In an impassioned speech following the massacre of 50 Floridians, U.S. Rep. Jim Himes declared enough with the phony moments of silence from Congress. “I will no longer stand here absorbing the full concern, contrived gravity and tepid smugness of a House complicit in the weekly bloodshed.”
Text of Himes’ speech:
MR. SPEAKER, SOME TIME TODAY OR TOMORROW THIS HOUSE WILL HOLD A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR 50 MASSACRED FLORIDIANS WHO HAD THEIR BODIES TORN APART BY A MADMAN WITH A MILITARY GRADE WEAPON. SILENCE, THAT IS HOW THE LEADERSHIP OF THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WILL RESPOND TO THIS WEEK’S MASSACRE OF ITS CITIZENS. IF THIS CONGRESS HAD A SINGLE MORAL FIBER WE WOULD FORCE OURSELVES TO GET TO KNOW THE SLAUGHTERED INNOCENTS. WE’D GET TO KNOW COREY JAMES CONNELL, 21 YEARS OLD AND A STUDENT AT VALENCIA COLLEGE. A CHILD WITH DREAMS CUT SHORT BY A MADMAN WITH A MILITARY RIFLE.
AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, CUT SHORT BY THIS CONGRESS’ FETISH TO REPEATEDLY MEET BLOODY TRAGEDY WITH SILENCE. SILENCE. THAT IS WHAT WE OFFER AN AMERICA THAT SUPPORTS MANY OF THE THINGS WE COULD DO TO SLOW THE BLOODBATH. SILENCE. NOT ME. NOT ANY MORE. I WILL NO LONGER STAND HERE ABSORBING THE FULL CONCERN, CONTRIVED GRAVITY AND TEPID SMUGNESS OF A HOUSE COMPLICIT IN THE WEEKLY BLOODSHED. SOONER OR LATER THE COUNTRY WILL HOLD US ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR ACTION. BUT AS YOU BOW YOUR HEAD AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU SAY TO YOUR GOD WHEN YOU ARE ASKED WHAT YOU DID TO SLOW THE SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENTS, THERE WILL BE SILENCE.
Read more in this Q&A with Himes here.
Asshole! I’m tired of these POS elitist politicians preaching to us law-abiding citizens. This POS lives in his “gated community” far from the rest of us with armed guards 24/7, while he preaches to us about how we are to defend ourselves and our families. The government is responsible for this; the FBI knew about Fort Hood, Boston Marathon, San Bernardino and this scum bag, and who knows how many others, but refused to follow through on investigations and intelligence because of this PC Bullshit. These arrogant politicians are willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent Americans to further their careers.
This Jew hating; Hispanic hating, gay hating radical Islamist killed these innocent people, not a gun.
Quentin here’s an old proposal:
www .deseretnews.com/article/340745/GUN-CONTROL-PROTESTER-CUTS-OFF-FINGER.html
Hey Jim Himes, we are halfway through the month of June or two weeks to half the year 2016. Why have you been so silent and have failed to take action on this?
www .dnainfo.com/chicago/2016-chicago-murders
Quentin, what was that Sig Sauer AR-15-style assault rifle and Glock handgun he had?
Yes, Ron Mackey and I’m sure Quentin Dreher knows that too. You missed his point in your urge to make a point. Let me explain it in a simple way. The authorities knew about the attacker and did nothing. Closer to your home, the authorities found out about this threat to our community and they took action. Maybe A.J. Perez should run ATF:
www .ctpost.com/local/article/Bridgeport-man-nabbed-on-drug-weapons-charges-8118239.php
The US has a history of arming the world, cannot keep track of where or who has the weapons, and has allowed US citizens to arm themselves with military-grade weapons, and now the government realizes we have a problem. What is the answer, Mr. Himes? Control new sales, and tighten background checks, sure. But what about all the guns out there now you cannot even account for? I don’t know what the answer is, and while I understand your frustration and point, please let us know how you plan to put this genie back into the bottle.
www .washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/27/pentagon-running-out-of-time-to-find-mass-of-missi/
Further, the Indiana man arrested in CA was under court order to turn in his guns three weeks ago, yet he still had them.
wishtv.com/ap/indiana-man-arrested-in-la-area-wasnt-allowed-to-have-guns/
Jen. You forgot about operation “fast and furious.” Our government gave weapons to known drug cartels only to have them used to kill a border police officer. Our commander in weakness took no time at all turn his speech into an anti-gun ramble. The bigger issue is the political correctness police, or should I say “today’s media.” They have made people afraid to say anything or in this case, report this shooter to authorities because of the perceived backlash. This PC mindset has given birth to what may become at least four years of Donald Trump. People are tired of political hacks telling us what they think we want to hear. Trump just says what he feels, PC police be damned and folks seem to like it. I’m not saying I’m a Trump supporter, but saying I get why folks are frustrated and want to rid themselves of real politicians.
Yes, fast and furious is yet another example of we arm the world and cannot keep track or control who or what our weapons are used for or against. Living back in the heartland where guns are sold fast and furious and then when you pry them out of my cold dead hands is the mantra, you are correct, the anti-PC message resonates. Doing my best to dissuade Trump is the answer message. The complete distrust of cable news (entertainment and opinion shows is what they need to be called) is rampant here also, again feeding into the Trump message. Please, release the delegates for an open convention is my daily prayer.
Himes is obviously frustrated. His statement is carefully worded to criticize the House of Representatives only, which coincidentally has a Republican Speaker. He was careful to avoid concluding what the shooter’s motivation was. He also avoided any mention of the unwillingness of his party, including the President, to embrace legislation that has a chance of being adopted.
Mr. Himes, you made national news. You are a Member of Congress. Find support for elements of gun control that are doable and do not come with a threat from the President to use executive action. Let’s see if Mr Himes’ profile at the Democrat National Convention is elevated by his statement.
God help us, because apparently the government cannot.
www .washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/16/why-the-nra-opposed-laws-to-prevent-suspected-terrorists-from-buying-guns/
Why I’m for the Brady Bill
By Ronald Reagan; Ronald Reagan, in announcing support for the Brady bill yesterday, reminded his audience he is a member of the National Rifle Association.
Published: March 29, 1991
Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.
While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.
The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser’s sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill–on a nationwide scale–can’t help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.
And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.
Critics claim that “waiting period” legislation in the states that have it doesn’t work, that criminals just go to nearby states that lack such laws to buy their weapons. True enough, and all the more reason to have a Federal law that fills the gaps. While the Brady bill would not apply to states that already have waiting periods of at least seven days or that already require background checks, it would automatically cover the states that don’t. The effect would be a uniform standard across the country.
Even with the current gaps among states, those that have waiting periods report some success. California, which has a 15-day waiting period that I supported and signed into law while Governor, stopped nearly 1,800 prohibited handgun sales in 1989. New Jersey has had a permit-to-purchase system for more than two decades. During that time, according to the state police, more than 10,000 convicted felons have been caught trying to buy handguns.
Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns.
This level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them. If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.
Commonsense Republican on this issue. Thanks for posting, Ron.
Having a license to conceal and carry and having the right to have a weapon, I wholeheartedly agree, Ron. Vetting is the most important part the governmental agencies can do to prevent the mentally ill, the criminal, and all radically impacted nut cases from being able to obtain a weapon.
The reality is it is relatively easy to obtain an illegal weapon. It is also relatively easy for someone who has no issues the government can identify to obtain a legal weapon.
Being politically correct, according to Pres. Harry Truman, when trying to define that meaning to Gen Douglas MacArthur, “Being Politically Correct is picking up a piece of sh*t by the clean end.”
1. Dems, don’t blame the NRA for your failure to pass commonsense gun laws. If Obama wanted to make sure people on the terrorist watch list didn’t get guns, he could have used an executive order to achieve it.
2. NRA, don’t say the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. Not only was there a good person with a gun at the club, that good person was a cop. How that cop allowed the terrorist to get past him and allowed him to enter the club I don’t know, but it wasn’t because he didn’t have a gun. Trying to prevent bad people getting guns should be part of the solution.
Dems and Republicans, stop evading the elephant in the room. The leading cause of gun-related deaths in America stem from gang-related violence, domestic violence, work-place violence, and suicides, accidents. So Dems, stop using Gang-related gun deaths for gun laws. If their drugs are completely outlawed you can outlaw guns and they will still be able to get guns. What’s the difference between a package of drugs and a package of guns?
Gun laws are aimed to stop people who are mentally unstable or immature to own a gun, from harming themselves or others. If a guy beats his wife he shouldn’t have a gun. He’s not a law-abiding citizen. There are laws against beating you wife people and just sorry is not going to cut it. And if you are not going intervene in any form, what good are you?
The quality of any entity is the strength and character of its people. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
www .youtube.com/watch?v=t88X1pYQu-I
None of these postings addresses the escalating epidemic of mass murders in the United States. Absolutely, it is people who do the killing but if you give them the right tool, namely these high-powered assault weapons that can release a large amount of rounds within seconds/minute and highly lethal bullets can be used in addition and this gives the person the capability to kill and injure dozens of people within seconds/minutes. THAT IS THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM. These weapons do not belong in the hands of Private individuals UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. These high caliber high-powered assault weapons ONLY belong in the hands of the Police or the Military in the performance of their jobs. Private citizens can possess appropriately lower powered guns/rifles for personal safety and sport. This would still maintain the efficacy of the Second Amendment. The First Ten Amendments–The Bill OF Rights–are NOT designed to be with NO LIMITS. Even The “Freedom of Speech” which is probably the most liberally, loosely interpreted amendment has limits, mainly if the Speech is so egregious, libel can be used. It is the role of Society through our government and courts to determine the parameters to which a law is interpreted. Actually, the Second Amendment has been rarely interpreted by the Supreme Court and the issue has only come up in the legislative/executive in the last couple of decades as we have seen an increase in crime, in the possession and use of assault weapons and the radicalization of the NRA. We need to get a handle on this problem and you have to start somewhere. Strictly regulate high-powered weapons as I mentioned above. It may take years to remove the glut of these that are floating around. There should be an appropriate vetting process for appropriate guns for private citizens. One ironic fact is that fewer Americans actually own guns than ever before but those who do tend to own large quantities. Driving a car is a highly regulated activity due to the fact a car, if improperly driven, becomes a fatal weapon. It is the same concept with guns and this can still be done and follow the spirit and the exact wordage of the Second Amendment.
Most mass shootings involves handguns and are domestic in nature from what I’ve read. The gun problem is trying to regulate a product that’s causing massive preventable deaths. The Second Amendment doesn’t even grant the rights of citizen to bear arms.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
A Militia is an Army. So unless you’re in the US Army, citizens aren’t really granted the right to bear arms. And let’s not forget the “well regulated” part, people.
Radicalization comes in many forms. We want the government to be there when there a natural disaster or heath epidemic but not a gun epidemic.
www .youtube.com/watch?v=xyg2NADmT64
www .youtube.com/watch?v=PrvF8NHrcks
www .youtube.com/watch?v=E8CHjX8HauA
When the constitution was written, this would be a more accurate definition- A militia generally is an army or other fighting unit that is composed of non-professional fighters, citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government who can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, members of the warrior nobility class (e.g., knights or samurai).
I think when it was written blacks were also considered 3/5 of a human being and considered property, like a gun. I’m not sure if it was a constitutional right to own slaves. I do know it took a constitutional amendment to end it. And I’m pretty sure amendments have been added and repealed. So now that we have a professional army we don’t have to call upon a militia and could repeal the Second Amendment, right? My view on guns is average citizens need only what the based cop carries to protect themselves. It’s their job to deal with criminals. I don’t view this as a right or wrong issue. No matter what your interpretation of the second amendment is, Well regulated means what arms you can bear. As long as you’re not defenseless. There’s not always a cop there to help you in your time of need.
When the constitution was written the right to vote was limited to land owning, white men. Should we roll that right back as well?
Frank,
Very few in my opinion have made the point so well.
1 shooter
1 assault rifle
49 murdered
53 maimed
It does not add up.
Stop the insanity.
Ban all assault weapons from private ownership immediately.
This is not what our founding fathers had in mind when addressing “a well regulated Militia.”
Here is a little history on the Second Amendment courtesy of Cornell School of Law.
Historically the second amendment was viewed as written by an activist CONSERVATIVE court. Back in 1939 the court ruled that militia meant militia. But that was overturned in 2008 to allow for a guarantee for personal ownership.
www .law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
More history–from an article in The Atlantic.
Yet we’ve also always had gun control. The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.
For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health care reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters–where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.
I think gun control and gun regulation are two somewhat different issues. We regulate the types of weapons that are available to the public. The AR-15, extended clips are a gun regulation. Gun control is more about who’s stable enough or mature enough to have a gun. At the end of the day someone can go into a crowed place and pull a handgun and kill a lot of innocent people, period. I really don’t care if the AR-15 is legal or not. If you’re responsible enough to have it, fine. If you want to spend hundreds of dollars on ammo, play video games, whatever you want to waste your time with as long as you’re not hurting society, society doesn’t care. However there are 30,000 deaths each year and God only knows how many lives are torn apart because of violent people being able to get their hands on a gun. I blame the Democrats more on not getting gun control passed because for one, it’s a Democratic position and they only talk about it when there’s a publicized mass shooting and it’s always the gun. The shooting of Christina Grimmie in Orlando is what they should be talking about. That’s a ways to come and as long as this debate continues on regulation of the type of gun and not on control (the person), the majority of the 30,000 victims of gun death each year will not even get a moment of silence.
www .youtube.com/watch?v=u9Dg-g7t2l4
*** These type of quick, large massive extreme gunshot injuries can only come from assault-type weapons which are not use for hunting, competition target shooting, etc. There is no real need for the Average Joe or Jane to be able to purchase assault-type weapons that can fall in the wrong hands and cause these types of injuries and deaths in America! Assault weapons need to be banned from purchase to ordinary citizens in America! You can still legally buy and protect yourself and family, also hunt, with weapons like shotguns, rifles, revolvers and pistols, no? Why are assault weapons so important towards American’s right to bear arms? Times are not just a-changing now, they’ve been changed, and America, its voters and the political representatives in government had better wake up before things get worse and in a bigger bloodier way! Time to take ISIL and groups like it much more seriously and declare war on them and take them out, period. Time to put a ban on assault weapons, limits on new immigrants coming into this country from everywhere, regardless of school or work visas or just visiting family. Change the current ID policy for visitors and immigrants here in America and move towards a passport type of ID for everyone who’s a proven registered citizen of the USA. Tighten up all US borders on the mainland and its territories abroad! Make the armed services available to people who have been convicted of minor offenses in general. Make 14 years of public school education “free” to American youth and improve tech. education as well. *** WE’RE JUST GETTING STARTED HERE! ***
*** As more and more info. comes out about the coward shooter, it seems not only did he have racist views and anger management problems but some type of mental issues too! Apparently he was also attracted to the Gay Life in general and seemed to reach out towards it every now and then, even from his mental closet! He may have used religion and ISIS viewpoints as a disguise to hide his real, closeted feelings about being interested in gays and having his own gay feelings as well! *** WHOOP ***
Himes is a loser!!!
On a very serious note, my heart and prayers go out to the victims and families of this senseless act of violence. Gay, straight, bi, whatever.
You go out for a fun night on the town and this just shouldn’t happen.
OIB, et al.,
I am begging you, please, don’t fall for the political pandering. Be careful what freedoms we give up for we will never get them back. The Second Amendment is what allows the others to exist. There are already thousands of gun control laws on the books, however they are meaningless if the criminals do not follow them or the justice system does not enforce them. That POS was on the FBI watch list twice, but was taken off. He should have never been able to purchase a weapon or ammo. All background checks in the world wouldn’t have stopped this because our government failed us. Ask the blacks what happened when the southern Democrat white man took their guns away. Ask the Jews and Germans what happened when Hitler took their guns away. Look at what’s going on in Europe. Whether we want it or not, or like it or not we are at war but we’re fighting amongst each other and not the enemy. We have become so divided. We have put our political parties ahead of our fellow Americans. We have allowed these lifetime politicians to put their personal ambitions ahead of “we the people.”
We are not what these people say we are. I don’t see it in my life and I’m sure most of you don’t see it in yours. Are we perfect? No! Do we make mistakes as human beings and a country? Yes! But I’ll be damned if there is a more benevolent country in the world. Let’s not forget that.
The Second Amendment is really a minor amendment. The First Amendment is truly the heart and soul of our democracy. The Second Amendment was not even an issue in the first 200 years of this country. Only with the creation of modern powerful assault guns, escalation of crime and the radicalization of the NRA did the Second Amendment become an issue.
I agree with you in that the Second Amendment is what allows the others to exist. The importance of defending life and property was not a small matter. Perhaps even then they understood calling 911 was not enough. It is intentionally written in ambiguous wording, which is why we are always stuck here. So many people have opinions about what the founding fathers would do if they were here today so I am giving mine. I think they would write term limits for representatives. I also think they would see a real problem with people being able to buy military weapons and using them to murder fellow citizens who were simply going about the business of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. I think they would make serious changes to the Second Amendment. No one wants to take away your right to own a gun. It is seriously time to do some real soul searching and consider seeing this issue from both sides and ask, is the compromise really going to kill me and my “rights,” is it important enough to put my life and my family’s life at risk that we could be the next victims while visiting Walt Disney World? Terrorists look for soft targets, unarmed crowds. Or, do you want everyone with an UZI slung over their shoulders everywhere? Honestly, if the military and national guard were called out today and martial law declared how many assault weapons would it take to hold them off until you could have a like-minded civilian army mustered? There is a balance, but there must be compromise, and, not that it will not ever stop every murder, but I believe chances are it will stop more than a few.
Quentin Dreher, either you’re falling for this political pandering or you want us to fall for your pandering. Just to let you know this is only the left political pandering, the right holds your views. So to clarify you should have said don’t fall for the left political pandering on the gun issues. I agree with you. Jennifer said something interesting, what the founding fathers would do if they were here today. Who cares what the founding fathers would have done, since most of them were slave owners, they would have grabbed their guns and fought for slavery. This country’s theory is based on self-government, WE THE PEOPLE. This is about a product, not a right. Laws come and go, Rights come and go like the right to own slaves. This product needs to be handled by sound minds with proper training. They were 49 deaths by one armed man. There are roughly 13,000 gun-related deaths each year. That’s almost one of these massacres every day. Sorry people but just saying sorry isn’t good enough.
You really do not have to do anything. The number of mass shootings in the US is minimal. In the same instant these 50 people were murdered, (statistically) 150 died from Alzheimers.
Gun laws will stop gun violence in the same was drug laws stop addiction. The press and liberal left are using this to push their hot button agenda. There are more pressing, although less spectacular, issues at hand.
www .bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604
Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015.
There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870.
Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm.
The US spends more than a trillion dollars per year defending itself against terrorism, which kills a tiny fraction of the number of people killed by ordinary gun crime.
The media makes this issue out to be worse than it really is.
And then there’s that. Are you a US Congressman by any chance?
I thought it was 30,000 deaths or is it 30,000 shootings each year?
Aren’t we trying to cure Alzheimer’s? The BBC, isn’t this the same country we shot and killed to gain the right to bear arms?
BOE, based on your Alzheimer’s analogy, should we cure cancer or any other diseases? And since we’re all going to die and car accidents are going to happen, tell the cops to stop giving tickets to people for not wearing their seat belts. While you’re at it tell the car companies to stop putting those annoying seat belts in their products. So I have a plan, I’m going to increase the cost of bullets by 100%, no one says I have to sell you bullets. Let’s see where this debate goes now. Bam I’m out. 🙂
Well, (from the article) we spend 1 TRILLION dollars on anti-terrorism. If all 13,286 people killed were acts of terrorism that would be $75,267,199 per person killed. If we spent that kind of money on disease we would have cured cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s and had money left over.
Seatbelts are the single best piece of safety equipment in a car. Airbags are not and in some cases have made things worse. For the number of people saved, airbags are not cost effective. They serve no purpose other than making cars more expensive. Airbags have actually killed people with no data on how many they have saved.
This is the same problem as gun laws/bans. You could be spending your tax money to do nothing or make things worse. Until we have some idea on what is effective and what is not we should not have a knee-jerk reaction.
That 30K number is either an error or includes suicides. It is doubtful a gun ban will prevent a suicide.
Yes, it will save some suicidal lives pf they didn’t have a gun. There are roughly 45,000 suicides each year, half of them by gun. Roughly 10 million people have suicidal thoughts. Three million set out a plan. 1.3 million attempted suicide. So I’m pretty sure if those 1.3 million all had guns it would be higher. Personally I don’t think there is a human alive who never wondered about or wanted their life to be over. From thought to action, well there’s got to be lot of stuff going on.
Do you think suicidal people should have a gun? If you care about that person you wouldn’t. In the same manner if you know someone to be too drunk to drive you wouldn’t let him drive, right? Now if you know someone who was angry and drunk he’s more likely to get into a fight. We can all agree on that. If that person has a gun he’s more likely to use it. It’s not about a ban on guns. It’s about caring. In the same way you give someone a gun to protect themselves. It’s a product, a deadly product. How about the father who shot his son in the face in Monroe? That kid lived, many don’t from accidents like these. I don’t know what his life is going to be like after getting shot in the face, but it’s not going to be the same.
Hell we had a cop shoot himself in Bagel King for Christ’s sake. What if that bullet killed someone just getting something to eat before heading to work? Kids lose their mother or father because people want to play with guns. Think about people.
Yes! Laws don’t stop violence, love stops violence. Laws are meant to protect, or hurt, depending on the law. In that since laws are a way of control.
Call it the Pulse Bill, Jim Himes!
If I deposit $10k into my checking or savings account, my bank notifies the IRS on each transaction.
If someone purchases an AR-15 or a 30-bullet clip, the owner of that store should notify the FBI.
Now that’s the kind of Bill that has nothing to do with the gun manufacturer.
The idea of ‘who needs an assault rifle’ is a nonsense argument. You could also ask ‘who needs to go to a nightclub?’ So ban nightclubs. Who needs a cell phone?
Since when is this country about what you need? If you want an assault rifle, that is your business.
What exactly is an assault rifle? Look at these two rifles:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Modified_AR-15.jpeg/800px-Modified_AR-15.jpeg
vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/walkingdead/images/9/98/Ruger-Mini-14.jpg
Which one is an assault rifle?
Spoiler–They are both the same rifle.
Neither is fully automatic. Neither has 3-round burst. Both use the same action, bullet and magazine. One is a little heavier than the other.
Even with CT’s assault rifle ban, the manufacturers have made minor redesigns and put the product right back on the market. California has the most stringent gun laws in the country and they had an attack not too long ago.
Do not let yourself be suckered into this politician media hype. These attacks are horrible but VERY, VERY rare. These two blood suckers just want their faces on TV. Something should be done but it is not clear what that is. It is not clear if anything can or should be done. Ban people on the no-fly list from getting guns? No due process? These people have not committed, been accused or convicted of a crime. How do you get off the no-fly list? This guy could have, just as easily, gone into that nightclub with a bomb.
Reporting every person who buys a gun to the FBI will just swamp the FBI with nonsense reports. The real criminals will be lost in the pile. Just more useless expense to give a false sense of security for something that will never happen to you.
Look, these things are very rare. You have a better chance of being hit and killed by a train than a bullet.
Thirty-three people were killed and 234 were injured by lightning strikes annually.
According to the Tracker’s data, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded (including the shooter), there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870.
I think the four number is a little low but the killed/wounded number drops off tremendously if you make the number five or exclude the shooter.
You are ~10 times more likely to be killed in a mass shooting than being struck by lightning. We spend a TRILLION dollars to prevent acts of terror in this country. What would the uproar be like if Himes wanted to spend $100 million to protect us from lightning? Remember, it is your money.
Good argument and points. Rethinking and rebooting here.
That’s over one mass shoot a day. Most of these mass shootings are from domestic violence. How many of those 372 mass shootings were terror related? One, I think. This is about two things. 1. Regulating a product. 2. Who is sound enough to posses that product. In the last decade 24 Americans were killed by terrorism with a gun (Islamic terrorist) 280,024 Americans were kill by gun violence. I can’t understand your line of thought. How are you equating ways of death to solutions of gun violence? I’m with you on the numbers. I hope the raising the price of ammo 10 times helps.
Sure, how many of those 280,024 killings (I hope you are excluding suicides this time) were drug related using an illegally obtained/stolen handgun? Why not pass more stringent laws on murder?
If I get drunk and kill someone while driving my car, would you want laws on car control? And if you want to talk about saving lives by making sure the operator is mature, trained and competent enough to own the product, you would still save more lives by focusing on cars than guns.
The ‘mass shooting’ data is contrived. Their definition is a little light. Four people killed or wounded including the shooter. I would like to see the data if it was five people killed excluding the shooter. Then how many mass shootings did we have? Ten?
We are about to spent millions of tax dollars we do not have to focus on a subject that only exists in our heads. I mean it happens but people get eaten by alligators as well. We are going to pass unproven laws based on hypothetical theories that have as much chance of making things worse as making them better. That is why it is important for these politicians to strike while the irons are hot. Once we calm down and come to our senses we will be able to see the issue with clearer heads.
1. Does it matter, we’re talking about gun violence and gun deaths?
2. Car Control, I think it’s more about people control. However we do have car regulation and laws for public safety.
3. If you’re an alcoholic and you’re a danger to the public every time you get behind the wheel we take your license and your right to drive. In the same manner a gun background check will make sure you’re not a dangerous individual aiming to cause harm.
4. Car manufactures are always improving the products with technology. The NRA has blacklisted any gun dealer for selling smart guns. Guns that can only be fired by their owner.
5. If mass shooting were considered two people or more it would be in the hundreds.
6. A life is a life. We are trying to save lives, even suicidal lives. We try to talk them from the ledge, not goad them into jumping is what you are preaching. People who use a gun to commit suicides have a 100% success rate, it’s 20% or so by drugs, cutting or other means. There’s no second chance to find their way back when a gun is involved.
7. 30,000 gun-related deaths are not imaginary. Your trillion dollar figure to fight gun deaths based on terrorism is misleading in the same manner. Politicians are being misleading and neglectful to what honest gun advocates are fighting for. One out of the 372 mass shootings was terrorist related.
8. Do you really think making sure a person is not a violent criminal, terrorist or on the edge is an unproven theory?
9. You’re an anarchist. You want people to do nothing to try to stop the carnage. You have no remorse for any victims of gun violence or any other tragedy. Your views are cool, misleading and not compassionate and not even well reasoned.
The gun carnage is minimal and we are spending an inordinately large amount of money on it with no proven result.
1. I would like to stem the gun carnage but what we are doing is ineffective and we could, actually, stop other forms of real carnage with that money.
2. We have gun laws that stop felons and underage people from getting guns. They do not work.
3. Driving is a privilege not a right. Gun owning IS a right. We have background checks in CT and you have to have a gun permit to buy ammo. Neither work.
4. Your phone can be hacked, your car can be hacked and your computer can be hacked. Those who want to can hack their electric meter and get free electricity. Tell me again how these electronic systems will protect a gun?
5. Two is hardly a ‘mass shooting.’ Even four is hardly ‘mass.’ The gun grabbers obviously chose numbers to support their agreements. You even have to do a little research to find the definition of ‘mass.’ Once you find out ‘mass’ means four people killed OR wounded including the shooter, the stat is laughable.
6. Yes, a life is a life. We could save more lives by spending the anti-gun money on real problems.
7. Yeah, 1 out of 372 of the (not that massive) ‘mass’ shooting deaths were terror related and we are spending a TRILLION dollars. What a waste.
8. So far none of the laws we have or have proposed would have stopped any of (never mind all) the mass shootings.
9. There is no carnage. Of all the people who die in the US ,0.026% die from guns and we spend how much (1 trillion dollars plus)? 23.7% die from heart disease and we spend $832 million on that. 0.026% get $1 trillion-plus and 23.7% (almost 1 in 4) get $832 million. You do not see something wrong with that?
Making guns makes a lot of people rich. I choose to buy a gun and the gun maker gets rich. Stopping guns is making just as many people just as rich. But that choice was made for me. The gun stoppers made themselves rich by choosing to spend my money to get rich. They are literally stealing my tax money and paying it to themselves to protect me from a problem that does not really exist.
1. 30,000 deaths each year is not minimal and again your trillion dollar terror figure is misleading.
2. The only way to stop the gun carnage is to get the gun out of those who are causing the carnage. How do you suppose we do that? To say I want to stop the gun carnage but I want to spend the money on something else doesn’t sound like you want to stop the bun carnage.
3. Part of the problem is while CT has gun laws making is harder for those who should not have a gun for whatever reason, other states don’t have such laws. So as long as someone has a car or the internet it is fairly easy to get their hands on guns.
4. No, having a Gun is not a right, it’s a privilege. How do you get such a right? Someone gave you that Second Amendment and as long as someone gave you the Second Amendment, someone can take it away. Under that documentation you hold so dearly has also said you had the right to drink alcohol and then it said you didn’t and again it said you did. How is the Second Amendment different from the 18 and 21 amendments of the constitution? It’s a privilege.
5. Yes, electric systems can be hacked. Hey, your car can be stolen, right? But you don’t leave your doors unlocked and windows open with your keys in the ignition. If your kid accidentally finds your keys they won’t accidentally shoot themselves. How many computer software applications have you hacked into?
6. You chose the number five to support your definition for mass shooting in your argument. We are trying to prevent not stop gun violence of all forms including suicide. We are not a carpool where there’s a requirement of death needed to care. Imagine a Firefighter says well there’s only one occupant in this burning building. We only care when there are four or more.
7. Obviously a life is not a life, gun deaths are not worth the money. As long as that trillion dollars is not spent on trying to prevent the other 271 mass shootings or the 30,000 deaths, 23,000 by suicide each year, you’re good, right?
8. If laws are so ineffective why are you so worried about the price of ammo for the Police force, in fact why do we even have a police force? They’re not going to spot crime if gun laws don’t stop gun violence. What’s even more mind boggling is why I’m I engaging in this debate with a so-called law-obeying citizen who doesn’t want to keep guns out of terrorist hands.
The single reason people want the government ammo gun is the price of the ammo. Raising the cost of ammo 10 times will only make 9mm ammo cost what 10mm ammo currently costs. Or people will just make their own ammo. The only thing you would really be doing is punishing law-abiding gun owners and making it that much more expensive to have a police department. You already have to have a gun permit to buy ammo in CT. Where are these gang members, felons and drug dealers getting their bullets?
The rise in gun ammo I wouldn’t say it’s to punish them. They have thrit guns. If they want to play with them it’s going to cost them. I don’t think it’s practical for people to make their own ammo. As far as the gang member, felon and drug dealers getting their ammo considering you said you need a permit to buy ammo maybe they are making their own. Enjoy your guns, people. When gas prices were at 5, 6 dollars a gallon do you know how many large gas guzzling cars were sold? Not many. The same will be for ammo guzzling guns. I’ll give cop a slight discount. I’m not a monster.
Do you know how many large gas, and if cops procure the advancement of purchasing artillery for their non patrons who fail brandish a shield. I will revoke that concession. I’m not a monster either.
How would that have stopped the shooting in FLA? The guy bought a $3K gun and (maybe) $100 in ammo. If I were him I would have used a pre-approved credit card, knowing I would not be around to pay it back. So I put the $3k gun and $1K in ammo on the card. Or $10K in ammo. Why do I care? We are trying to pass laws to prevent these things. How does your idea help?
253 million cars and trucks on U.S. roads with 1,467,300 arrests nationwide for driving under the influence. That is 0.58% of the drivers on the road are drunk.
The US has an estimated 270 million total guns. Taking your number of 30K gun deaths, that is 0.000119%. If honest gun owners were the problem, you would know it.
If you were trying to pass laws to prevent these things, laws would be passed. Do you think someone should be able to go to a gun show in a state where they can buy as many guns as the want with no background check?
CT doesn’t restrict like you said on the price of ammo. What good are CT laws if you can go to a gun show in another state and buy whatever you want? If gun owners are the problem then they are not honest gun owners, they are outlaws.
I can buy a gun in Downtown BPT with food stamps. I do not know what laws I would pass. I would do a study to see what is effective and what is not. One of the reasons it takes a long time to pass a law is to give people time to contemplate what they are trying to do. If it is worth doing it will still be worth doing tomorrow. Think of the war in Iraq or any other knee-jerk mistakes we have made.
With a limited amount of funds it is prudent to spend your money where it can do the most good. As far as gun suicides go, we could have spent some of that TRILLION dollars on mental health rather than failed gun control. Hence, reducing gun-related suicide rather than believing the solution to gun-related suicide is to take the gun away and everyone will be happy, happy, happy.
I was not aware you have usurped the Supreme Court, but guns are a right. I do not see drug dealers or funded terrorists being worried about the price of ammo. National background checks are a good idea. That is if the government actually does the check. Like it was said, this guy was on the no-fly list. Not that that would have made him a criminal.
Here is a chart of the gun deaths in the US over the last 35 years. Gun deaths are actually on the low side today but have hovered around 35K. For all the money we spend and all our new laws there has not been a significant change in gun deaths.
theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/gun-auto-fatalities.jpg
Look at your opening statement, “you can byu a gun with food stamps.” I think that food stamp for gun program is already against the law. Yes, laws are worthless without law enforcement, it’s a balancing act. Criminals and terrorists will get their guns, but it’s just way too easy.
As for the extremely high price of ammo, that’s just the capitalism monster in me and it will curb the high capacity weapons purchases. When it costs a couple hundred bucks to shoot a gun for a few seconds it’s not that much fun anymore.
That Supreme Court you value so much ruled while citizens have a right (privilege) to bear arms it is not absolute, and it allows the government to regulate not only the types of weapons but also who can own a gun.
There are two items coming up for a vote, a national background check, banning and flagging suspected terrorist on the watch list. The banning will expand from there at time goes by, individual will be forbidden for mental, or behavioral issues from owning a firearm. Some people don’t have the mental capacity to own a deadly weapon. Some people’s hearts have been eaten right out of them and they have nothing to fill that void. I don’t own a gun not because I don’t think it’s a bad idea in case of an emergency but because I’m an idiot. I am more likely to shoot myself than finding myself confronted by a terrorist and I’m so poor if anybody tries to rob me they’ll just be practicing.
bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-2nd-amendment-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns
With your admitted suicidal ideation it is probably a good thing you do not own a gun. You would probably end up on one of the ‘lists’ you are so fond of anyway. But why is that okay? The mentally ill are not inherently violent or dangerous. If we spent just a fraction of that anti-gun money on mental health services, we would not have any untreated mentally ill people in this country. A list banning the mentally ill from getting a gun is no more valid than a ban on Muslims. This last shooter WAS a Muslim and many terrorists are Muslim. If you really want to be effective, all the mass shooters were men with dark hair. Just ban men with dark hair from getting guns. It would seem blonds are okay. Just as long as we keep spending money, everything will be fine. Even if what we are spending it on does no good.
I am just the opposite of you. When I was 18 the government was tripping over itself to put an assault rifle in my hands. Now they cannot do enough to pry it out. I guess when it serves their purpose arming me was okay. I have a pistol and it is locked in a safe the size of a refrigerator in a locked room in the basement. I mean, I think it is still down there. I have not looked at it in years.
Your posted article was interesting. Too bad the Supreme Court disagrees. What do they know about the constitution anyway?
National background check are a dandy idea. This last shooter was reported to the FBI 2-3 times. That helped. Since we do not use the laws we already have, new one are always a good idea.
Florida’s gun laws are only slightly less stringent than CT’s.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Florida
*note–Although many terrorists are Muslim, not many Muslims are terrorists. Remember this when you seek to ban the right of the many based on the actions of a few.
Here is something interesting. Of the 880 guns traced, only 72 or 8.19% were purchased out of state, the rest were purchased within the state legally.
www .ctpost.com/local/article/Feds-traced-880-Connecticut-guns-in-2015-8237965.php
Also note the pictures. How many of the guns are assault rifles? I think I see two.
Anti-gun efforts are underfunded? We spent a TRILLION dollars on anti-terror efforts. The NRA spends millions on gun safety efforts and gun locks. Obama spent $500-plus million on new gun legislation last year. Registering assault weapons and high-capacity magazines cost CT millions.
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US with around 611,105 deaths each year. 1 in 4 deaths in the US are from heart disease. Coronary heart disease costs the US $108.9 billion and guns get a Trillion-plus for 13,286 deaths?
It is not that we do not spend enough. It is that we spend it in stupid, ineffective ways. That seems to be a trend in government spending. Look at education, social services, defense or health care. They spend money in careless, ineffective ways and when that does not work, they spend more.
13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms excluding suicides. That is ~0.0035% of all the deaths in the US.
Yes. Islam’s in a war and it’s based on their ideology. You can label them terrorists, jihadists or soldiers. In the last decade the US had 24 citizens killed by “terrorists.” Those “terrorists” have killed 10s of millions of Muslims. Again most mass shooting are domestic violence in nature and gang related. Those gang-related shootings occur within their own race. These gun laws have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.
You talked about the .0035% of firearms deaths excluding suicides of all deaths in the US. All deaths every possible means of death, even natural (old age). Here’s a fact according to the Tracker’s data, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870 that’s a 3.5% of firearms deaths excluding suicide. There were 24 terrorist gun-related deaths out of 280,024 gun-related deaths in the last decade. If my math is right that’s .00008%. As soon as you realize the government is tripping over themselves again to convince you this gun debate is about terrorism you will not be that far from opposite of me.
The NRA were the ones to propose a National background check. The government didn’t want it, for whatever reason. To achieve this they need to play good cop bad cop. They need the support of the American people and a bad guy. So the NRA reversed its position and played both roles.
I know the Constitution is a piece of paper that was written by people who owned and sold slaves. It had given people the rights to own, sell and treat humans beings, valued them like the gun locked in your safe. I also know that documents have granted rights and have taken rights away for US Citizens. I don’t view it as an absolute because it had proven it is not. As humans evolve mental maturely that document will evolve with them.
You don’t need a gun to commit suicide. Yes, the mentally ill are not inherently violent or dangerous, some are though. Do you think violent and dangerous US citizens should have a right to legally obtain a firearm? If not, how do you propose we stop them from legally purchase a firearm?
I have more respect for suicides than the radical Timothy McVeighs and Omar Mateens of the world, because while their actions end in violence., they only harm themselves and hurt the people who loved them. For those who didn’t know or care for them it’s just one fewer person in the world. The Timothys and Mateens go beyond themselves and those who love and care for them. They harm and hurt others who have nothing to do with their ideology, problems, illness, etc.
If a person ever finds themselves standing on the edge of life I hope they don’t have a gun and if they do I hope it stays out of their hands. No one ever looked on the precipice of life and thought they were loved or had love to give in that moment of blindness. A person without a gun will have an 80% chance of failure and give them a second chance to open their eyes to see how wrong they were.
There’s a war going on and there are various types of soldiers. The rules of engagement need to be established. If soldiers are going to carry weapons be it a tank, gun, knife, or even a scalpel one side cannot say we can harm you but you can’t harm us. No, if you’re going to physically harm one side the other side has the right to harm you. If you’re going to play soldiers you should be treated like one. Since this war has no battlefield, welcome to the war. What else can I say. PS, don’t say God’s on our side. God’s not on anybody’s side. If God were going to invoke itself in the war, God would extinguish the human race. Bam I’m out. Good luck, people.