Long Island Shooters Forum banner

Analysis: Could shooting be a gun-control tipping point?

2K views 22 replies 11 participants last post by  Starman 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
http://news.msn.com/...l-tipping-point

Washington has been reluctant to take on tougher gun control laws in recent years, but that attitude may change after the horrific events in Connecticut.

WASHINGTON - The question surfaces each time a mass murder unfolds: Will this one change the political calculus in Washington against tougher gun control?
The answer, after the Virginia Tech killings, the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords, the Colorado movie-theater attack, the Wisconsin Sikh temple shootings, and more: No.
But now?
The massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., the bloodiest attack against youngsters in the nation's history, stands as a possible tipping point after Washington's decade-long aversion even to talking about stricter gun laws.
So it seems in the stunned aftermath, judging from President Barack Obama's body language as much as his statement. "We have been through this too many times," said the famously composed president, this time moved to tears. "We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."
It remains to be seen whether Sandy Hook will break the usual cycle of universal shock fading into political reality. That reality is based on a combination of powerful gun lobbying and public opinion, which has shifted against tougher gun control and stayed that way. However lawmakers react this time, it's the president's call whether the issue fades again or takes its place alongside the legacy-shaping initiatives of his time, with all the peril that could mean for his party.
With the murder rate less than half what it was two decades ago, and violent crime down even more in that time, gun control has declined as a political issue.
But New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun control advocate, heard the familiar in Obama's initial response, despite the striking emotion.
"Not enough," Bloomberg said of Obama's words. "We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership - not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today."
The Newtown shooter brought three guns into the school, and the weapons were registered to his slain mother, according to a law enforcement official who was not authorized to discuss information with reporters and spoke on condition of anonymity. The official said a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, and a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle were found in the school after the attack, and a fourth weapon was recovered outside.
One certainty in the weeks to come is that both parties in Washington will carefully watch public opinion on gun control and the Second Amendment, and whether any impact lasts.
Opposition to stricter laws has proved resilient. Firearms are in one-third or more of households and suspicion runs deep of an overbearing government whenever it proposes expanding federal authority. The argument of gun-rights advocates that firearm ownership is a bedrock freedom as well as a necessary option for self-defense has proved persuasive enough to dampen political enthusiasm for substantial change.
In July, a gunman opened fire on Aurora, Colo., theatergoers watching the Batman movie, "The Dark Knight Rises," killing 12 people. The next month, an Associated Press-National Constitution Center poll found that 49 percent of Americans felt laws limiting gun ownership infringe on the right to bear arms, while only 43 percent said such laws do not infringe on those rights.
By many measures, Americans have changed on the question since the 1990s, when people favored gun control over gun rights - by a 2-to-1 margin in polling after the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Colorado. In a Gallup poll last year, 55 percent said gun laws should stay the same or be more lenient, while 43 percent wanted them toughened.
None of this is lost on Washington, where most Democrats long ago abandoned their advocacy of gun control, convinced that it is a losing issue for them. Obama has proposed reinstituting a federal ban on military-style assault weapons that lapsed years ago, but he's put no weight behind it, while signing laws letting people carry concealed weapons in national parks and in checked bags on Amtrak trains.
After the movie-theater attack, Obama declared "we should leave no stone unturned" to keep young people safe in a speech indicating he would challenge Congress to act on gun control. That expectation lasted for one day. The White House swiftly clarified that Obama would not propose stiffer gun laws this election year and favored more effective enforcement of existing law - a position hardly distinguishable from that of his Republican rival, Mitt Romney.
Likewise, early last year, Obama weighed in on guns after an assailant killed six people and wounded 13, shooting then-Rep. Giffords in the head outside a grocery store in Tucson, Ariz. The president called for "sound and effective steps" in gun laws as part of a "new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people." He soon went back to silence on the topic and gun-control advocates waited in vain for the steps.
With his last presidential campaign behind him, Obama is freer to take up contentious matters that he wouldn't touch when he was an incumbent seeking re-election. Odds are favorable that he will have at least one vacancy to fill on a Supreme Court now closely divided on gun cases.
The Aurora attack happened in the heat of the campaign, when Democrats wanted no trouble from gun owners. In its first official response to the killings, Obama's White House pledged to protect fundamental gun rights. Obama and his spokesmen never failed to couple his wish for "common-sense measures" with his devotion to the Second Amendment.
But after the massacre of children Friday, Obama spoke mainly of the anguish, and the need for action, and not at all about the right to bear arms.
By the standards of gun-control politics, that alone was a crack in the status quo.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
How would taking away or limiting my second amendment reduce the possiblity ofr these incidents. Criminals and Crazies don't buy their firearms legally like we do. This would only hurt us. And IMO this makes me feel like a second class citizen. Liberals trying to take away my freedom is worse than threatening my life. I hold my freedoms dearly and it hurts me to think that they can reduce crime by taking away or limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens.
 
#6 ·
Unless the criminals or crazies have been convicted or diagnosed, sometimnes they DO buy the guns the same way we do. In other cases, they steal legally owned guns.

The "ban guns" mentality hinges on the very real fact that if guns were illegal, there would be fewer of them. This means less (somewhat) of an opportunity for ther nutjob to score the weapons. It does not eliminate that possibility. But yes, it obviously does reduce that possibility by some statistic. Does this answer youir question?

I think this actualy DOES help the antis, but only in pursuit of the low-hanging fruit which is a Fedral 10 round limit on new manufacture or sales. the AWB was a fail by most everyone's yardstick (the antis said so too- see the quote from VPC about how manufactureres simply found a way around the language) and microstamping os getting nop support, they can't even get it donbe in NY after the CoBIS failure. Handgun ban won't fly, not enough popular support.

IMO Fed mag ban is where it's at, I predicted earlier in the next 35 days. Make that 34.
 
#5 ·
He killed her to get them, Dick's said he tried to purchase one there and was turned away. And they can't say how you store them and if they try to make a rule frankly I don't care nor will I listen. That is not their business wheter we keep one on our fridge. Making us lock them up will have us killed in a HD sceneraio. Everyone should be resposible enough to know how to store their own. This is America?
 
#4 ·
Honestly, I don't think this tragedy helps the anti's. This lunatic, murdered his mother and stole her legally owned firearms. He then went to the school and murdered those people. He used two pistols. Not an "evil black gun". He did all of this in a state that has some of the most strict gun laws in the country. When will they realize that making all the gun laws in the world doesn't help. We need to focus on the shooters and how to prevent them from coming to the point of murdering people.
 
#16 · (Edited by Moderator)
He used an AR-15 as his primary weapon. Black evil Bushmaster .223.The Medical examiner today said that all the wounds were from the long rifle -.223.

He did have his mother's glock and sig sauer, and there were more long guns in the car.

A lot of earlier misinformation is now being cleared. His mother was a firearms enthusiast who was reported as taking her boys to target shooting. It does seem she was aware of her sons issues, however (home schooling him at some point, and taking time from work to "focus" on her son). Under those circumstances she should have had the guns more secure IMO.

He was also denied the purchase of a long rifle on Tuesday from a CT gun shop.

And I agree with you that the ban of course does not help (i.e.Columbine and this event in a "ban" state). However, that is why we may see a push for a modified stricter AWB.
 
#7 ·
You all seem to be forgetting the role of propaganda from the MSM. The sheeple of the country are being whipped into a frenzy. The shooting is a horrific tragedy - no doubt -- but the MSM is " not letting a good crisis go to waste". They are twisting all the reporting to fit the anti-gun agenda at every opportunity.
We would all be better served if their efforts were directed at helping us all take a hard look at ourselves as a society and what to do about the obvious "mental disorder" of much of the population....
 
#9 · (Edited by Moderator)
While you did a good job of covering every bit of pro-gun rhetoric there, Rob- 10 round magazine limits are merely an inconvenience. It means you gotta change the mag more often. That's it, really. Banning full auto or silencers is certainly a bigger "infringement". Do I SUPPORT a 10 round bill? No, but claiming "liberals are gonna disarm us and control the population through NWO" is a bit over the top and sounds pretty delusional from even a moderately centrist political position.

I myself am very liberal (more than Obama), pro gun, and anti-authoritarian (they used to call us libertarians but now somehow the libertarian label got stolen by Sarah Palin and thew Tea Party). I am not interested in taking away your guns, making government bigger, or estasblishing a NWO- quite the opposite. You are talking about authoritarian liberals- the guys who brought you Red Square and the Third Reich.

Obama just got reelected (no thanks to me BTW)- why would he step down? Because you are in political disagreement with him?

I do not think the Government should be able to tell an adult that they cannot own 30 round mags. This is not a "liberal" issue from my vantage, it's an authoritarian one.
 
#10 ·
NWO is on the horizion. I think he should step down because this is America and he does not stand for anything American. He is purposely destroying America to lead in the need for a NWO. The world will look for the anti-christ for help. Not because of a political disagreement. Like the gov does not negotiate with the enemy, I will not negotiate my rights. They are here to stay and if they talk about it then it is threatening my life. "lets see if we can take away your rights some more?" Don't think so, the tyrant needs to go. Freedom should not be negotiated. That is worse than negotiating with us to cut off our right or left leg IMO
 
#12 ·
Unfortunatly the average public person is very ignorant and doesnt want to hear truths, . I work where i am exposed to alot of the public and they are all blaming guns for this. Last night i tried to have a few resonable discussions with various people and they dont care about the second amendment, all they do is repeat what they read or hear on the news, "Guns bad", period. Face it that we are a dying breed anymore. Due to the emotion of how young the kids were i see this as the end for our rights. It will start slow at first but unstoppable. Bloomberg will get his wish. I dont like to admit defeat but this generation of teens and 20 year olds are our future leaders and they love the obama and hate guns. Out of 40 employees at my job, only myself and the weekend officer have weapons, nobody else at the job does. I believe in the second amendment but most people i meet see it as an obsolete thing.
 
#19 · (Edited by Moderator)
This was a letter floating around from another site intended to be sent via emai/fax /postal to legislators etc... Maybe more people should be sending these out at some point to help voice the facts.

" I am writing in the aftermath of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newton, CT. There is no question that this atrocity will re-ignite the debate over gun control in this country. I strongly urge you to resist a knee-jerk reaction to quickly pass legislation.

Please keep in mind the following facts while considering any future legislative action.

•After the expiration of the federal Assault Weapons Ban in 2004, Connecticut continues to have a state level Assault Weapons Ban in effect.
•The perpetrator of this crime was under the legal age to possess handguns.
•The firearms used in this crime were stolen by the perpetrator.
•In Connecticut, the carry of firearms in schools is illegal.
•The act of murder is illegal, malum in se.

Many laws were broken during this sad event. I believe the perpetrator fully intended to die during the commission of his attack, and thus had no regard for the consequences of his actions. Had there been more laws in place, the outcome would have been no different. As has been noted time and again, prohibitive laws only restrict the law abiding.

It is worth noting that on the same day we suffered this attack on our children, a similar attack occurred at a primary school in China, a nation not known as a bastion of freedom. Lacking access to firearms, the criminal used a knife to injure twenty children.

In conclusion, I again urge you to resist the emotional rush to action, in favor of analytical reflection on recent events, current laws, and the founding documents of this country, to which you have a sworn obligation to defend "
 
#21 ·
I have had a hard time responding to any posts so far, I feel horrible that more inocents have been killed, and that a freedom that is so dear to my heart has once again been perverted by a madman, and vilified by the press.
Earlier today, I spoke with my father-in-law, and after debating the news reports, it became clear, that the real issue is the mental health of the depraved young man that commited this horrible act. Society not only failed the 27 victims, but failed him by not being able to identify his level of sickness.

No new gun laws would prevent a mad man intent on killing others, and himself.

For those who live on the Island, we had Edgewood (gone), Kingspark (gone) and Pilgirm State (half gone) dedicated to the care and stewardship of people that were deemed to be mentally defective. What all of a sudden, the water got better, and we don't need this level of care anymore? I have heard it is because the medications have gotten beter..... My guess is the cost got to great, so out on the streets these patients are, ticking like timebombs, until the next Columbine, or Newtown.

Instead of pointing the finger at 2A, maybe the finger should be pointed at our pathetic mental heath system.
 
#22 ·
Who remembers what happened in the election immediately following the 1994 AWB? I'm pretty sure the folks in congress remember.
 
#23 ·
"The massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., the bloodiest attack against youngsters in the nation's history, stands as a possible tipping point after Washington's decade-long aversion even to talking about stricter gun laws." Unfortunately, it is not the bloodiest attack against youngsters, this is:
The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, which killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, four other adults and the bomber himself; at least 58 people were injured. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7-11 years of age) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest mass murder in a school in U.S. history.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top