A Democratic senator frustrated with congressional inaction on gun violence led a nearly 15-hour Senate filibuster before yielding the floor early Thursday, making a pledge that he and his colleagues would press hard for more gun control three days after 49 people were killed at a Florida nightclub.
Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy ended a series of speeches with his Democratic colleagues at 2:11 a.m EDT after promising at the outset that he would remain on the Senate floor “until we get some signal, some sign that we can come together.” At the end, he said he had won commitments from Republican leaders that they would hold votes on amendments to expand background checks and ban gun sales to suspected terrorists. It is unlikely that those amendments will pass. (The Washington Times)
I am not really against people owning guns to protect themselves because I do think that people should have that ability. However, to me the only logical firearms for someone to own to protect oneself would be pistols or handguns. Not assault rifles! Assault rifles are combat weapons used for active engagement. Its not something you should have cradled in your arms walking down Newbury Street like its nobody’s business.
Another thing that I do not really understand is how people draw the distinction that assault rifles should be okay for people to have because there are less people killed by them than by bear hands, blunt objects, knives, etc. To be fair, people have been killing each other with their bare hands since the neanderthal period lol. Its not really a relevant statistic. And knives have been used as tools by people for thousands of years for various survival purposes such as slicing food, cutting rope, you name it the knife was an essential tool. It was not soling intended for killing. You don’t pump fifteen rounds into a Thanksgiving turkey because you want to give it some air so that it doesn’t overheat in the oven for too long.
I mean if we think that people should be able to own assault rifles because they account for less deaths that bare hands, blunt objects, knives, etc. I guess we should allow people to stroll into movie theaters with flamethrowers too because those account for less deaths as well. There have not been a whole lot of deaths from rocket launchers in the US. Why not have people use those to protect themselves? I mean does anybody honestly think that people are safer with flamethrowers strapped to themselves than with a hunting knife lol?
Don’t get me wrong. I am for people having guns for the purpose of protection. However, they are not called protection rifles they are called assault rifles. They…..assault. How many terrorists do you need to shoot fifty times per minute in a nightclub or movie theatre? Trend seems to be lone wolves like Omar Mateen or James Holmes committing all these mass shootings. Lets be realistic, you are not defending yourself against a militia of Al Queda on US soil. I mean if you can’t take out the bad guy by the fourth or fifth shot from a handgun, I don’t think you should operate any firearm lol.
Bottom line guns are okay for protection, not for spraying bullets like your playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare.
The knee jerk reaction of every liberal politician and most celebrities on twitter after a mass shooting or terrorist attack is to ban guns. If banning guns would solve crime I might be in favor of it (I do like shooting my guns at the range though…) but unfortunately anyone who looks at the situation rationally realizes that banning guns would have only negative effects on the crime rates. The only way for the government to ban guns is by enacting new laws to do so. In general, laws only matter to people who aren’t criminals.
If a person is willing to commit the most heinous of crimes like murder, why would they ever follow the gun laws? In reality, the only people who follow gun laws are the people who use their guns for legal purposes like target shooting and self-defense. These are the people who already own guns and aren’t going on shooting sprees… Adding more laws for these folks to follow wouldn’t make one bit of difference to cut down on crime.
After the Orlando night club shooting the Twittersphere is ablaze with calls to ban “assault weapons” aside from the fact that any weapon used in a crime is an assault weapon, let’s focus on what they actually want to ban – the style of rifle that was used in the shooting. Since all guns are the same to the media they think the gun used in the shooting was an AR-15, they also think that the “AR” in “AR-15” stands for “assault rifle”, in reality it stands for Armalite which is the company that originally designed the AR-15 decades ago. The gun used in the Orlando shooting was not an AR-15 it was a Sig Sauer MCX, not that it really matters in the end.
Did you know that every year, more people in the US are murdered with knives, blunt objects and even bare hands than are killed by all rifles? Each year all rifles account for around 300 murders, knives account for about 1,500, blunt objects around 350 and death by bare hand accounts for around 600 deaths. Given this information, why is the “assault rifle” the liberal scapegoat? Even if you could take all rifles from everyone (you couldn’t) you’d still only solve about 2% of the murders (you actually wouldn’t solve anything because a rifle is just a tool used by a murderer). Think about this, 2%… TWO PERCENT… Maybe it’s time we focus on the real problem?
Plenty of states have an assault rifle ban, an assault rifle ban would not have prevented the Orlando shooting. All the ban does is limit the characteristics allowed on a so-called assault rifle. For instance, in MA it means you can only have 10 rounds in a magazine and one “deadly feature” (collapsible stock, sight, forward grip, etc.) given the circumstances of the Orlando shooting it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference, the terrorist could have walked in there and killed a bunch of people with a machete, nobody fought back.
The Orlando shooter had to reload several times, in a building full of grown men. I don’t mean to sound callous here but why did nobody fight back? The killer is not expecting you to put up a fight, instead of hiding in the corner waiting for your end you’ve got to fight back! I wish people would actually have a serious discussion about terrorism and mass shootings, instead of pretending that the gun is the cause we need to realize that bad people will always exist and they will always have weapons, we need to prepare for the possibility of being in an active shooter situation.
The 2nd Amendment is not there to ensure that we can protect ourselves from other citizens, it’s there to ensure we can protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, that’s why so many feel so passionately about holding on tight to our 2A rights. I stand with these people because I know that making it harder for law abiding gun owners to own a gun would do nothing to reduce crime. There are hundreds of millions of guns in America, there will always be guns in America, whether legal or not.
I know mass shootings stir up lots of emotions and anger but I really hope people will think rationally about the situation instead of going straight to the gun control debate. Orlando happened because a terrorist decided he hated gay Americans, Newtown happened because an insane piece of shit was jealous of first graders, San Bernadino was a terrorist and Aurora was another nutjob.
The guns in San Bernadino and Newtown were not legally obtained by the shooters so any new laws wouldn’t have made a bit of difference. It’s time we focus on mental health and radical islam. These are the problems in this country, better yet, let’s focus on gang violence (by far the biggest murder statistic in the US). The problem with focusing on any of these things is that they aren’t easy to fix and the solution isn’t as feel good as “ban all guns!”. Unfortunately, we have a weak commander in chief who refuses to identify the real problem for fear of hurting someone’s feelings, yet the funny part is that after 7.5 years in office Obama has been the best gun salesman in history.
On the face of it there is no reason why anyone could be opposed to preventing people on a “watch list” from getting a gun and if everything were kosher I’d be all for it as well. The problem is who gets to put you on the list. We recently had the IRS target conservatives for audits, many of us are now weary of the government’s impartiality. We also live in a time where Obama using executive actions to usurp the checks and balances, what’s there to say he wouldn’t do it with gun control this way? Finally, the 2nd Amendment is there to protect citizens from the government, if the government wanted to overthrow the democracy the first thing they’d do is take people’s guns.
There is no easy solution to the gun violence issue but I really don’t believe making it harder for non-criminals to own guns would solve anything.