on 12.23.12 @ 12:03 PM
One thing I appreciate about your article, Henry, is that you are at least willing to consider the idea that our gun controls are in some ways inadequate and not entirely sensible. There is no rational need for a non-military combatant to own a gun with a magazine or clip holding more than 10 bullets. Maybe it’s a thrill to shoot it at the range, but gun enthusiasts will just have to find another way to have fun.
In my opinion we also have to outlaw all gun shows and crack down as much as possible on private sales. It may be an inconvenience for some, but a responsible gun owner shouldn’t have a problem with going through proper channels. It is not an infringement of Second Amendment rights.
Unfortunately as a society we have shown that too many of us abuse the privilege.
on 12.23.12 @ 12:46 PM
Thank you, Mr. Schulte for a little common sense. This has been a breath of fresh air in the midst of otherwise emotional spewing from ignorant mouths.
on 12.23.12 @ 01:25 PM
Thank you Mr. Schulte. Please send a copy of this column to Senator Feinstein, who seems to believe that legislating against specific gun models by name and number will somehow solve the problem. The woman is not very smart.
on 12.23.12 @ 02:54 PM
This is insulting nonsense. Is the country really supposed to endure the threat of mayhem in our schools and streets so that a few can own assault weapons for recreational use?
Is it really a solution to pay for armed guards in our schools when we can’t any longer afford to pay for enough teachers, nurses, counselors, and librarians? Are we thereby to teach our children to fear that their school day may contain dangerous threats to their safety?
on 12.23.12 @ 02:59 PM
Noleta, you seem to purposefully miss the entire point of Schulte’s article, which is controls don’t matter and education, preparedness and vigilance do. I wonder what in the world happened to you and all the other gun control nuts that made you so suicidal in nature.
As Henry pointed out, you will never get rid of guns (of any kind or the hardware that goes with them), except from all law abiding sane people. All gun control laws do is ensure that criminals and the criminally insane have them and you are defenseless.
Why you cannot see that, why that is so hard for you to comprehend is unfathomable to me. It seems to be a rather suicidal affliction that I mostly see in liberals and those on the left. However, I do know many leftists that are ardent gun advocates, some are my friends and we enjoy going to the range for target practice. We are safety fanatics because we understand that the tool we have in our hand is deadly.
I suggest you do as Henry did and get an education. Get to know these tools. They have no brain, hands or feet and require yours to function, so becoming familiar with them will help you not only understand why they are important but what a great responsibility having them is.
They are out there, like cold weather. You can choose to ignore their presents particularly in the hands of deranged people and like that cold weather freeze to death or you can prepare your self, become knowledgeable, strong and vigilant. The answer is not in abdicating your personal freedom to the state but rather taking responsibility for it.
on 12.23.12 @ 03:50 PM
Since when do liberals care about the cost of public employees? We have armed government guards all over our airports and train stations, why should schools be any different?
Schools already contain dangerous threats to students’ safety, including drugs and weapons. But look at the outcry that happens in Santa Barbara when the school district introduces drug-sniffing dogs. In THAT case, safety concerns get tossed right out the window. Then, suddenly, our Constitutional Rights are being violated! Why is one of those Rights any less important than the others?
Schulte’s right. It’s not a generalization to say that gun owners don’t harbor thoughts of killing people. They don’t. Criminals do. Sick individuals do. Are we to believe that even if we could eliminate 100 percent of all guns in the world, killing would stop? I call B.S. on that. Before guns were invented, there was mass murder. From al-Qaeda to Bernadine Dohrn, on any given Sunday there are thousands of criminal and sick individuals ready to plant bombs instead.
on 12.23.12 @ 04:08 PM
I have read where an Automatic Gun was not used. Is that true?
on 12.23.12 @ 05:16 PM
I believe the conversation should be centered on mental illness and what to do about it. It’s a giant question.
Instead, everybody is arguing about guns.
on 12.23.12 @ 05:23 PM
Henry, regardless of what you profess…..no one needs assault weapons, and guards at every school is not a solution.
Go back to your Faux Noise and shut up
on 12.23.12 @ 05:57 PM
“American Freedom” and the NRA on the same side of the equation? Must be the “new” math or some esoteric theoretical imaginary numbers game. Following are a handful of NRA positions on the issues, from Think Progress writer Zack Beauchamp. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/17/1345641/nra-gun-laws/
1. Wanted people on the terrorist watch list to be legally able to acquire guns. Inasmuch as it makes sense to have a secret “terrorism watch list,” one would think a primary reason would be to prevent people who might commit terrorism from accessing the weapons that one uses to do so. Yet people on the watch list are still allowed to by guns: in 2010 alone, at least 247 people suspected of involvement with terrorism bought guns legally. While 71 percent of NRA members support closing the so-called “terror gap,” the NRA claims efforts to close the loophole are plots by “politicians who hate the Second Amendment.”
2. Opposed required background checks on every gun sale. Forty percent of all gun sales legally take place without background checks on the purchaser, because federal law doesn’t require them for so-called “private” gun sales at places like gun shows. Eighty percent of gun crimes involve guns purchased in this fashion. NRA members recognize how dangerous this law is; 69 percent of them support a “proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns.” Yet the NRA opposes any effort to close this loophole, calling it “a stepping stone for gun control advocates seeking to ban all private sales, even among family and friends.”
3. Lobbied to allow warlords to get arms on the international market. The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is a small step towards the regulation of the massive international weapons trade, aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of murderous insurgents and terrorists. It contains zero restrictions on domestic gun markets. Yet the NRA has vigorously opposed the ATT, calling it an “attack on our Second Amendment freedoms” by “global gun grabbers.”
4. Wanted to prevent the public from accessing information about where guns come from. Though there’s a federal database that traces sales of guns used in crimes, you’ll never know what’s in there. That’s because NRA has helped muscle through the so-called “Tiahrt Amendments” (named after sponsor, former Rep. Todd Tiahrt [R-KS]) to the federal gun code, which prevent the public, journalists, academic researchers, some police officers, and people suing the gun industry from accessing crucially valuable data. The Tiahrt Amendments were passed over the objection of federal and local law enforcement.
5. Pushed to keep guns in bars. Guns and drunk people don’t mix well. Yet when the Tennessee legislature was considering banning guns in establishments that make most of their money from booze, an NRA lobbyist was given a rare opportunity to address the state GOP caucus opposing the bill. It died.
6) Supported forcing all business owners to allow guns on their property. Many business owners are understandably nervous about permitting people to bring loaded guns to work. Yet the NRA has pushed legislation in a number of states that would force businesses to allow employees to bring guns to work provided they leave them in their cars.
on 12.23.12 @ 07:18 PM
If the folks who shot up Congresswoman Gifford’s sidewalk City Hall, or a Colorado
movie theatre, or a Newtown elementary school, or Columbine High, or Virginia
Tech, or President Reagan and James Brady, or too many other places to even recount had come to your house or your ranch, you might have different thoughts.
Imagine if those mentally ill villains had been armed with baseballs, or flower pots, or knit sweaters, or hunting knives, instead of semi-automatic weapons, and clad in Kevlar?
Would we be mourning for all these little children, their teachers, their principal
Why does America have more gun deaths each year than the next twenty most
advanced economies in the world, combined?
Why has there not been a single year in the last fifty when our civilian death rate
from legal firearms didn’t exceed our casualty rates from our foreign wars, including Viet-Nam and Iraq?
Did our Founders idea of a “well regulated militia” really suggest that they, in an
era of single-shot flintlocks, wanted semi-automatic weapons to proliferate for
those who have never had militia training, let alone served their state or nation?
Wayne La Pierre may say “guns don’t kill people”.
But Henry, they do.
By the thousands, each year.
Adults, children, the sane, the insane, the troubled, the angry, the innocent
bystanders, pro football players, kids walking to school in bad neighborhoods.
Where will it stop? When will it stop?
President Reagan liked to quote an only religious maxim:
If not us, who? If not now, when?
How many more children must die before we value our families and neighbors
as much as Wayne La Pierre values his guns?
on 12.23.12 @ 07:57 PM
You fail to acknowlege that personal responsibity is the cheapest price we have to pay for our freedom. You can not legislate morality. Doing so will only permit those who do not have any morals to take advantage of those who do have.
Call us whatever you want but the fact will remain imbedded in my Pscye that Bad will always exist and Good lies in the eyes of the beholder. Many of those who do bad do so thinking they are doing good. Which leads me to another platitude ” Too much good can be bad and sometimes a little bad can bring about better result”.
The conservative will never change the mind of the Progressive nor will the Progressive change the mind of the conservative.
Hopefully time will judge us all fairly;
and neither one nor the other choose to settle it with guns.
on 12.24.12 @ 02:59 AM
You are correct the gunman did not have an assault weapon. He used a semi-automatic, which is what 99% of the guns in America are. Real assault weapons have been banned since the 1930’s.
We had a law in the 1990’s that attempted to arbitrarily ban some semi-automatic weapons, but it proved to be largely ineffectual. Most people, who urge the banning of assault weapons, have no idea what they’re talking about.
on 12.24.12 @ 11:30 AM
Lou, You are correct that the so-called “assault weapons” that the media and politicians are demonizing are identified by mainly cosmetic characteristics - black color, pistol grip, flash hider, copies the looks of a military gun. The only functional characteristic discussed seems to be bullet capacity of the magazine. Because some of these guns “look like” a military weapon, they have been able to convince people, that don’t know the difference, that these are automatic firing military assault rifles.
on 12.24.12 @ 01:44 PM
I’ll take a wild leap here and guess that most anti-gun nuts have never held a gun, have no clue how it works, cannot differentiate between automatic, semiautomatic, bolt action, single action, double action, pistol, revolver, etc.
The guns used in the massacre were all SEMIautomatic, requiring one trigger pull per bullet fired, and legally available in just about every state.
The solution is not necessarily in making new laws, although certain states could use tightening up. The solution is in enforcing laws and providing better mental health care.
California has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. It has 20% of the nation’s population. And 68% of the gun crimes. National research quoted recently in the media indicate that the vast majority of gun crimes are among certain racial groups, one of which accounts for nearly half the population in California. Hmmm. Florida, on the other hand, has seen a significant long term decrease in gun crimes since passing “right to carry” laws over 10 years ago. Verifiable facts, all. Something to think about when the knees stop jerking.
on 12.24.12 @ 08:03 PM
Knee jerk indeed. Lots of ‘liberals’ know that difference.
It’s less costly to have sensible gun controls, and there are plenty of ‘conservative’ arguments in favor of sanity.
The risk/chance, when there is a firearm in a home, is far higher for a loved one to be killed or injured than for a criminal.
How the NRA bought and sold Congress is another question.
It takes far less paperwork and scrutiny to buy a gun than is required to obtain a license to cut hair.
on 12.26.12 @ 05:23 PM
Suppose the nut in illegal possession of firearms in Webster, New York had been
brandishing a trombone, or a saw, or a Frisbee, or a surfboard?
Would we still be talking about dead volunteer firemen, and seven families losing their homes to an arson ambush on Christmas Eve?
Mr. Schulte, when does this gun madness stop? How many more innocents must
we watch, shot to pieces, on national, state, local tv every night?
Mr. Schulte, the national news reported, on Christmas Day no less, that after the
Newtown and Webster massacres, gun dealers reported selling two months worth
of semi-automatic assault rifles and “extra large” ammo clips in just four days.
Mr. Schulte, the Soviet’s “evil Empire” fell twenty years ago.
Are average Americans at greater risk from the foreign remnants of al Qaeda, or
from tens of thousands of barely rational neighbors, armed to the teeth, often
with better equipment than local or state law enforcement?
How many at-risk youth could we send to recreation, arts, education programs at the crossroads of their lives for even 1/3 the money the Arms industry rakes
How many working poor could we help to afford some level of health insurance,
or some level of job re-training?
Where does it end, Mr. Schulte?
on 12.26.12 @ 07:50 PM
Publius, The logic of your argument totally breaks down when you use such absurd comparisons as “a trombone, or a saw, or a Frisbee, or a surfboard” as potential weapons that a deranged killer might have chosen had he no access to a gun.
If you want to compare and contrast other possible weapons, why not hidden gasoline bombs, molotov cocktails, dynamite, a fertilizer bomb in a pick up truck, drove his vehicle into the firemen, etc. These are other potential weapons not the household items you cite.
You ask, “Would we still be talking about dead volunteer firemen, and seven families losing their homes to an arson ambush on Christmas Eve?” And the answer, if those other potential items had been used in lieu of a gun, is “yes.”
In your mind, the issue is “gun madness.” In a more logical mind, the issue might be “mental illness.”
And you are concerned that after the Newtown and Webster massacres, gun dealers reported selling two months worth of semi-automatic assault rifles and “extra large” ammo clips in just four days. Perhaps the reason for that is that law-abiding people are worried that knee-jerk emotional reactions by anti-gun politicians will outlaw their right to purchase such tools of self-defense.