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:
The NRA can says it's law, policies or business and money and whatever. And they walk away from it. But good people do what is morally right. David Keene and Wayne LaPierre will have to answer to GOD in hell one day.
NRA has mental issues, and needs addressed
yea, how dare they stand up for our constitutional rights? The nerve they display!
How did Adam Lanza use the Assault Rifle (Bushmaster XM-15) that was found in the trunk of his car to kill all his victims if he never left the school after he walked in? MSNBC has the video of the officers removing it from his trunk.
Stop spreading that LIE!
(CNN) -- Adam Lanza brought three weapons inside Sandy Hook Elementary school on December 14 and left a fourth in his car, police said. Those weapons were a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and two handguns -- a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm.
In the car he left a shotgun, about which police have offered no details. Lanza used one of the handguns to take his own life, although police haven't said whether the gun was the Glock or the Sig Sauer.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html
They will need to get into the 21 century
If bad guys will always find guns. Then good guys dont need guns, because bad guys will always find a way to kill you anyway.
Seems bad guys cant be stopped, so we should just give up.
(sarc)
Just duck and cover, eveything will be OK!
Newtown - This explanation of how proposed legislation would have prevented the Newtown tragedy doesn't pass muster. The guns were stolen. Most guns in circulation were legally owned at some time. Nothing less than complete confiscation of all firearms would prevent firearms thefts. In the case of Newtown, a ban may have prevented Lanza's mother from having the banned weapons, but would not have prevented her from having other, equally or more deadly, weapons that her son would have been able to steal. The best that can be said is a ban would have prevented Lanza from conducting the massacre with those particular weapons, and would not necessarily have actually prevented the massacre.
Aurora - Similar objection. A ban on "assault weapons" would have caused Holmes to purchase other, potentially more deadly, weapons, such as multiple shotguns - ideal close-range anti-personnel guns.
Columbine - Straw purchases were already illegal, and two of the weapons (both shotguns) would not have been affected by a ban. Disregarding the fact that there is simply no such thing as an "assault pistol," the only thing the a new law would have done would have been to limit the magazine capacity to 10 rounds. The "assault rifle" was a pistol-caliber firearm, less powerful than a typical AR, and was equipped by one of the shooters with 10 round magazines, within the magazine limit recently proposed. However, the shooter carried 13 such magazines, demonstrating that magazine capacity is irrelevant.
L.A. Jewish Community Center - Although this "loophole" may be closed by proposed laws, it will not prevent similar transactions, though illegal, from occurring in the future. The author also presumes that even if such transactions are actually prevented by a new law (and not merely made illegal, there's a difference), that the shooter (a convicted felon/known criminal) would not have been able to acquire a firearm through other illegal means. Considering the success of Prohibition and the War on Drugs, such a scenario is extremely likely, even under the regime of newly-proposed laws.
Funny how "protecting our children" is suddenly Obama's No. 1 priority, when he could have issued his executive orders at any time during his presidency. If he was really concerned with the safety of "our children," why did he wait until the tragedy at Newtown, especially if he thinks any of his orders would have prevented that incident?
Yes he could have issued an executive order, however it would have been repealed as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as fast as it took the ink to dry.
I feel safer already, now I can snuggle up to my teddy bear....
We made the production, distribution, and possession of cocaine, heroin, "crack", "meth", and a handfull of other substances illegal and by God that stopped those things from being a problem! Prohibition Laws worked perfectly to stop crime related to alcohol as well! Everyone knows that if you make something illegal then criminals will have to obey those laws too! That's why making it illegal to break and enter, drive while drunk, and take other people's stuff stopped those things from ever happening!
If anyone needs to be in a mental hospital it's people who are so simple minded they think "just get rid of the guns" would actually work. It's the de-evolution of man. Studies show that the average IQ is on a steady decline, and the simple minded responses to "just get rid of something" proves that. You want a simple answer? Here's one for you. You put a ban on "gangsta rap" that is nothing but self aggrandizing profanity that encourages people to kill others, especially police. Oh but that isn't politically correct is it? Hypocrits
Its sad how little anyone actually looks up info from more than one site before posting their ignorance online. The AR-15 was pulled out of the trunk of the car at Sandy hook shooting. All media coverage shows police pulling the gun out of the trunk. Pistols were used inside the school. Im not telling you my thoughts, just facts that YOU would know if you looked it up. Pathetic that so many believe in our national media and not the facts
WTF?
No..."A" long gun, was pulled out of his trunk...NOT "THE" long gun used in the shootings...
sheesh
Just keep repeating your lies, and others will help you pass on your lies!
(CNN) -- Adam Lanza brought three weapons inside Sandy Hook Elementary school on December 14 and left a fourth in his car, police said. Those weapons were a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and two handguns -- a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm.
In the car he left a shotgun, about which police have offered no details. Lanza used one of the handguns to take his own life, although police haven't said whether the gun was the Glock or the Sig Sauer.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html
Afghanistan and Pakistan had 10 times more shootings than that last week along with a few bombs. guess we are lucky to live in the united states.
The article says this several times: "A ban on high-capacity magazines might also have reduced the killing power of the weapons he brought to the school." "a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines might have reduced the killing power" MIGHT HAVE no proof. I say getting rid of gun free zones and allowing responsible law abiding citizens to conceal carry in these "Free fire Zones" MIGHT HAVE reduced the killing also. Until there is a solid study it is all conjecture. One thing for sure these perpertrators were NOT law abiding individuals, and all the laws would not stop them. Confiscating guns is not the answer, Mexico will just do fast and furious in reverse and the criminals will be the only ones with out guns. If you think the police can protect you, then move to a high crime area and put a sign in your window stating there are no guns in the house and that your abhor the thought of guns and see how long until you're the victim....
After reading the title of this article I thought 'just maybe NBC news has a sliver of a chance at accurately covering this issue'. After reading the article my opinion of them remains unchanged and NBC is completely biased toward their master Obama. Banning any type of weapon will make no difference as the article suggests. When one type is unavailable the perpetrator will simply move to another type that is. Magazine capacity (note they're not clips) is also irrelevant since multiple magazines can completely compensate for lack of capacity in a single magazine, or the shooter can simply elect to utilize multiple weapons.
NBC, and Obama for that matter, seem unable to comprehend what will truly rectify the situation without infringing on the rights of law abiding American citizens. First mental health professionals should be required to log an entry into the registry to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining weapons. Second all firearm owners should be required to lock up, or prevent access to, their weapons by non owners. Third the minimum age to purchase a firearm or ammunition should be 21. Fourth parents, family members, or those around those who intend harm to others and know these people have access to weapons should be held accountable as accessories to any crime committed. Fifth all firearm sales should require background checks.
If you apply these simple critiera to all of the major shootings none of them would have been able to occur.
Of course Obama mistakenly believes the gun is responsible for loss of life and property. I feel for us all when he figures out that over 4X the people die in automobile accidents each year. Come to think of it now may be the time to invest in a good bicycle.....
What do you mean by "log an entry into the registry"? Do you mean that every person who visits a "mental health professional" should be added to some kind of registry that forbids him to own firearms just as anybody caught peeing in an alley ("indecent exposure") gets added to a sex offender registry? The courts would cut this one to pieces. The reason that the law as currently in force requires that a person be adjudicated mentally defective is that the courts struck down previous versions that did not have a requirement for due process.
So what would constitute an acceptable level of "locking up" in your mind? Before you answer, you might want to go over to youtube and search on "crack safe" to see just how effective safes really are.
So tell us, in detail, how these laws would have prevented Newtown.
J.Clarke, no ideas will yield a 100% success rate. However to address your concerns:
.
On the first regrading the mentally ill. Yes if someone requires the services of a mental health care professional they should be logged. During the background check process the health care professional should be contacted and sign off on the firearm purchase based on their assessment at that point in time. This could delay an authorization for some but if done correctly would not cause any embarrasment to those eligible for a firearm purchase. BTW peeing in an ally will not get someone on a sex offender registry unless they're doing it in view of another person unless maybe you live in Chicago (safe place). Also BTW if someone is on the sex offender registry they shouldn't be allowed to purchase a firearm either.
.
On the second regarding safes. You're right they're not perfect but only a deterrent. Bottom line is you don't have to crack one anyway if you have the right tools. But they restrict access to a degree which will prevent easy access. Your argument is kind of like why lock the house when the burgular can kick in the door? Well same reason, it's a deterrent.
.
As for Newtown the mother would probably still be alive today if her weapons were locked up. Don't know about you but the articles I read indicated her son shot her repeatedly in the face as she slept. Of course if her son didn't have access to a firearm maybe he would have used some other tool at his disposal. But at least it wouldn't have been a firearm.
....if we limited all airplanes to small, 6 seat, prop-jobs......many lives could have been saved on 9/11!!! It is time to ban these big "assault" 747's, 757's, and larger craft!!!!!
I was thinking the same thing with cars. If we just eliminate big "Assault" buses and make everyone drive a small car, how many lives would be saved on the highways?
Don't forget to ban any 'sport' car. Why would anyone need a high performance vehicle when obviously its only intended goal is to break the law and put others at risk? Who would need such a thing when a Fiat 500 (not Abarth which should also be banned) would do?
Heard a suggestion on how to get liberals to agree to end the REAL mass murder of millions of unborn children annually in this Nation.........ABORTION.
We need to pass a law requiring that abortion clinics use "military style assault weapons" to kill these unborn children, instead of the standard means in which they are killed now.
The NRA put out a great add, asking why Obama has armed guards protecting "his girls", but will not agree to armed security guards to protect, "common folks kids". The White House released an angry response saying," the Presidents children should not be used as PAWNS in a political debate".
REALLY..........BUT its OKAY to use children who (cough, cough, yeah right), "sent the President letters" as PAWNS and PROPS for his speech...........HYPOCRITE!
And has anyone heard whether or not these "child actors" were paid prevailing wage for their appearances yesterday?
There will never be effective gun control as long as there is an NRA funded Republication party control in Congress. We need to start holding the NRA and gun makers responsible to the liability of their product. We always expect retail manufacturers to have recalls when there is an accident involving the misuse of their products, I believe the same should apply to gun manufacturers. What the NRA is saying is that they have specifically designed assault weapons for the sole purpose of killing many people in a short amount of time, but that it is like insurance - it only serves to provide the owner with a false sense of security and is never really meant to be used.
GOP= Guns Over People, Grand Obstructionist Party
NRA=No Real Answers, Not Real Americans, National Rage Association
Guns don't vote, people do!
Troll alert......Troll alert.....
Looks like 70% of the Tweets on The Ed Show last night.....
To me it's amazing people can be so ignorant as to the facts and allow their bias to prevail over common sense. Both the main post and the first reply so elegantly display this ignorance.
To these ignorant people no one is responsible for their own actions - it's always someone else's fault if they do something unacceptable. Even if the fault is making a product available which is not being used for the intended purpose (and contrary to these ignoramous' belief U.S. firearm manufacturers aren't producing products to murder innocent civilians). These same people are so ignorant they would prefer to throw aside principles that have made this country a great place rather then hold criminals accountable for their actions. Very sad indeed.
Lets go after the first amendment and ban putting these murderers names and anything about them in the press and on TV. If they just comit sucide nobody hears about them, thus they go and kill alot of inocent people and their names, photos, and everything about them is all over the news. This is what they want, so go after freedom of speach and ban anything about them from being made public, Just refer to them as scum murderer. It sounds like some of you posters want to ban assault rifles etc. so that when these psyco's go on their rampages that its ok to kill a few people but not alot by getiing rid of these types of weapons. Now thats rational thinking. We need to make sure that the laws we already have in place are enforced by the courts and stop the plea bargains with crimes using guns.
Laws that make sense are needed. We need to try, our kids depend on us to keep them safe, will these laws save everyone, no, but they will save some.
The worst school killing happened in 1927 in Bath Michigan. A bomb was used.
How many criminals, psychotic ones at that do you think will pay attention to the laws? Do you think someone with the obbsession of killing many people will worry about the inconvenience the law will provide or do you think they will find a way to get their sick objective accomplished?
How many drug addicts care about the ban on drugs?
A lot of mights and maybes there. While I agree that the background checks might have stopped some of this there are millions of weapons such as the Bushmaster already in private hands and millions more High Capacity magazines. Since Newton the sale of the aforementioned items has skyrocketed with millions more flying out the door as fast as they can be made. Check in your area if a single gun store has any so called "assault rifles" or high capacity magazines in stock that are not spoken for, if they do it's because they just got them in within an hour of you calling. No Obama's ban like Clinton's will be closing the barn after all the horses are out since like the ban before those already sold or made before the ban will not be be affected. Think of the dent to the economy (and the law suits) if the government were to tell thousands of businesses, many of them small operations that their entire stock that they paid for is now banned. I'm sure some gun control advocates would love that and damn the damage to the economy.
No what works and what needs to be done is a strengthening of background checks to make sure the mentally ill and criminals don't get their hands on guns from legal vendors. That part of the plan I agree with, as for the bans they are useless grandstanding that will only have very limited effectiveness, they may have slowed down the shooter in Aurora but as I was able to legally buy high capacity magazines years after the last ban I doubt it.
If that is the case, why do police need them? If the public should not have so-called "assault weapons" because their only utility is "to kill as many human beings as possible in as short a time as possible" then police should not be allowed to have them either. Or are you OK with police "killing as many human beings as possible in as short a time as possible"?
How do these laws make a difference? Really you think a criminal is not able to obtain these weapons illegally? Why would they abide by the law when they obviously are set on breaking it? These changes will do nothing except make more paranoid people go off the deep end who are already very suspicious of our government. Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them. That is not a world I would want to live in. I am amazed that so many people fail to see this. Marijuana is illegal but it is still extremely easy to obtain why would these guns by any different? I wish people would use common sense and understand this makes our country a more dangerous place. Take away my gun rights and I will gladly take sides and fight my own government as I believe it will then be a dictatorship.
So ladies and gentlemen, what I see in this article shines a huge spotlight on the fact that Obama laid out nothing new yesterday and only pointed out where the Federal and State governments have failed in the job they were already granted.
Since when should it take an executive order from the President to get his staff and administration to do their everyday jobs????
That my friends shows a blatant lack of leadership and a focus on the wrong things (raid Gibson Guitars for legal wood, stop Boeing from building a plant in S.C., sue states for shoring up legal voting etc. etc. etc.!).
All smoke and mirrors....And the sad part is...you are all "ga-ga" and blinded by the "glitz".
Wake up......
This is just another spin job by the author. The plan Obama put forth does not "ban" anything. It would make it illegal to sell certain types of rifles and clips/magazines. All those currently out there in the hands of the public would still be perfectly legal to own and use. That is why so many folks are currently buying up all the supply.
I love how they dug up an obscure shooting from 1999 that no one remembers in order to stick to the basic narrative about how evil white people are. Those evil racist white people with their guns out to shoot everyone. Stuff like that is exactly why NBC News just can't be taken seriously.
None of Obama's proposals would have prevented the killings by mis-wired lunatics. They are the problem. Identify them early and get them help or lock them up. Simple.
Instead, Obama goes after law-abiding gun owners.
The school shooting is a tragedy that Obama isn't about to not capitalize on. He tried this with Fast and Furious, but that blew up in his face. By the way, why isn't Eric Holder in jail over that?
Exactly, instead of identifying mentally unstable or dangerous people and getting them help, let's just make some laws that will only limit or stop law abiding people who will never harm anyone anyway, yea, that makes perfect sense.
Guns DON'T Kill Children............. but Abortions DO!
Hey Libs............ where's YOUR Outrage?
Geez...the let's do something about mental health advocates remind me of the film "The Minority Report." Tell me, who sits on the government "committee" that decides whether or not you are crazy and restricts your rights accordingly PRIOR to any crime being committed? [Note: I am not personally disagreeing, but only pointing out how it runs contrary to most anti-federalist beliefs.]
Talk about Obamacare and "Death Committees?" Why would you reject one and accept the other? So, you can have a "right" to buy a semi-automatic assault rifle?
And, on the NRA suggestion for a national mandate to put armed security people into all schools...geez...how quickly the NRA is capable of rationalizing a huge transfer of power from local school boards (who could do the same thing today, without a national mandate) to the Federal government. Who makeds the rules for this "national mandate?" The Department of Homeland Securioty? The Department of Education? Obama's own proposals were less intrusive than the NRA's.
Well, I for one feel COMPLETELY safe in knowing King Barry is ensuring criminals will no longer have access to weapons by strengthening the background checks.
HOW MANY CRIMINALS GO THROUGH THE LEGAL PROCESS OF ACQUIRING A GUN ?????
I'm glad a lot of you have faith in the Government protecting your safety when they can't even halt weapons, drugs, & rapes entering & occurring in Federal Prisons !
There are many laws on the books & MANY things that are illegal, yet they occur daily. So what exactly is the true issue in this "argument" other than just implementing this far left agenda & taking away basic rights from law abiding citizens ?
I'm surprised that he didn't just declare all of America a gun free zone. Everyone knows that shootings never occur in gun free zones.