All I am going to say on this is A) there is no such thing as an assault weapon, unless you are talking about fully automatic rifles which have been regulated for quite some time.
B) Its not 1993 anymore, Clinton is not president, millions upon millions of these types of rifles are now in the public's hands, and they are more popular than ever before. ANY "Ban" on them would result in millions not complying, violence, and eventually civil unrest. Is that your solution to "violence?" Killing millions of people who refuse to comply?
Think I am full of it? Do some research. Right now as I type there are loads of groups of people forming up to create mutual aid groups to defend against confiscation and new laws. Our rights do not come from lawmakers, lawmakers are simply to make SURE those rights are not violated. Preventing lawmakers calling for bans on self defense firearms are the reason the second amendment was created. Think about that long and hard.
William Carnes - 5 years ago
There is a country very close to the USA that has an assault weapons ban--it's called Mexico.
The ban did nothing to stop gun violence. Mexico has some of the highest rates of gun violence ON EARTH.
It's a culture problem, not a gun problem.
MAGA USA - 5 years ago
Maybe we should ban moronic socialist from getting an opinion editorial page..
Christopher Locke - 5 years ago
Guess how many die each year from alcohol related causes? Somewhere north of 80K. That's over double the number of ALL gun deaths in a year. And that's not my number. That comes straight from the CDC.
I wonder if the editorial board of USA Today will come out advocating restrictions on alcoholic beverages? Maybe purchase limits, licensing, and bans on high-potency drinks like liquor. Makes sense, doesn't it?
No, that will never happen. You see, probably many who work for USA Today tend to imbibe. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just that it is SOOO much easier to push for restrictions on OTHERS. Not so much to push on restrictions on YOURSELF.
Here's an undeniable fact: you'll never get anyone at USA Today to admit we need to more tightly regulate alcohol, because their access to alcohol is more important to them than your right to life.
Of course, I could be wrong...and if I am, I expect that tomorrow, USA Today will be publishing an editorial about how we need to strictly regulate alcoholic beverages. At least then, you could say that they have SOME journalistic integrity. Absent that, you have to believe they are just in the pocket of a certain political party who, as they attempt to transition this country from freedom to socialism, don't want anyone to be able to stand in their way.
Dan - 5 years ago
Killers prefer unarmed victims.
BIGGER HAMMER - 5 years ago
If you think that only guns can cause massive casualties, you are not keeping up with FACTS. In Nice France, one Islamic terrorist with a truck killed 86 people. In New York City, one loser killed 87 with nothing more than some gasoline and a lighter (Happyland Club). If the Las Vegas gunman had just filled the gas tanks and flown his airplane (he owned one) Kamikaze style into the music festival (just a few blocks from the Las Vegas Airport) he would have killed hundreds. Every weekend in Chicago, the killings in the projects & streets take a dozen or so lives. But silly liberals always want to go after the lawful gun owners instead of the criminals.
John Weare - 5 years ago
I drove about 1100 miles this weekend from New England to the Midwest. Along the way I observed many retail outlets, large shopping malls and retail shopping centers with full parking lots. People are not paralyzed by fear or angry. There are some, I'm sure, but that's likely due to their own hangups. Most are likely be mindful of danger but realize that the risk, despite the amped up coverage by ignorant and profit-driven "news" outlets looking to curry favor from whomever is the hottest political personality out there, is extraordinarily and inescapably low. Or they, as many Americans have, choose not to subsidize their personal safety and make a decision to provide for their natural human right to self defense the best way they can using an affirmed right. Red flag warnings violate due process in almost all cases they have been used and by design, universal background checks is backdoor firearm registration which the ATF has stated will be the only way such laws requiring background checks could possibly be enforced and of all the millions - yes, millions - of "assault" weapons in private ownership, pitifully few kill or hurt absolutely anyone every single year, year in and year out. It'd be be like banning "fast" cars because they kill or injure a lot of people every year after defining "fast cars" using arbitrary visual features. It's a classic textbook false equivalency but gun control extremists are the ones that say "if it saves just one life" it's "worth doing" so, well, there's that. The problem is not any of these things or the lack of them. The real problem is a completely bereft mental health system and a society that ostracizes and/or demonizes those with problems instead of helping them. Another problem is an education system that considers and fosters the narrative that firearms only evil, vile, dangerous, and serve no purpose except to kill or maim people instead of teaching children and teenagers the respect and responsibility that firearms require. Such programs and education helped change how they look at drinking, smoking, wanton sex, driving under the influence and a host of other vices or potentially dangerous activities yet when it comes to firearms, none of that style education is even considered because the children are scared of guns. Well, that is completely the parents' and educators' fault. Between that fact and the typical laundry list rolled out by the gun control extremists every single time a "mass shooting" that suits - and only suits - their own agendas occurs, tell me again how it's not a conspiracy to strip basic human and natural rights from us and gain further control over us.
Johnny Reno - 5 years ago
According to the FBI’s 2017 homicide statistics showing a total of 15,129: 403 people were killed by rifles of any type while hands/fists/feet account for 692 homicides. Knives or cutting instruments account for 1,592 homicides in that data set. Blunt object such as hammers were used in 467 hammers.
Self-defense is a right. Please quit trying to influence legislation that will have very little impact on homicide in our nation and reduce the capacity for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
Bill C - 5 years ago
Make murder illegal, that will fix it.
Jack - 5 years ago
Murder is already against the law and my weapons have never assaulted anyone. Maybe we should ban the crazy liberals who are mentally ill and causing these tragedies from owning firearms and leave us law abiding citizens alone. Stupid leftist socialist even want to ban guns and make us into felons. Wonder why? We don't need any moral judgement from those that kill babies through abortion daily.
Marty - 5 years ago
Okay, well, there is this story, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/world/asia/japan-fire-animation-studio.html
There was no guns involved, only fire. Its not the tool that the murderer uses, its the murderer that needs to be stopped. Removing the "easiest tool" wont stop the mass killings. These people are either being possessed by demons, or are just snapping... or more likely, they snapped a long time ago, and people just didnt care enough about them to see that had happened. The story of the one shooter that was stopped, not by law enforcement, but by his grandmother telling him not to do it, then taking him to a hospital. Thats what we need to be doing, not trying to limit their damage, or make it more difficult to increase their body count, but actually trying to stop them and help them before they commit to the shooting.
But people just dont give a crap about their fellow man.
Brian - 5 years ago
How about we stop suffocating honest law abiding citizens with more gun laws and start punishing these shooters now. Make an example with the El Paso shooter,.Let him have a fair trial, if he is found guilty of commitimg murder immediate death penalty should be carried out and the press should be ordered to never speak his name again.
Chris - 5 years ago
Isn't it ironic that the media focuses on fear, because "if it bleeds, it leads". Let's all remember that the decision to murder people ALWAYS comes before the method in which it is done. ALWAYS. That simple fact seems to point to the fact that PEOPLE are the problem and not firearms. The media is all too willing to throw away every single right we have as free people, just as long as it helps their agenda. Now THAT is sinful, because USAToday would rather us all be locked into tiny little boxes, being told what we can and can't do, with absolutely zero control of our own lives in the name of "safety".
Let me tell you a secret, safety is a made up thing. There are dangerous things and dangerous people everywhere. None of us can never truly be 100% "safe", regardless of what we do. That's called life, and evil people have done evil things, with a vast number of TOOLS, since the beginning of time. USAToday isn't going to change that with a biased opinion. I do not, and will NEVER agree with your position on firearms, because I know how to raise my own safety levels, and one of those ways is legally carrying a firearm...but I guess you just want me to be another victim.
Joe - 5 years ago
The premises raised in the article that it’s false to believe that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun is utterly incorrect. Look at the three incidents this article focuses on... in the CA and OH shooting good guys (police officers) nearby WITH GUNS responded in less than a minute and brought the shootings to a promt conclusion. Tragically, not without the loss of life, but they saved many many lives. The TX shooter was alllowed to run around in the Walmart (a posted gun-free zone) evading police until he exited the Walmart and voluntarily surrendered. The police never fired a shot in TX. Look at the difference in the results... the shooter that never encountered a good guy with a gun to oppose him killed almost twice as many as the other two incidents combined and wounded many more. While good guys with guns can’t predict the future and prevent crimes before they happen... they absolutely can STOP the threat and save lives. To suggest otherwise is dumb - in fact, it’s why cops carry guns to begin with.
Leif H - 5 years ago
The problem isn't the guns, but the people who possess them. Until you do something to help or fix these broken people, violence like this will continue. A gun is only one way, and the least creative, of causing devastation. It's also not the most fatal. Promote ways to help these broken people before the next tragedy.
Shai Dorsai - 5 years ago
The Previous Federal "Assault Gun Ban" didn't stop a thing. The Columbine High School Massacre happened during that time period.
The North Hollywood Bank Shootout also happened during the Ban.
You are as stupid as I believe you are if another Federal Ban would stop a single crime.
Mark Camarigg - 5 years ago
Every gun made was a military weapon at some point. The attempted attack on modern rifles has a predictable path. Ban them and when the next shooting happens you'll demonize handguns. After that bolt guns, after that shotguns...nope...
Dave Cox - 5 years ago
“To not even try is sinful.“
It has been tried, and rejected. Over and over again. After almost every mass shooting, there’s a hard push by gun control advocates to “ban assault weapons”. And sometimes there’s a vote, like after Sandy Hook. And it’s been defeated over and over again. What the editorial board is really saying is “to not even try until we get it is a sin.” Did you at the board ever consider that people living outside major metropolises have entirely different lives and expectations than you? That their comfort levels with firearms are entirely different than yours and that their rights and opinions are just as valid as yours? No, you probably didn’t. Over and over again, votes to ban “assault weapons” and for more gun control have been rejected at the national level. Not because of the NRA. No, for a very simple reason. Millions of us don’t want that legislation passed, and we elect politicians to represent our interests. So when you don’t win the vote, maybe take a look at yourselves and consider you’re losing because others don’t agree with you and not that your position is so entirely superior to that of everyone else and that only you can pontificate about common sense from your cozy editorial table in a skyscraper in NYC
Joe Jeeps - 5 years ago
Do nothing? No, we would kill or prosecute the terrorists which is exactly what we'll do in these cases as well. Infringing on the rights of an entire nation of innocents will do nothing to fix our issues.
"Assault Weapons" have been available for over a century and nobody shot up schools, concerts, etc. In fact, you could buy them from a catalog or your local hardware shop with no background check at all. Society has changed...not the guns.
Brent Willems - 5 years ago
The Center for Disease Control 2013 Gun Study found that guns are used far more often defensively than in crimes.
Additionally "assault weapons" are rarely used in crimes.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6230.pdf
Leave a Comment
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
All I am going to say on this is A) there is no such thing as an assault weapon, unless you are talking about fully automatic rifles which have been regulated for quite some time.
B) Its not 1993 anymore, Clinton is not president, millions upon millions of these types of rifles are now in the public's hands, and they are more popular than ever before. ANY "Ban" on them would result in millions not complying, violence, and eventually civil unrest. Is that your solution to "violence?" Killing millions of people who refuse to comply?
Think I am full of it? Do some research. Right now as I type there are loads of groups of people forming up to create mutual aid groups to defend against confiscation and new laws. Our rights do not come from lawmakers, lawmakers are simply to make SURE those rights are not violated. Preventing lawmakers calling for bans on self defense firearms are the reason the second amendment was created. Think about that long and hard.
There is a country very close to the USA that has an assault weapons ban--it's called Mexico.
The ban did nothing to stop gun violence. Mexico has some of the highest rates of gun violence ON EARTH.
It's a culture problem, not a gun problem.
Maybe we should ban moronic socialist from getting an opinion editorial page..
Guess how many die each year from alcohol related causes? Somewhere north of 80K. That's over double the number of ALL gun deaths in a year. And that's not my number. That comes straight from the CDC.
I wonder if the editorial board of USA Today will come out advocating restrictions on alcoholic beverages? Maybe purchase limits, licensing, and bans on high-potency drinks like liquor. Makes sense, doesn't it?
No, that will never happen. You see, probably many who work for USA Today tend to imbibe. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just that it is SOOO much easier to push for restrictions on OTHERS. Not so much to push on restrictions on YOURSELF.
Here's an undeniable fact: you'll never get anyone at USA Today to admit we need to more tightly regulate alcohol, because their access to alcohol is more important to them than your right to life.
Of course, I could be wrong...and if I am, I expect that tomorrow, USA Today will be publishing an editorial about how we need to strictly regulate alcoholic beverages. At least then, you could say that they have SOME journalistic integrity. Absent that, you have to believe they are just in the pocket of a certain political party who, as they attempt to transition this country from freedom to socialism, don't want anyone to be able to stand in their way.
Killers prefer unarmed victims.
If you think that only guns can cause massive casualties, you are not keeping up with FACTS. In Nice France, one Islamic terrorist with a truck killed 86 people. In New York City, one loser killed 87 with nothing more than some gasoline and a lighter (Happyland Club). If the Las Vegas gunman had just filled the gas tanks and flown his airplane (he owned one) Kamikaze style into the music festival (just a few blocks from the Las Vegas Airport) he would have killed hundreds. Every weekend in Chicago, the killings in the projects & streets take a dozen or so lives. But silly liberals always want to go after the lawful gun owners instead of the criminals.
I drove about 1100 miles this weekend from New England to the Midwest. Along the way I observed many retail outlets, large shopping malls and retail shopping centers with full parking lots. People are not paralyzed by fear or angry. There are some, I'm sure, but that's likely due to their own hangups. Most are likely be mindful of danger but realize that the risk, despite the amped up coverage by ignorant and profit-driven "news" outlets looking to curry favor from whomever is the hottest political personality out there, is extraordinarily and inescapably low. Or they, as many Americans have, choose not to subsidize their personal safety and make a decision to provide for their natural human right to self defense the best way they can using an affirmed right. Red flag warnings violate due process in almost all cases they have been used and by design, universal background checks is backdoor firearm registration which the ATF has stated will be the only way such laws requiring background checks could possibly be enforced and of all the millions - yes, millions - of "assault" weapons in private ownership, pitifully few kill or hurt absolutely anyone every single year, year in and year out. It'd be be like banning "fast" cars because they kill or injure a lot of people every year after defining "fast cars" using arbitrary visual features. It's a classic textbook false equivalency but gun control extremists are the ones that say "if it saves just one life" it's "worth doing" so, well, there's that. The problem is not any of these things or the lack of them. The real problem is a completely bereft mental health system and a society that ostracizes and/or demonizes those with problems instead of helping them. Another problem is an education system that considers and fosters the narrative that firearms only evil, vile, dangerous, and serve no purpose except to kill or maim people instead of teaching children and teenagers the respect and responsibility that firearms require. Such programs and education helped change how they look at drinking, smoking, wanton sex, driving under the influence and a host of other vices or potentially dangerous activities yet when it comes to firearms, none of that style education is even considered because the children are scared of guns. Well, that is completely the parents' and educators' fault. Between that fact and the typical laundry list rolled out by the gun control extremists every single time a "mass shooting" that suits - and only suits - their own agendas occurs, tell me again how it's not a conspiracy to strip basic human and natural rights from us and gain further control over us.
According to the FBI’s 2017 homicide statistics showing a total of 15,129: 403 people were killed by rifles of any type while hands/fists/feet account for 692 homicides. Knives or cutting instruments account for 1,592 homicides in that data set. Blunt object such as hammers were used in 467 hammers.
Self-defense is a right. Please quit trying to influence legislation that will have very little impact on homicide in our nation and reduce the capacity for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
Make murder illegal, that will fix it.
Murder is already against the law and my weapons have never assaulted anyone. Maybe we should ban the crazy liberals who are mentally ill and causing these tragedies from owning firearms and leave us law abiding citizens alone. Stupid leftist socialist even want to ban guns and make us into felons. Wonder why? We don't need any moral judgement from those that kill babies through abortion daily.
Okay, well, there is this story, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/world/asia/japan-fire-animation-studio.html
There was no guns involved, only fire. Its not the tool that the murderer uses, its the murderer that needs to be stopped. Removing the "easiest tool" wont stop the mass killings. These people are either being possessed by demons, or are just snapping... or more likely, they snapped a long time ago, and people just didnt care enough about them to see that had happened. The story of the one shooter that was stopped, not by law enforcement, but by his grandmother telling him not to do it, then taking him to a hospital. Thats what we need to be doing, not trying to limit their damage, or make it more difficult to increase their body count, but actually trying to stop them and help them before they commit to the shooting.
But people just dont give a crap about their fellow man.
How about we stop suffocating honest law abiding citizens with more gun laws and start punishing these shooters now. Make an example with the El Paso shooter,.Let him have a fair trial, if he is found guilty of commitimg murder immediate death penalty should be carried out and the press should be ordered to never speak his name again.
Isn't it ironic that the media focuses on fear, because "if it bleeds, it leads". Let's all remember that the decision to murder people ALWAYS comes before the method in which it is done. ALWAYS. That simple fact seems to point to the fact that PEOPLE are the problem and not firearms. The media is all too willing to throw away every single right we have as free people, just as long as it helps their agenda. Now THAT is sinful, because USAToday would rather us all be locked into tiny little boxes, being told what we can and can't do, with absolutely zero control of our own lives in the name of "safety".
Let me tell you a secret, safety is a made up thing. There are dangerous things and dangerous people everywhere. None of us can never truly be 100% "safe", regardless of what we do. That's called life, and evil people have done evil things, with a vast number of TOOLS, since the beginning of time. USAToday isn't going to change that with a biased opinion. I do not, and will NEVER agree with your position on firearms, because I know how to raise my own safety levels, and one of those ways is legally carrying a firearm...but I guess you just want me to be another victim.
The premises raised in the article that it’s false to believe that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun is utterly incorrect. Look at the three incidents this article focuses on... in the CA and OH shooting good guys (police officers) nearby WITH GUNS responded in less than a minute and brought the shootings to a promt conclusion. Tragically, not without the loss of life, but they saved many many lives. The TX shooter was alllowed to run around in the Walmart (a posted gun-free zone) evading police until he exited the Walmart and voluntarily surrendered. The police never fired a shot in TX. Look at the difference in the results... the shooter that never encountered a good guy with a gun to oppose him killed almost twice as many as the other two incidents combined and wounded many more. While good guys with guns can’t predict the future and prevent crimes before they happen... they absolutely can STOP the threat and save lives. To suggest otherwise is dumb - in fact, it’s why cops carry guns to begin with.
The problem isn't the guns, but the people who possess them. Until you do something to help or fix these broken people, violence like this will continue. A gun is only one way, and the least creative, of causing devastation. It's also not the most fatal. Promote ways to help these broken people before the next tragedy.
The Previous Federal "Assault Gun Ban" didn't stop a thing. The Columbine High School Massacre happened during that time period.
The North Hollywood Bank Shootout also happened during the Ban.
You are as stupid as I believe you are if another Federal Ban would stop a single crime.
Every gun made was a military weapon at some point. The attempted attack on modern rifles has a predictable path. Ban them and when the next shooting happens you'll demonize handguns. After that bolt guns, after that shotguns...nope...
“To not even try is sinful.“
It has been tried, and rejected. Over and over again. After almost every mass shooting, there’s a hard push by gun control advocates to “ban assault weapons”. And sometimes there’s a vote, like after Sandy Hook. And it’s been defeated over and over again. What the editorial board is really saying is “to not even try until we get it is a sin.” Did you at the board ever consider that people living outside major metropolises have entirely different lives and expectations than you? That their comfort levels with firearms are entirely different than yours and that their rights and opinions are just as valid as yours? No, you probably didn’t. Over and over again, votes to ban “assault weapons” and for more gun control have been rejected at the national level. Not because of the NRA. No, for a very simple reason. Millions of us don’t want that legislation passed, and we elect politicians to represent our interests. So when you don’t win the vote, maybe take a look at yourselves and consider you’re losing because others don’t agree with you and not that your position is so entirely superior to that of everyone else and that only you can pontificate about common sense from your cozy editorial table in a skyscraper in NYC
Do nothing? No, we would kill or prosecute the terrorists which is exactly what we'll do in these cases as well. Infringing on the rights of an entire nation of innocents will do nothing to fix our issues.
"Assault Weapons" have been available for over a century and nobody shot up schools, concerts, etc. In fact, you could buy them from a catalog or your local hardware shop with no background check at all. Society has changed...not the guns.
The Center for Disease Control 2013 Gun Study found that guns are used far more often defensively than in crimes.
Additionally "assault weapons" are rarely used in crimes.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6230.pdf