Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

'National Discussion' on Guns Stymied by Media Ignorance

Syndicate

Syndicate content
Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!

The Gun Shots Recent Posts

Categories

Recent Comments

Archives

The Gun Shots
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

July 26, 2012
'National Discussion' on Guns Stymied by Media Ignorance - 7

President Barack Obama wants tougher background checks and to lead "a national discussion" about gun control after the July 20 mass shootings in Colorado, but has not advocated reinstating the Clinton-era automatic weapons ban.

However, in a July 25 speech to the National Urban League in New Orleans, it sounded as if he was laying the foundation for doing just that.
               
"A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals -- that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities," he said.
               
Obama offered few specifics about what changes, if any, he might seek in the nation's gun laws, but White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the President has no plans to push for new gun legislation, and will instead insist that existing laws be better enforced.
               
Obama's reluctance to use the Aurora movie massacre as an opportunity to lobby for reinstating the automatic weapons ban -- a 2008 campaign promise he's never tried to fulfill -- has infuriated gun control zealots.
               
On June 23, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg told CNN's Piers Morgan that police officers across the nation should "go on strike" to force Congress and state legislatures to impose tighter  restrictions on law-abiding gun-owners.
               
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) joined the fray by claiming her stymied bill, H.R. 308, the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, would have prevented the massacre because it would ban the sale or transfer of large-capacity clips used in Aurora.
               
"Common sense will say we can take prudent gun-safety legislation and try to save people’s lives. That is the bottom line," she told Amy Goodman in a July 24 published on truthdig.com.
               
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-Ky.), who voted against a 2004 amendment to extend automatic weapons ban, said on July 24 that he remains opposed to the idea and that there is no groundswell to revive the ban or adopt McCarthy's bill.
               
"We have many areas of the country that have very strict gun-control laws and it seems not to have had any impact on the incidences that are in question," he said. "So I don’t sense any movement among either Democrats or Republicans in the direction of thinking that stricter gun-control laws would likely have prevented this horrible occurrence in Colorado."
               
Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor at who publishes the pro-Second Amendment blog, "The Volokh Conspiracy," told Robert VerBruggen in National Review Online on July 23 that the shooter had “normal guns” and that virtually no gun-control policy could have stopped this particular man from buying them.
               
Part of the problem in separating rhetoric from fact, VerBruggen writes, is that few mainstream media journalists and TV personalities have any understanding or experience with firearms.
               
That makes Obama's call to have "a national discussion" about gun control a difficult proposition, he writes.
               
"The underlying theme of so much Aurora coverage has been that we need to have an 'honest conversation about guns,'" VerBruggen writes. "Such a conversation would be easier to have if the media didn’t provide so much bad information."
               
For more, go to:
-- Obama pledges more action on guns
               
-- Obama urges tighter background checks on gun buyers after Aurora massacre
               
-- The Media Botches Aurora
               
-- U.S. Gun Laws: Guilty by Reason of Insanity
               
-- Sarah Palin On Aurora Shootings: 'Bad Guys Don't Follow Laws'
               
-- My Quest for Commonsense Gun Laws
               
-- Assault weapons ban unlikely: Few from area's congressional delegation think action is called for
               
-- Would Colorado gun ban have stopped Holmes?
               
-- Will Banning Guns Prevent Another Aurora?
               
-- Fear prompts gun sales, panic after Colo. massacre
               
-- At US Capitol, gun-control advocates are met with ‘silence’
               
-- Ice-T defends the Second Amendment in the wake of the Colorado shooting
               
-- Anti-Gun Media Firing Blanks
               
-- Bellevue v. Bloomberg: Did the mayor trip on his tongue?
               
-- CCRKBA to Bloomberg: 'Maybe You Should Go On Strike, Mr. Mayor'
               
-- A Way Out of the Gun Stalemate

Comments (7)

Top Rated
All Comments
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

Obama's Chicago has some of the tightest gun laws in the nation. You could not legally possess a handgun from 1982 to 2010. Please look at the hoops you have to go through now to possess one. Now take a look at the number of murders and the murder rate when compared to other cities. Why isn't CNN talking more about this? It is more dangerous in Chicago than a lot of the places our nation is trying to protect. This makes no sense. My point is tighter gun laws do not protect citizens, allowing citizens to protect themselves protects citizens. Second Amendment - Amen.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfishtrap wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

If Obama thinks tighter background checks would've prevented the Colorado shooting, he's out of touch with reality. Holmes was a good student with no history of mental illness, and no criminal record. There is no way any background check could've caught someone, who, on the surface, appeared to be no different than the thousands of law-abiding citizens who buy guns for peaceful purposes every year.
Ultimately, there is simply no way that Holmes could've been stopped, short of an accident happening to him. Even if guns were completely illegal, someone as obviously determined as he was could've gotten them on the black market.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from BaboosicBomb wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

I don't know, it seems like Obama is making an effort to make sense...I mean we don't need Aks for hunting, and although not having one didn't prevent him from killing people, it may well have prevented him from killing more. "If guns kill people, mine doesn't work. It only kills animals."

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from DSMbirddog wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

I may get hammered for this but I believe that any discussion regarding guns and gun control with BHO would be a waste of time. He has already stated that he will have more flexibility in this area after the next election. His cabinet and supreme court nominees are all gun control advocates. The facts surrounding our president lead me to believe that if he is elected again we will begin losing our 2nd Amendment rights. Obama has no qualms about going against the constitution if he believes society will be better for it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CCMJS wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

Obama translation - if you have a rifle and your not a soldier then your a criminal.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from bigd7400 wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

Mr. President,

How exactly will enacting stricter gun laws ensure that criminals, who by definition do not follow the law, will be less likely to commit crimes? Short of confiscating every firearm in the country how will this have any effect? Even confiscating guns will not help as only those concerned with following the law would be disarmed correct? Finally, why is it that gun violence is highest in places with the strictest (read oppressive) gun laws and lower where gun laws are more lax?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from elkslayer wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

"On June 23, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg told CNN's Piers Morgan that police officers across the nation should "go on strike" to force Congress and state legislatures to impose tighter restrictions on law-abiding gun-owners"

Tighter restrictions on law-abiding gun owners? really?
because it is not already illegal to kill people?

If a person is "law-abiding" then no matter how many guns they own, they will not kill innocent people.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

from elkslayer wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

"On June 23, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg told CNN's Piers Morgan that police officers across the nation should "go on strike" to force Congress and state legislatures to impose tighter restrictions on law-abiding gun-owners"

Tighter restrictions on law-abiding gun owners? really?
because it is not already illegal to kill people?

If a person is "law-abiding" then no matter how many guns they own, they will not kill innocent people.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from bigd7400 wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

Mr. President,

How exactly will enacting stricter gun laws ensure that criminals, who by definition do not follow the law, will be less likely to commit crimes? Short of confiscating every firearm in the country how will this have any effect? Even confiscating guns will not help as only those concerned with following the law would be disarmed correct? Finally, why is it that gun violence is highest in places with the strictest (read oppressive) gun laws and lower where gun laws are more lax?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from CCMJS wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

Obama translation - if you have a rifle and your not a soldier then your a criminal.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

Obama's Chicago has some of the tightest gun laws in the nation. You could not legally possess a handgun from 1982 to 2010. Please look at the hoops you have to go through now to possess one. Now take a look at the number of murders and the murder rate when compared to other cities. Why isn't CNN talking more about this? It is more dangerous in Chicago than a lot of the places our nation is trying to protect. This makes no sense. My point is tighter gun laws do not protect citizens, allowing citizens to protect themselves protects citizens. Second Amendment - Amen.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from DSMbirddog wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

I may get hammered for this but I believe that any discussion regarding guns and gun control with BHO would be a waste of time. He has already stated that he will have more flexibility in this area after the next election. His cabinet and supreme court nominees are all gun control advocates. The facts surrounding our president lead me to believe that if he is elected again we will begin losing our 2nd Amendment rights. Obama has no qualms about going against the constitution if he believes society will be better for it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from BaboosicBomb wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

I don't know, it seems like Obama is making an effort to make sense...I mean we don't need Aks for hunting, and although not having one didn't prevent him from killing people, it may well have prevented him from killing more. "If guns kill people, mine doesn't work. It only kills animals."

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfishtrap wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

If Obama thinks tighter background checks would've prevented the Colorado shooting, he's out of touch with reality. Holmes was a good student with no history of mental illness, and no criminal record. There is no way any background check could've caught someone, who, on the surface, appeared to be no different than the thousands of law-abiding citizens who buy guns for peaceful purposes every year.
Ultimately, there is simply no way that Holmes could've been stopped, short of an accident happening to him. Even if guns were completely illegal, someone as obviously determined as he was could've gotten them on the black market.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

bmxbiz