaths, rather than a stronger background checks and licensing.
"Assault"-styled weapons are used in less than 1% of gun related crimes yet that is what you morons want to focus on.
[Liberal] But they are scary looking ! [/liberal]
This article has no point. There still would have been people killed in all cases. What if you had armed gaurds in Newtown like Obama's children have? That would have stopped it. Plus, these people would have still has the same weapons. Drugs are illegal and it takes about 30 minutes to get anything you want.
A ban on assault weapons and extra capacity magazines wouldn't have changed jack squat.
A rifle doesn't have to look like an assault weapon to be deadly. There are many .223 rifles that have the same rate of fire, but look nothing like the Bushmaster/AR15/M4. Those rifles may have a ten round magazine, or even smaller, but folks, the rate of fire is the same, and even a non military, non police type like myself can change said magazine in seconds! I believe in the case of Newtown, there would have been a similar death count if the shooter had used say, a Ruger Ranch Rifle.
It's a control issue, and that worries me. Alcohol kills far more US citizens every year, and yet we don't see a vilification of the brewing industry! Mr. Obama quoted a number in the range of 900 that had died in the US since Newtown, 900 that would miss graduations, birthdays, weddings, etc. What about the estimated 2,000 that have passed from alcohol related tragedies? Do they not count?
200 per day, every day, 365 days a year from automobiles...mainly because we think we have to hurry somewhere,to get to the next traffic light in many cases. If the speed limit were cut to 35, think of the lives that could be saved. "Even if we only save one life" .....bullsquat. It's about control, period, not saving lives.
200 per day does not even address the number of people, children included, who are permanently injured and maimed. How about it Biden? Put your ayass where your mouth is...oh it's already there.
( Also, a a higher capacity magazine can easily be made using smaller magazines, a hacksaw, longer spring, and duct tape. Of course if "high capacity" magazines were illegal it would be silly to make one.)
Liar liar pants on fire. "which police say he used to kill all his victims in the school." The police didn't say that. Three separate officers reported the shootings were done ith a sig sauer and a glock. The AR was found in the rear of the car. People go completely deaf when they smell blood.
The presidents' policy would have had exactly zero impact in those cases. Ban all guns and what will that get you? Again exactly nothing. Why? Simply because there are oh gee lemme see, a whole hell of alot of assault weapons out there so that if anyone who really wants to commit an act of cowardism can obtain what they need. Also these weapons can be smuggled into the country just like drugs are.
This is just another one of those political smokescreens that do the following:
politician - hey look what I did for you all. Now you can be safe.
Citizen - outlawing assault weapons will solve what? Passing a law will automatically stop killings with these type of weapons? If that were true then all the government would have to do is pass a law making any crime a crime and all the crime in this country would stop!
When the hell are you people going to stop buying into this political "feel good" crap and tell them so? Demand that they actually DO SOMETHING of value! Or are you the term I see used around here - sheeple?
Do any of you ever consider the fact that a 12 gauge 00 buckshot shell is a "high capacity magazine"?
Can you imagine the damage this insane man could have done with a 12 gauge Winchester Defender?
It holds eight rounds in the magazine, has a pistol grip, can fire off rounds as fast as you can pump the action.
And it's 100% legal to own.
The only reason these kid's and this insane man choose these weapons is because they "look" cool.
There is no reason to ban assault "STYLE" weapons.
They only look mean.
There are plenty of high powered rifles and shotguns out there that will do more damage.
Rifles are used in only 1/3 of 1% of gun murders in the US. They are being irrationally villified because the y look "scary" and "no one needs one".
"It's impossible to say for certain, but here's a look at what it might have meant."
mighta, woulda, coulda....maybe.... A stroke of lightning out of the blue might have stopped them...might have.
NEWTOWN -- A tough assault weapons ban might have blocked the sale of the Bushmaster XM-15 that Adam Lanza's mother bought legally. Like the one already on the books in Connecticutt?
The article lists several instances where these idiots could have been stopped had the laws been enforced and the agencies shared information. James Holmes definitely could have been stopped had his psych been allowed to share the info he had (that they are still hiding behind the HIPA law) with authorities. How about ban gov't incompetence and stupidity?
oh yeah, how about the geniuses who wrote the article go out and stop the next one...it's easy.
In the 200 year history of the United States we've been attacked, survived a civil war, WWI and WWII, the twins towers, Viet Nam and Communisum. History may show the beginning of the end came at the hands of a punk from Chicago and a nut case from Newton Ct. It's too late to stop the goof ball.............................
These conjectures are silly about "could have" and "might have". Each one involved a planned slaughter by nutjobs who defied already existing laws to get a gun. They are no more valid than conjecturing that an armed citizen present in each of these incidents could have stopped the shooter. The rifle used in Newtown was perfectly legal under the Conn. "Assault rifle ban". If he had 10 round magazines it would not have prevented him from coldly murdering children. This conjecture of "might have" does not inform or add value to solving gun violence. Not one bit.
All I take away from this is "might have."
If a mentally unstable person kills 15 unarmed, unprotected 1st graders is that better than if he, she or they killed 16?
Additionally, it appears that all of the past killers have been males. Where is the political
outcry to create a Federal database of adult couples with mental illness in their family backgrounds?
These very people are among us today, planning to produce offspring who will have
the capacity to commit these heinous acts in the not too distant future. They must not be alloowed to reproduce.
By the way Mr. Author, What is an assault pistol? What is a semiautomatic assault rifle?
If. If, If......If school was closed that day, if the movie theater had someone watching the doors that are supposed to be secured from outside entry. If the parents of the Columbine Killers had an ounce of sense their sons would not have had bomb making materials and barrel of a shot gun on the dresser in his room! IF PARENT'S saw their SICK KIDS FOR WHAT THEY ARE Mentally unstable not one of these tragic killings would have taken place "IF" If, If, If if the Mentally ill were put in Institutions like they were years ago none of these Killings would have happened and if the parents didn't supply the weapons or make them readily available to their mentally challenged or autistic children not one of these killings would have taken place...
Do you actually have a point?
LOL - IF the American people would bow to me, lick my feet, tap your heels and say Beetlejuice three times, this all could have been prevented! So go ahead - bend over.
Well then thanks for my fictional reading fix for the day.
LOL - The NRA and gun traffickers have conservatives bowing to them and licking their feet.
I guess you could say I am a gun "enthusiast", but the NRA is just embarrassing lately. I appreciate what they are trying to do, but it was a very poor time for the NRA (of all people) to release a video game. And the commercial was just a little on the completely stupid side. And I have absolutely NO desire to have armed guards on every street corner.
But Obummer is going at this completely backwards just like he did with health care. He's a politician so he has to look like he's doing something other than crapping in one hand and wishing in the other.
It is time for a CHANGE. If and only if it was possible to have an armed guard would the gun man have been taken down. Probably things would have been worst with shots firing all over the place at, more kids could have been massacred in Newtown . The plans put out by the president are not too austere they are just right to help curb gun violence, it is not gun control. The propaganda machine is in full swing to get the fringe upset so they hurl their bitternes, vulgarity and ignorance on the president . Shame on these lovers of BLOOD MONEY
IT could hardly have been worse (worst). He shot and stopped himself because no one else there would. But the fact that there was no help within miles is sad.
People that don't want armed guards in schools are in denial. Gun control, if enacted, will take 50 years minimum. Many lives will be lost.
The armed guards won't let people see their guns, they won't pull out an Uzi when they get too loud in the lunchroom. They will be just another person at the school. I've walked around at my kids school and little kids come up to me and asked me to tie their shoes for them. Anybody allowed n school grounds the kids automatically trust.
Armed guards would be that way too.
Joyce, sorry to inform you that it is people like you who are the fringe. People like you lack knowledgege of our country's sacrifices and history and are eager to throw aside the fundamental rights provided to us by our forefathers in order to achieve a 'utopian' society. I'm sorry to inform you there is no utopia. As a (mostly) free country we have to accept some bad things will happen. As they do our leaders should do their best to address the issue without infringing on American's fundemental rights, which in this case is our right to bear arms. If you don't agree with the constitution I suggest you renounce your citizenship and move. Australia might be a good new home for you.
.
As for the President he does a great job of demonstrating his own ignorance without anyone else's help. You see his utopian society is based on Chicago which has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country. Chicago, a city also well known for some of the most corrupt politicians in the country, likely including the President. Combine these facts and you end up with a city with one if the highest homocide rates in the country. If you ask me someone would have to be pretty ignorant to want America to end up like Chicago. Definately not my idea of utopia. Fortunately a majority of people are aware of these facts and unlike you we are not on the fringe.
HAGGISBINGO, you are the retard. Connecticutt has the toughest gun laws in the nation and it didn't help them.... did it! So suck my d***. Maybe then you'll suck your brains out and make the world a safer place without morons like you. BTW. How does it feel Haggis to get blowback on what you dish out. Why not try and make an intelligent comment.
Ron do you have any clue what the phrase interstate gun trafficking means?
Similar to international gun trafficking but within the confines of the United States...
I guess Obama had to ask for a lot to get a little. That's the way politics work. Some of the things he wants should happen. It's already working a little. Gun dealers are hoarding guns and parts hoping the price will skyrocket even higher.
You can't find an AR or parts anywhere.
Ask a lot to get a little! Holly crap, the other way around, ask a lot, get a lot and then get more and more, we give up on this and we give up on every freedom we have. BAN the NANNY STATE!
What they do not tell you is that at SAndy Hook he used pistols. the AR was left in the car, they don't talk about it now!? this is all a put up and put on to advance the progressive Marxist agenda, the next crisis, will result in more control and loss of freedom. Tell the nanny's to go F themselves. You have to protect yourself, and keeping schools safe is a local issue. The nanny's did not want police at their school, and this is the result. LIke airline Hijackings, they started small, but look now! and The gov was way way behind the power curve. Guns will always be available, and if you ban them, you create a Black market like drugs, and then they are worse uncontrolled.!! but available. Redesign schools and modify existing schools to prevent entry and security inside.
Actually certain guns don't need to be available and the most conservative member of the Supreme Court agrees. Sorry to burst your bubble.
your blowing opinion out your arse. I do not need you to tell me what I need to own or do! go take care of yourself, and stop on asking Obama to wipe your arse for you.
Is Antonin Scalia blowing opinion out his arse?
From the Columbine pargraph: "Klebold and Harris also bought an assault pistol..." ...assault pistol? Didn't they also use black trench coats that day? Assault trench coats?
I don't know if it's ignorance, naivete or just plain stupidity, but to think that evil people with the intent of harming others are going to follow the law regarding guns is absurd.
Our forefathers warned about governments that seek to keep firearms from its people. Other countries have tried as well, and used the "welfare of our children" as the reason. Just read "Mein Kampf" by Adolph Hitler and you'll see admonitions similar to what Obama said yesterday.
It is a dangerous road we are heading down, and it is paved with the shreds of our Constitution.
I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the NRA, nor do I own any " assault style " weapons. Nor do I believe civilians have any right to said assault style weapons, but that is only my opinion. The 2nd Amendment is clear on the matter; ( The right to bear arms shall not be infringed ). As for me, I got my fill of them while in the Army, I have no use for them now that I am retired. But, below are a few excerpts from the news article above.
" When Jared Loughner attempted to enlist in the Army, he admitted he was a drug user. That information was never reported to the FBI for inclusion in the background check database, because a Justice Department policy dating from the Clinton administration directed federal agencies not to report information volunteered by drug users, for fear that it would deter drug users from seeking treatment. "
From the Clinton administration. How do you blame that one on the NRA? Also, two months before the Sandy Hook atrocity, the state of Connecticut shot down a comprehensive mental health bill that would have had nut-jobs like Adam Lanza involuntarily committed to hospitals for their and the public's safety. It was dead-lined because the Liberal politicians in Connecticut thought it infringed on the rights of the criminally insane. That makes a lot of sense! What about the rights of the 20 children murdered by an insane person, not by the NRA or some law abiding gun owner, but a crackpot that would have been locked up only IF!
" The dealers who sold Seung Hui Cho the guns he used in the Virginia Tech shooting followed the law to the letter, because there was no information in the system indicating that he was not qualified to buy a firearm. Federal law bans gun sales to anyone found by a court to be a danger to himself or others because of mental illness, but under the law then in effect in Virginia, the state entered people like Cho into the gun check computers only if they'd actually been admitted as patients to a hospital. "
The law is already on the books, but not enforced correctly. Bravo to Virgina for closing the loophole. If only they had done it sooner. Again, someone who was known to be mentally unstable killed innocent people, it wasn't the NRA or law abiding gun owners that perpetrated it. But yet, the knee jerk reactions come out in full force. Lets blame law abiding citizens for the acts of criminals and wackos. I may not be a rocket scientist, but blaming innocent people for criminal acts is beyond farcical. That is like blaming the child for the abusive parent.
" Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were both under age 18, the minimum age under federal law to buy a rifle or shotgun from a licensed gun dealer. They recruited an 18-year-old Columbine High School senior to help them buy several guns used in the killings. The three went to a gun show in Adams County, Colorado and bought a semiautomatic assault rifle and two shotguns with cash. Klebold and Harris also bought an assault pistol from a private seller who had bought it at the gun show. These were the four weapons used in the Columbine attack. "
I am not sure of the outcome of this, but this person who got the weapons for them should be in prison for life as he is an accessory to mass murder. I will admit and the NRA can be damned on this issue, but the gun show background loop hole needs to be closed, quick, fast and in a hurry. No one should be able to purchase a gun without local, state and federal checks being done. That's just common sense. You need to have a license to drive a car yet no check to buy a gun at a gun show? That makes no sense. Law abiding citizens whom are able to purchase weapons should have no problem with background checks. That law should be there to possibly help keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable people because they are the ones making the rest of us look bad.
In retrospect, I do not always agree with the policies of the President, ( that's an understatement ) but closing the gun show loophole and enforcing the current laws can only be a good thing. I do not think that us law abiding gun owners should have any problem with sensible gun laws that are enforced. As long as you others also realize that we, ( law abiding citizens ) have a Constitutional right to bear arms in defense of ourselves, families, property and nation if the need so arises.
A lot of you Liberals and a lot of Republicans will not agree with me, but that is why this is still the greatest nation on Earth. We have the right to express opinions even if others do not follow the same train of thought. But, if you start to arbitrarily rescind certain rights because of knee jerk reactions to a few bad apples, other rights falling will soon follow. History has shown this to be a fact beyond argument.
While there is a constitutional "right" to keep and bear arms, it is not an unrestricted right. The Supreme Court decisions upholding that individual right, have also upheld the State's "right" to regulate it...IF such regulation is Constitutional, as the deemed by the Court. In other words, they pretty much decide the regulatory issues on a case-by-case basis.
rlbt. To add to what you said. This started with Ron Reagan, He closed the state hospitals, to save money, we do the same things with prisons. We want bad guys in jails but we don't want to pay to keep them there. The real problem is Fraud, and waste witch the rich make profits from. Cut the fraud and waste from Government and we wouldn't have the Debt Problems we have. Its time we the people hit critical mass and stop letting big business keep us at each other. United we stand. That is the only way to fix the Mess Little Bush left us in. Like the President said, Its up the the people to fight the NRA and he is right. We should all get behind one organization like Gabby Gilfords. If we all come together as one voice, we can Crush the Gun lobby known as the NRA. We can protect the second amendment. Like most laws maybe its time to update the 2nd amendment. but maybe then its just fine the way it is. The only thing is that our Country has changed. There is no reason for a militia anymore. The only thing a militia does now is cause trouble, they are anarchist and nothing more. They are against a freely elected Government. These are tools for big business. We must be bigger the Militia's. These are the kind of people that Killed JFK, RFK. Anyone that don't support the Military industrial complex, that Ika Warned us about. We must support a strong military, But we must control waste and profiteering, They must be controlled too. We shouldn't have to cut back on our safety net when we can stop building Tanks we don't need. Shouldn't that money be cut from the military to be used on things we need here at home.
stone6 - You are correct and SCOTUS has already defined "Arms" and "Militia".
Given those two defined definitions I would say that President Obama has a pretty big fight in front of him.
We'll see, but I doubt it. The big ticket items, he left for Congress and legislation. I haven't looked at all 23 items, but superfically they seemed to be within his purview about making existing law more efficient, or basically meaningless "feel good stuff" as in reviewing Affordable Health Care to make sure there wasn't a prohibition about a doctor reporting mental illness coupled to gun ownership, to the proper authorities.
I didn't hear any "executive order" mandate for doctors to report, only the screening of law to allow such reporting, IF the doctor decides it necessary.
Of course, liability insurance companies will then require such reporting, the first time a victim sues for the failure to report.
The way gun sales have been for the past 3 weeks, I would say Obama has been one hellofa good gun salesman. These must be shovel ready jobs that were just waiting for his go ahead.
DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONTESTING THE VOTE