Seeking support for gun actions, Obama tears into gun lobby

[webfact]

Seeking support for gun actions, Obama tears into gun lobby
JOSH LEDERMAN, Associated Press
KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press

FAIRFAX, Virginia (AP) — President Barack Obama tore into the country's largest gun lobby on Thursday as he sought support for his actions on gun control, accusing the powerful lobby group of peddling an "imaginary fiction" that he said has distorted the national debate about gun violence.

In a prime-time, televised town hall meeting, Obama defended his support for the constitutional right to gun ownership while arguing it was consistent with his efforts to curb violence and mass shootings. He said the National Rifle Association was refusing to acknowledge the government's responsibility to make legal products safer, citing seatbelts and child-proof medicine bottles as examples.

"The NRA has convinced many of its members that somebody's going to come grab your guns," Obama said, describing it as a ploy to drive up sales of guns. "If you listen to the rhetoric, it is so over the top, and so overheated."

Obama said he's always been willing to meet with the NRA to discuss gun policies — if they're willing to address the facts truthfully. He said the NRA was invited to the town hall but declined to participate. Several NRA members were in the audience for the town hall, which was organized and hosted by CNN.

"There's a reason why the NRA's not here. They're just down the street," Obama said, referring to the group's nearby headquarters in suburban Virginia. "Since this is a main reason they exist, you'd think that they'd be prepared to have a debate with the president."

The White House has sought to portray the NRA as possessing a disproportionate influence over lawmakers that has prevented new gun laws despite polls that show broad U.S. support for measures like universal background checks. Last year, following a series of mass shootings, Obama pledged to "politicize" the issue in an attempt to level the playing field for gun control supporters.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said ahead of the event that the group saw "no reason to participate in a public relations spectacle orchestrated by the White House." Still, the group pushed back on Obama in real time with a stream of posts on Twitter.

"It's true: None of the president's orders would have stopped any of the recent mass shootings," the group wrote, appending the hashtag #GunsInAmerica.

Obama's broadside against the NRA came two days after unveiling a package of executive actions aimed at keeping guns from people who shouldn't have them. The centerpiece is new federal guidance that seeks to clarify who is "in the business" of selling firearms, triggering a requirement to get a license and conduct background checks on all prospective buyers.

The plan has drawn intense criticism from gun rights groups that have accused the president of trampling on the Second Amendment and railroading Congress by taking action on his own without new laws. Just after his 2012 re-election, Obama pushed hard for a bipartisan gun control bill that collapsed in the Senate, ending any realistic prospects for a legislative solution in the near term.

Ahead of the town hall, Obama put political candidates on notice that he would refuse to support or campaign for anyone who "does not support common-sense gun reform" — including Democrats.

All the candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination support stricter gun laws, so Obama's declaration in a New York Times op-ed isn't likely to have an impact on the race to replace him. Instead, it appeared aimed at Democratic congressional candidates from competitive districts who might want Obama's support on the campaign trail this year.
___

Lederman reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Kathleen Hennessey contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-01-08

[Gutenberg]

[Seastallion]

People who laugh at the guy for shedding a tear over murdered children, can hardly also be pro-life.

It's one of the paradoxes of many Reps.

[SgtRock]

Can one of the Americans help me out here.

I use these figures for comparison only. I am not saying they are accurate,

In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2014: 33,599²⁰
2013: 33,636
2012: 33,563
2011: 32,351²⁰²¹
2010: 31,672²⁰
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

I have seen and watched the news of Obama's tears.

The reported firearms deaths have been rising slightly year on year, I understand that. I do not recall Obama shedding tears over this when he first came into office ( He might have and I could have missed it ) So why is he getting so emotional about it now that he is leaving office.

The legislative process and any fallout from this will only come into effect after he has left office, so why not leave it to the next President ?

Just asking for a rational explanation, not a full scale riot.

Thanks.

[TheAppletons]

Can one of the Americans help me out here.

I use these figures for comparison only. I am not saying they are accurate,

In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2014: 33,599²⁰

2013: 33,636

2012: 33,563

2011: 32,351²⁰²¹

2010: 31,672²⁰

2009: 31,347

2008: 31,593

2007: 31,224

2006: 30,896

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

I have seen and watched the news of Obama's tears.

The reported firearms deaths have been rising slightly year on year, I understand that. I do not recall Obama shedding tears over this when he first came into office ( He might have and I could have missed it ) So why is he getting so emotional about it now that he is leaving office.

The legislative process and any fallout from this will only come into effect after he has left office, so why not leave it to the next President ?

Just asking for a rational explanation, not a full scale riot.

Thanks.

I believe the term is "political legacy". Or perhaps "hypocrisy", I can't remember which.

[Gutenberg]

People who laugh at the guy for shedding a tear over murdered children, can hardly also be pro-life.

It's one of the paradoxes of many Reps.

Well, the president of the USA is crying over firearms and this is not staged. Of course.

Supporting Turkey and Saudi Arabia and thus ISIS is also tear-worthy, isn't it?

Btw, what do you mean with "Reps"? Be assured, I am no way a weapons representative.

[casualbiker]

Can one of the Americans help me out here.

I use these figures for comparison only. I am not saying they are accurate,

In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2014: 33,599²⁰

2013: 33,636

2012: 33,563

2011: 32,351²⁰²¹

2010: 31,672²⁰

2009: 31,347

2008: 31,593

2007: 31,224

2006: 30,896

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

I have seen and watched the news of Obama's tears.

The reported firearms deaths have been rising slightly year on year, I understand that. I do not recall Obama shedding tears over this when he first came into office ( He might have and I could have missed it ) So why is he getting so emotional about it now that he is leaving office.

The legislative process and any fallout from this will only come into effect after he has left office, so why not leave it to the next President ?

Just asking for a rational explanation, not a full scale riot.

Thanks.

I'm not American BUT it actually states in the article

" Just after his 2012 re-election, Obama pushed hard for a bipartisan gun control bill that collapsed in the Senate, ending any realistic prospects for a legislative solution in the near term." So he did indeed have it on the agenda. Possibly enough is enough. That's why he's pushing for a "well regulated" 2nd amendment gun control.

[SgtRock]

casualbiker, on 08 Jan 2016 - 11:22, said:

SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 10:16, said:

Can one of the Americans help me out here.

I use these figures for comparison only. I am not saying they are accurate,

Quote

In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2014: 33,599²⁰

2013: 33,636

2012: 33,563

2011: 32,351²⁰²¹

2010: 31,672²⁰

2009: 31,347

2008: 31,593

2007: 31,224

2006: 30,896

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

I have seen and watched the news of Obama's tears.

The reported firearms deaths have been rising slightly year on year, I understand that. I do not recall Obama shedding tears over this when he first came into office ( He might have and I could have missed it ) So why is he getting so emotional about it now that he is leaving office.

The legislative process and any fallout from this will only come into effect after he has left office, so why not leave it to the next President ?

Just asking for a rational explanation, not a full scale riot.

Thanks.

I'm not American BUT it actually states in the article

" Just after his 2012 re-election, Obama pushed hard for a bipartisan gun control bill that collapsed in the Senate, ending any realistic prospects for a legislative solution in the near term." So he did indeed have it on the agenda. Possibly enough is enough. That's why he's pushing for a "well regulated" 2nd amendment gun control.

Thanks for pointing that out. I used the article for the actual figures to compare the annual increase. I should have read the whole article.

If, as you point he was previously defeated in the Senate, that would explain things.

Thanks.

[mopar71]

Can one of the Americans help me out here.

I use these figures for comparison only. I am not saying they are accurate,

In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2014: 33,599²⁰

2013: 33,636

2012: 33,563

2011: 32,351²⁰²¹

2010: 31,672²⁰

2009: 31,347

2008: 31,593

2007: 31,224

2006: 30,896

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

I have seen and watched the news of Obama's tears.

The reported firearms deaths have been rising slightly year on year, I understand that. I do not recall Obama shedding tears over this when he first came into office ( He might have and I could have missed it ) So why is he getting so emotional about it now that he is leaving office.

The legislative process and any fallout from this will only come into effect after he has left office, so why not leave it to the next President ?

Just asking for a rational explanation, not a full scale riot.

Thanks.

1st, great link, thanks for that. Amazing amount of statistics and I love stats.

Anyway, when suicides are included, deaths have increased. Taking them out, it shows gun-related deaths have decreased over the years. Here is just a small sample of what's available on that site...

In the United States, annual firearm homicides total

2014: 10,945

2013: 11,208

2012: 11,622

2011: 11,068

2010: 11,078

2009: 11,493

2008: 12,179

2007: 12,632

2006: 12,791

2005: 12,352

2004: 11,624

2003: 11,920

2002: 11,829

2001: 11,348

2000: 10,801

1999: 10,828

1998: 9,257

====================================

Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People

In the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2014: 3.43

2013: 3.54

2012: 3.70

2011: 3.55

2010: 3.59

2009: 3.75

2008: 4.01

2007: 4.19

2006: 4.29

2005: 4.18

2004: 3.97

2003: 4.11

2002: 4.11

2001: 3.98

2000: 3.84

1999: 3.88

1998: 3.37

1993: 7.07

====================================

Proportion of Homicides Committed With a Gun

In the United States, the percentage of homicides committed with a firearm is reported to be

2012: 60%

2011: 69.6%

2010: 68.1%

2009: 68.4%

2008: 68.3%

2007: 68.8%

2006: 68.9%

2005: 68.2%

2004: 67.0%

2003: 67.2%

2002: 67.1%

2001: 55.9%

2000: 64.4%

1999: 64.1%

1998: 65.9%

1997: 68.0%

1996: 68.0%

1995: 69.0%

1994: 71.4%

1993: 71.2%

====================================

Gun Suicides

In the United States, annual firearm suicides total

2014: 21,334

2013: 21,175

2012: 20,666

2011: 19,990

2010: 19,392

2009: 18,735

2008: 18,223

2007: 17,352

2006: 16,883

2005: 17,002

2004: 16,750

2003: 16,907

2002: 17,108

2001: 16,869

2000: 16,586

1999: 16,599

[mopar71]

Or these...

In the United States, according to figures from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),

annual handgun homicides total

2014: 785

2013: 853

2012: 872

2011: 843

2010: 899

2009: 1,013

2008: 961

2007: 976

2006: 997

2005: 1,074

2004: 1,011

2003: 1,011

2002: 1,024

2001: 1,014

2000: 1,068

1999: 1,082

=========================

In the United States, according to figures from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),

annual long gun homicides total

2014: 454

2013: 495

2012: 489

2011: 543

2010: 576

2009: 640

2008: 664

2007: 682

2006: 768

2005: 765

2004: 714

2003: 687

2002: 744

2001: 758

2000: 694

1999: 693

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

Edited January 8, 2016 by mopar71

[chuckd]

Can one of the Americans help me out here.

I use these figures for comparison only. I am not saying they are accurate,

In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2014: 33,599²⁰

2013: 33,636

2012: 33,563

2011: 32,351²⁰²¹

2010: 31,672²⁰

2009: 31,347

2008: 31,593

2007: 31,224

2006: 30,896

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

I have seen and watched the news of Obama's tears.

The reported firearms deaths have been rising slightly year on year, I understand that. I do not recall Obama shedding tears over this when he first came into office ( He might have and I could have missed it ) So why is he getting so emotional about it now that he is leaving office.

The legislative process and any fallout from this will only come into effect after he has left office, so why not leave it to the next President ?

Just asking for a rational explanation, not a full scale riot.

Thanks.

I'm not American BUT it actually states in the article

" Just after his 2012 re-election, Obama pushed hard for a bipartisan gun control bill that collapsed in the Senate, ending any realistic prospects for a legislative solution in the near term." So he did indeed have it on the agenda. Possibly enough is enough. That's why he's pushing for a "well regulated" 2nd amendment gun control.

The Senate was controlled by the Democrats in 2013.

The Democrats also had control of both Houses of Congress for the years 2009 and 2010.

Where was he then?

[Khun Han]

For me, as a Brit, his proposals seem very reasonable and sensible: if anything, quite tame and mild. It's difficult to get my head around why pro-gun activists are getting so upset (I was going to use the phrase 'up in arms' ) about this. Is gun ownership really so out-of-control that a few small checks and balances are so controversial?

[LarryBird]

Here's a good clip talking about Obama's tears.. http://https://youtu.be/iDXLcB1gZQo?t=513

Personally, I don't like guns, but I am not interested in creating more laws, more ways for the government to arrest me, more agencies, and I will never be happy to have rights taken away from me. The only time I see it maybe necessary for new legislation is perhaps when a new technology comes along.

In general, I would say the increase in violence is a symptom of social problems, not the presence of guns. I think as a people have more economic, and other freedoms, they tend to kill each other less.

[GeorgesAbitbol]

Modify the 2nd amendment and it is done

[mopar71]

For me, as a Brit, his proposals seem very reasonable and sensible: if anything, quite tame and mild. It's difficult to get my head around why pro-gun activists are getting so upset (I was going to use the phrase 'up in arms' ) about this. Is gun ownership really so out-of-control that a few small checks and balances are so controversial?

It's similar with partial birth abortion....extreme liberals see nothing wrong with puncturing the skull of a baby as it is being born at 9 months. They see any infringement on the right to abortion on demand as "give them an inch, they'll take a mile", just like pro-gun activists. Each little condition to ownership is a step to "taking my gun away".

3...2...1...

Edited January 8, 2016 by mopar71

[mopar71]

Modify the 2nd amendment and it is done

By the procedure for doing so set out in the Constitution, sure. But not through the Supreme Court or district courts. Not through Presidential Executive Order/whatever. Not through public opinion polls of the day.

[hawker9000]

The Middle East is coming so unglued and desparate for leadership that IRAQ is offering to mediate (!), and Obama continues with his arrogant & petulant anti-gun agenda, that actually has even more Americans running out to buy guns than ever and shares of companies like Smith&Wesson and Sturm-Reuger soaring! Gee Barry, guess those executive orders are more fun at home where your goons can actually intimidate law-abiding Americans with them, huh! Hey - it's about time for another of your Fast&Furious debacles isn't it?!

[arjunadawn]

The gun lobby is a device, a proxy, for the Regressive Left/Obama to attack when they really mean "Constitution." The gun lobby has no intrinsic power, they only seek to magnify another power. They have power only insofar as the 2nd Amendment provides protection for all the Bill of Rights. Were it just a "lobby,' the 2nd Amendment would have been cored through by the Regressive Left long ago. Its a strawman. The advocate for the 2nd Amendment is... the Bill of Rights. Whenever you see "Gun lobby this..." or "Gun lobby that..." you substitute "2nd Amendment this... or that." It is the Constitution they aim for, not some strawman "lobby" (Watch this hand while the magician pulls a rabbit from his hat with that hand). Its more tasteful to appeal to low information voters by making it seem the problem is the "gun lobby"- the bad people, the people that want children dead, but not unborn babies. Demonize, strawman, gaslight, appeal to emotion, repeat, repeat, repeat. Fools! Gun lobbies don't protect the Bill of Rights. Obama, as president, is the zenith of the appeal to emotion. He is the single greatest evidence that humans are, finally, no different than herd animals.

In even the least educated humans the primal urge to eat, breed, and "feel" still exists; in fact "feeling" presents as their own intelligence in such people, while feeling is no more than internal sensors shaped by external events and primal needs- voters like this cannot separate their feeling from reasoning- they are one. "Avoid pain, seek pleasure" = "I feel." The appeal to emotion will always ensure the least educated have equality in outcomes- their vote. The original framers anticipated the need to allow an amendable supreme law, though not easily amendable. I do not think any would have ever imagined the first 10 would vacated by an intellectually inferior electorate changing the meaning of words rather than the substance of Law. The 1st Amendment is severely compromised, the 4th Amendment is a memory, the Suspension Clause of Habeus Corpus is dead, etc. Really? Lets core out the 2nd Amendment too. If anyone does not see a pattern they are blind.

Does anyone really thing the "Progressive" Left has a bag of goodies to hand out once they destroy the 2nd Amendment? Do you really think they stop there? Have they really demonstrated competence or stewardship on any issue... any issue at all? The Socialist Misanthropy of the Progressive "We Are The World" crowd most definitely has horrors in store after the 2nd Amendment is cored through.

Edited January 8, 2016 by arjunadawn

[IAMHERE]

l believe Obama used an old trick to make his eyes tear up, had onion juice on his finger tip and rub it in his eye at the appropriate time to make water come to his eye. Fake Fake Fake

[Baerboxer]

People who laugh at the guy for shedding a tear over murdered children, can hardly also be pro-life.

It's one of the paradoxes of many Reps.

Oh good grief. You actually believe those tears were genuine?

I don't find political theatricals remotely funny. Especially when coming from hypocrites, which these days seems a qualification for senior politicians.

[Baerboxer]

For me, as a Brit, his proposals seem very reasonable and sensible: if anything, quite tame and mild. It's difficult to get my head around why pro-gun activists are getting so upset (I was going to use the phrase 'up in arms' ) about this. Is gun ownership really so out-of-control that a few small checks and balances are so controversial?

I'm British too, so my understanding is also from a British perspective.

America was founded on the principles of freedom enshrined an a constitution, that isn't that old and not "out of date" as some like to portray. Americans enjoy, and take responsibility, for more personal freedoms than any other country in the world. Those freedoms need protecting as successive governments seek to erode them. Governments have been very successful in other countries like the UK, where we now have less freedoms than previous generations who ironically fought serious wars, first against the French, then the Germans to protect those freedoms.

American is a union of states, and as such, the powers of the federal government are more limited than some would like. Again, rather ironically, it's the party with the name of Democrats that seems to want to enforce more central federal controls, and restrict individual freedoms. Currently they seek to do this through creative use of laws and the justice system. Hilary Clinton, apparently, wants to make gun manufacturers and sellers liable for damages should one of their weapons be used by a criminal. The victim could sue the manufacturer and / or seller for damages! Can you imagine implications of that?

Gun ownership, the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment, was put their for good reasons. One being to stop exactly what's happening - an American government trying to take the rights enshrined in the constitution away from the people and become rulers rather than elected servants.

I've always envied my American friends' sense of freedoms, and what freedom really means; and the responsibility that goes with those freedoms.

[arjunadawn]

I'm British too, so my understanding is also from a British perspective.

America was founded on the principles of freedom enshrined an a constitution, that isn't that old and not "out of date" as some like to portray. Americans enjoy, and take responsibility, for more personal freedoms than any other country in the world. Those freedoms need protecting as successive governments seek to erode them. Governments have been very successful in other countries like the UK, where we now have less freedoms than previous generations who ironically fought serious wars, first against the French, then the Germans to protect those freedoms.

American is a union of states, and as such, the powers of the federal government are more limited than some would like. Again, rather ironically, it's the party with the name of Democrats that seems to want to enforce more central federal controls, and restrict individual freedoms. Currently they seek to do this through creative use of laws and the justice system. Hilary Clinton, apparently, wants to make gun manufacturers and sellers liable for damages should one of their weapons be used by a criminal. The victim could sue the manufacturer and / or seller for damages! Can you imagine implications of that?

Gun ownership, the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment, was put their for good reasons. One being to stop exactly what's happening - an American government trying to take the rights enshrined in the constitution away from the people and become rulers rather than elected servants.

I've always envied my American friends' sense of freedoms, and what freedom really means; and the responsibility that goes with those freedoms.

With a post like this you should never envy any man/woman. This post is more articulate, historical, and sound than what most Americans could muster. What we witness globally is the fantasy of universal ideas as values. People assert constantly their political ideals are values, whether it is marriage, women's issues, and other social platforms. All my be important, but they are hardly universal values. Obama most recently betrayed this fantasy of politics couched as values when, after Paris attacks, he stated this was an attack on "the universal values we share." This is utterly false and only idiots take the bite from this line and sinker cliche. Anyone with any objective reasoning knows the very fact we have such issues is because there are not "universal values."

Likewise, those throughout the world who share the political idea/platform that intrinsic to guns is their ability to kill people add to the noise elevating gun control as if it were some universal value. The 'thing,' in and of itself, is an evil that must be regulated by government, irrespective of warnings of vigilance from when the Bill of Rights was crafted. This political ideology is increasingly masked as a 'universal value," a categorical imperative that draws its entire bandwidth from a single political platform in the US and a massive international pressure- guns kill. (What is not addressed nearly enough is the gross complicity of the Left in fomenting the very unrest they presume to guard us from- murder, violence, inner city no go areas, mass shootings, school shootings, ad naseum---no go areas, media/government enforcement passes for inner city gangs and thugs, passes for criminals, selective application of laws, de facto fiat creation of laws by regulatory agencies by virtue of which laws are enforced, no gun Zones which are effectively no defense areas, and absurdly disjointed mental health laws, or the absence of them, and no consideration for psychotropic drugs in the US- these issues are near wholly owned by the Left).

As I have said previously on TV, any time you see/hear the Regressive Left employing emotion become quite vigilant. It is near always a hallmark that people are about to be parted from their Liberties. It is always far better that one innocent be killed than 300 millions lose the Liberties. Immanuel Kant has no role here.

[OMGImInPattaya]

It's very sad to see this former constitutional law professor and his problems with the Second Amendment on open display.I wonder what other provisions of the Constitution he would like to repeal?

[CMNightRider]

On the same day President Barack Obama released a new statement on his gun control measures, the The House Appropriations Committee sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch saying that they will not provide extra funds for the “unlawful limitations on the unambiguous Second Amendment Rights of Americans.”

The GOP-led committee told Lynch that they will not fund a “new law” that directly contradicts the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Maybe Obama should look for something else to cry about.

[OMGImInPattaya]

I won't take any gun ownership or safety advice from an emo-guy who has never owned one.

[casualbiker]

I won't take any gun ownership or safety advice from an emo-guy who has never owned one.

Why?

[ToS2014]

For me, as a Brit, his proposals seem very reasonable and sensible: if anything, quite tame and mild. It's difficult to get my head around why pro-gun activists are getting so upset (I was going to use the phrase 'up in arms' ) about this. Is gun ownership really so out-of-control that a few small checks and balances are so controversial?

It is hard for a non-American to get their head around it. However, I must say it is hard for an American to get their (end even my) head around all the current gun control laws that are attempted to be followed by law abiding citizens. The problem is that those that do not follow the law will not follow any subsequent law period.

[tigermoth]

Modify the 2nd amendment and it is done

Exactly. The 2nd amendment was introduced in the 1790's when America was still fighting for its freedom on many fronts and every citizen was required to protect that freedom. This condition no longer exists. The NRA is very similar to the Klu Klux Klan, another organisation that continued fighting for outmoded policies. In countries like Australia, New Zealand, we just look on in disbelief at the lack of firearm control. It has become America's worse shame.

[Khun Han]

For me, as a Brit, his proposals seem very reasonable and sensible: if anything, quite tame and mild. It's difficult to get my head around why pro-gun activists are getting so upset (I was going to use the phrase 'up in arms' ) about this. Is gun ownership really so out-of-control that a few small checks and balances are so controversial?

I'm British too, so my understanding is also from a British perspective.

America was founded on the principles of freedom enshrined an a constitution, that isn't that old and not "out of date" as some like to portray. Americans enjoy, and take responsibility, for more personal freedoms than any other country in the world. Those freedoms need protecting as successive governments seek to erode them. Governments have been very successful in other countries like the UK, where we now have less freedoms than previous generations who ironically fought serious wars, first against the French, then the Germans to protect those freedoms.

American is a union of states, and as such, the powers of the federal government are more limited than some would like. Again, rather ironically, it's the party with the name of Democrats that seems to want to enforce more central federal controls, and restrict individual freedoms. Currently they seek to do this through creative use of laws and the justice system. Hilary Clinton, apparently, wants to make gun manufacturers and sellers liable for damages should one of their weapons be used by a criminal. The victim could sue the manufacturer and / or seller for damages! Can you imagine implications of that?

Gun ownership, the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment, was put their for good reasons. One being to stop exactly what's happening - an American government trying to take the rights enshrined in the constitution away from the people and become rulers rather than elected servants.

I've always envied my American friends' sense of freedoms, and what freedom really means; and the responsibility that goes with those freedoms.

The right to personal freedoms, including the right to kill oneself, is something with which I absolutely agree. The right to kill other people is not a personal freedom, however many fancy words and ideas you try to dress it up into. Until everybody in the World becomes a great and logical thinker (like, for example, Albert Einstein), public access to lethal weapons will always be relative to the number of people killing each other unneccesarily. Restriction of this is one of the very few aspects of the 'nanny state' I'm prepared to put up with.

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in philosophical arguments about this: philosophical arguments don't bring back dead people.

[Khun Han]

For me, as a Brit, his proposals seem very reasonable and sensible: if anything, quite tame and mild. It's difficult to get my head around why pro-gun activists are getting so upset (I was going to use the phrase 'up in arms' ) about this. Is gun ownership really so out-of-control that a few small checks and balances are so controversial?

It is hard for a non-American to get their head around it. However, I must say it is hard for an American to get their (end even my) head around all the current gun control laws that are attempted to be followed by law abiding citizens. The problem is that those that do not follow the law will not follow any subsequent law period.

Bad and crazy people do bad and crazy things. That's, unfortunately, the way of the World. Restricting the tools to do bad and crazy things reduces bad and crazy incidents. Doesn't eliminate them, but it reduces them. Every statistic bears this out.

Your right to bear arms might make you feel safer, but more innocent people are dying because of it than would be with restrictions.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Khun Han