![Brady Blog [image]](http://www.bradycampaign.org/common-images/page-headers/brady-blog.jpg)
I’ve been involved with politics all my life, served as Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana for twelve years, been the Republican nominee for United States Senator in Indiana, and now, after four months as head of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, I’m at a loss why some pundits and elected officials consider common sense measures to reduce gun violence as “wedge issues” too controversial to be considered by the new Congress.
We’re not talking about banning or confiscating guns that people buy and own for hunting, collecting, or personal protection. The issue isn’t whether someone is “pro-gun” or “anti-gun” but why there is a reluctance from some of our elected officials to take moderate steps that would make our homes and neighborhoods safer.
The following points should satisfy any political concerns that are out there:
- Polls show consistently that the American people strongly support common sense restrictions on gun purchases. There is a consensus that Brady background checks, prohibitions against “straw purchases,” limits on bulk sales, strong enforcement of gun laws (including those applicable to gun dealers), and restrictions on certain types of military-style weapons and ammunition makes sense and would help promote public safety.
- The political clout of the gun lobby has been overblown. In the 2006 campaigns where the Brady Campaign and the NRA endorsed competing candidates, the NRA lost 80%, including four of four U.S. Senate races and five of five Governor races. The NRA spent over 2.1 million dollars (80% of their independent expenditures) on losing campaigns. Five of their six top-funded U.S. Senate candidates all lost. When reviewing their endorsed or A rated candidates, the NRA lost with 109 U.S. House candidates and 18 U.S. Senate candidates. On the other hand, the Brady Campaign was successful in over 96% of the races around the country where it made an endorsement. In numerous races, pro-active support for common sense gun violence protection measures helped a candidate win. I know of no candidate whose support for this harmed their efforts.
- Increasing gun violence is a concern to voters across the country. As Charlie Cook pointed out in his “Cook Political Report” column on October 3, 2006, “the tragic news” of the school shootings in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania and elsewhere “certainly isn’t going to help Republicans’ standing among many moderate and independent suburban voters.” Whether evaluating steps meant to keep us safe from threats from abroad, or threats at home, voters want realistic, pragmatic responses, not theoretical stances that either have no or even negative effect. More guns are likely to make a home, a state, or a country more dangerous, not more safe.
The new Congress could send the public a positive message of its concern for safer communities by taking common sense steps like eliminating current restrictions on publicizing data about the source of guns used in crimes, strengthening the enforcement powers of law enforcement agencies including the ATF, making it harder for criminals and terrorists to buy guns by requiring background checks for all gun sales, and restricting sales of military style weapons and the ammunition that’s used in those weapons. Steps like this help make us safer and will score political points for those who support them.
48 Comments
Sorry, comment limit exceeded for this entry.
![www.godnotguns.org blog [image]](/xshare/modules/images/gngblog.gif)
![[image]](/xshare/modules/images/gun-violence-map.gif)
![Paul Helmke [image]](/xshare/modules/images/brady-joinus-red-2007-10-12.gif)
![Gun Industry Watch [image]](/xshare/modules/images/gunindustrywatch-description.gif)
![Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence [logo]](http://www.bradycampaign.org/bradyreport/email/common-images/bc_logo.gif){kind=logo}
Dear Brady Campaign,
I would just like to inform you that your campaign is greatly appreciated and I too believe that there should be more “gun control” in America. If we let everyone own guns without a permit of somekind or proper training, it will only lead to a disaster.
Keep up the good work, and lets leave the guns to the officials!
-Connor
Dear Brady Campaign:
I think you are exaggerating your impact on the last election. Many of the Democrats elected, such as Nick Lampson-District 22 (rated “A” by the NRA) are pro-Second Amendment. John Dingell, a former NRA board member, is poised to take control of the Energy and Commerce Committee. In fact, the Democrats, such as Chuck Schummer, who orchestrated this election, were smart enough to pick conservative Democrats to run in conservative districts. If they vote the will of the people who elected them, passing more “gun control” measures will be difficult.
Also, don’t forget what happened in 1994 after the passage of the assault weapons ban. The Democrats lost control of the House for the first time in years. If the conservative voters who helped elect many of these candidates get fed up with their rights being abused, the same could happen again.
The election was a referendum on Bush, the war, his attacks on our civil rights and the growing deficit. To say that it was about gun control is missing the point.
Michael
Dear Brady Campaign:
I think you are exaggerating your impact on the last election. Many of the Democrats elected, such as Nick Lampson-District 22 (rated “A” by the NRA) are pro-Second Amendment. John Dingell, a former NRA board member, is poised to take control of the Energy and Commerce Committee. In fact, the Democrats, such as Chuck Schummer, who orchestrated this election, were smart enough to pick conservative Democrats to run in conservative districts. If they vote the will of the people who elected them, passing more “gun control” measures will be difficult.
Also, don’t forget what happened in 1994 after the passage of the assault weapons ban. The Democrats lost control of the House for the first time in years. If the conservative voters who helped elect many of these candidates get fed up with their rights being abused, the same could happen again.
The election was a referendum on Bush, the war, his attacks on our civil rights and the growing deficit. To say that it was about gun control is missing the point.
Michael
Mr. Helmke,
Do you have any evidence or figures to show the effect of the Assault Weapons Ban sunset on crime rates? I read a lot of predictions about our streets being flooded with AK-47s on your website in September 2004, so what do you have to say now?
Mr. Helmke & the Brady Campaign make a compelling argument as to why the issue of gun control should not be labeled a ‘wedge’ issue to be avoided by legislators. Not all of our newly-elected politicians will shy away from taking a stance on issues they deem divisive or unpopular among voters; but unfortunately, quite a few will. I must respectfully disagree with Michael (who btw, asks good questions), as I see gun control (NRA backed candidates) as an important issue in this election; along with the Bush presidency, the war in Iraq, domestic & foreign policies, etc.
Dear Brady Campaign:
Do you really think that the criminals and terrorists need to go to a gun shop and have a back round check done to purchase a gun? Do you think that they want you to know that they have the gun, and lastly do you think that they care if the gun is legal? Surely you are smart enough to know the answers to these questions and to know that all the gun control in the world wont stop criminals and terrorists from having the guns that they want when they want them.
Mr. Helmke,
I sincerely hope that with a new face to the Brady Campaign, some real progress on real issues can be made. I hope that this organization, for the first time, starts actually trying to prevent crime rather than restricting the liberty of the entire population.
In 1994 the Brady Campaign led the way for the Assault Weapon Ban. It was so effective that 10 months after it lapsed violent crime was DOWN 3.6%. This makes perfect since because, as we all knew, “assault weapons” were not the prefered weapons of criminals. In fact, FBI statics show that “assault weapons” were used in less than 1% of gun crimes before the ban even existed.
Perhaps there most restrictive portion of the Brady Bill was the ammo capacity limit. Yet there were no findings as to how often criminals actually fired more than 10 rounds.
I hope sincerely that your organization starts forcusing on what is good for America, rather than trying to push your individual choices on others. In Florida, we have a law called 10-20-Life. If you use a gun in a crime, mandatory 10 year minimum sentence. Fire the gun, 20 years minimum. Shoot someone, you get life whether your victim dies or not. Why doesn’t the Brady Campaign focus on laws like this? In fact, it would thrill me if the law was 20-40-Life, and it was applicable nation wide.
You see, one thing your organization has failed to understand in the past is that, for the most part, criminals are career criminals. Around 70% of all people serving time for a felony conviction have previous felony convictions. I would surmise that the other 30% are career criminals as well, they are just serving their first stint. As I am sure you know, felons cannot own guns in this country. Thus any law that restricts commercial firearms transactions is likely to have very little affect on crime, as most criminals aren’t able to buy guns from stores.
Further, I feel that your organization has been intentionally disingenious in the past. In your website’s fact section, there are “facts” about Australian gun crime. Your facts sheet makes it sound as if crime in Australia is down. In actuality, while gun crime is down, total violent crime is up tremendously. Murder is up, rape is up, assault is up, and armed robbery is up. The goal of your organization should be total crime, not gun crime. Or are you willing to have total crime go up for the sake of gun crime going down? Is a person killed with a knife any less dead than a person killed with a gun? And more people have been killed, Mr. Helmke. This actually makes sense, as criminals do not need a gun when the entire population is disarmed, and criminals prefer disarmed victims. Moreover, I do not understand why your organization is arguing that Australia was a success. If you truly support “common sense” gun laws, as you state repeatedly, this cannot include the type of confiscation that occurred in Australia. Yet your organization seems to be defending the result of near-total confiscation, supporting the conclusions of many concerned citizens that you are not actually trying to pass reasonable laws but rather ban guns one-by-one.
I sincerely hope that you change the direction of the Brady Campain, Mr. Helmke. I think that with your organization’s political power, it could do a lot of good if it would only concentrate on the right things. If you have any questions or comments about my long-winded opinion, please feel free to email me.
-Andrew
So I guess if taking away civil rights is popular enough, and those that support those civil rights are in the minority, then it’s OK to take them away? You can blab about “common sense” gun control all you like, but your real agenda is clear enough. You and your slimy organization started out just hating handguns. Then it expanded to evil-looking guns (er, I’m sorry, assault weapons). Now it’s 50 caliber rifles (never mind that one has never been used in a crime). Your real goal is a total ban on civilian ownership of firearms. Everyone that isn’t brain dead can see that. Rot in hell.
I think that the Brady Campaign would gain more credibility if their FAQ was more factual. For Example, I pulled the following quote from the section on assault weapons.
“Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.”
Anyone with any real knowledge of shooting would know this to be false. The AR-15/M-16 rifle is equipped with an excellent set of adjustable sights. If the rifle was designed to be “spray-fired from the hip” as your FAQ says, then why does it have sights at all? All someone has to do is watch the news to see the truth. Our troops are shown shooting using their sights. The only ones you see shooting from the hip are the bad guys!
The M-16/AR-15 is also commonly shot in military and civilian competitions. Expert marksmen can consistently hit the 10 ring at 600 yards. The sights on their rifles are the same as the ones on the currently military-issue rifles. The same is true of the M-14 and it’s variants.
All assault rifles have some sort of sights. While they can be “shot from the hip” this is a tactic rarely used by those who acutally are trying to hit their target.
Michael
Rifles like these are shot in miltary and civilian target competitions.
Mr. Helmke you contradict yourself in this letter. You talk about not banning or confiscating guns that people buy and own for hunting, collecting, or personal protection. However, you suggest restrictions on certain types of military-style weapons and ammunition, in plain words passing another “Assault Weapon Ban”. Isn’t that Banning?
Mr. Helmke, I would like you to know that I know many people who hunt, collect as well as use these “scary appearing military style weapons” for protection as well. These firearms are reliable,as well as semi auto like most sporting firearms. The majority of there users and owners I know are completely law abiding.
Your goal, as the rest of this sites mission, is to move forward to exterminate private possession of firearms all together for private citizens. They look to first start with things that are easier to ban because of cosmetic features.
”Common sense gun laws” are enforcing the 20,000 gun laws on Federal and State level laws already on the books, Not to make new ones.
Your doing a poor job defending our Constitution by representing this extremist anti Constitution group. I enjoy my freedoms, as should you more closely.
Sincerely,
A lover of Freedom.
Mr. Helmke,
Please count me among Americans who think we have appropriate restrictions on who can own guns now, and do not agree that “style” (i.e. appearance) has anything to do with whether or not a particular weapon should be available to the general public. The now-expired federal “assault weapons” ban did nothing to enhance public safety, in fact it backfired by generating more interest in weapons that have a military appearance, and politically radicalizing people who wish to own them. You had ten full years to gather evidence that the ban was in the public interest, and as its expiration in September 2004 approached it became clear that supporters of the ban were coming up empty-handed.
Any attempt to revive the AW ban or require background checks on all private-party transfers of used firearms is likely to tip the balance back in favor of the Republicans.
I have one comment on the tone of your language: By referring to whatever additional controls and restrictions you are pushing for as “common sense”, you really are indulging in a pre-emptive ad hominem attack against anyone who happens to disagree with you. That kind of rhetorical tactic makes a poor substitute for logical, rational arguments with verifiable facts to back them up.
Mr. Helmke,
Thank you for your insight. There does seem to be a shortage of common sense in today’s society. I’m very interested in donating to your cause, but would like you to take a few moments and share the specifics of your ideas. As a long time hunter, I’ve been meaning to purchase some new firearms and I’d like to purchase something that would be acceptable to the Brady Campaign and not become the target of future legislation. Could you please provide some mention of the firearms and callibers your organization would find appropriate for hunting, personal protection, and self defense? I am commited to reducing gun violence and very much want to set a personal example.
Sincere thanks and keep up the good work!!
-chase
You imply that the elections are somehow a mandate for gun control yet none of the candidates ran on promoting gun control.
I’m curious why at no time in the last 12 years you never implied that the Republican’s winning the elections was a mandate against gun control.
I’d also be interested to see one case where gun control has ever reduced crime. Don’t waste too much time looking for it - it doesn’t exist.
Hello:
I just can’t help but think when you stop the people from having fire arms. And, yes, thats where this is trying to go. We will only have guns in the hands of crooks. I could tell you of several time when I heard of people saving their own life because they had a gun. You can’t take guns from the crooks and you can’t stop them from getting one. Only people who obay the law wil give them up if it comes to that.
Look at NY and the gun laws. Just look at the guns they find on the crooks. But the people who try to obay the laws can’t have one.In these cities the crook knows you don’t have a gun. In Florida where I live the crook had better think twice before they rob you with a gun. I carry one most of the time and most people I know do to. In my area the crime rate with guns is down.
I see that, once again, the Brady Campaign is returning to discussions of putting “certain restrictions” on “certain military-style weapons and ammunition.” Mr. Helmke, do you realize that true military weapons and ammunition–e.g., fully automatic rifles and handgun bullets that can pierce Kevlar–are already so restricted as to be virtually unavailable to the general public?
Or are you going to try, once again, to ban semi-automatic rifles that function in precisely the same way, and fire precisely the same kinds of bullets, as Granddad’s deer rifle? You do know that that was all the “assault weapons” that were banned in 1994 were, don’t you? They just look military. You can’t even convert them to fire full auto without replacing the entire firing mechanism, which is a federal felony that carries a mandatory ten-year sentence.
And have you forgotten 1994? Did you forget that time that you made all those Democrats walk the plank to pass your precious “Assault Weapon” ban and they were voted out of office…losing control of the House for twelve years?
Or is it that you know all of these things perfectly well, and you simply don’t care? If I were more conspiracy-minded, I’d suspect Karl Rove were paying you to keep talking just so the Democrats could get booted out of office again.
Mr.Helmke
The recent election was not a mandate for the Brady Campaign to start attacking our freedoms. It was a Mandate against the “Patriot Act” and “The Military Commissions Act “. As an artist and a veteran I find any reduction in freedom of any kind highly offensive.
I am sure you embrace the 1st. admendment? But consistantly attack the 2nd. admendment. Laws only affect the law abiding.Criminals do not care how many laws you pass. By creating more laws, you create more criminals. We have over 20,000 gun laws in place in this country already!! None of which have reduced crime. All of which violate the definition of the word” infringed “. In reality if we are to continue to have a free nation in these perilous times? Then we have to realise that there will always be a criminal element in society. Just as there will always be apathy in the bulk of the population. I have been dealing with the general public for 22 years,people from all walks of life. And I can tell you most don’t know who their mayor is,let alone what bills are being debated in congress! This being said there is a general accepted line in the sand by the general masses at large and that is the confiscation of the privately held firearms. I mean even mindless tv watching beer guzzling people who spend most there life watching sports, know that this is the straw that has to break the camels back.I don’t even own any of the so called military styled weapons. I spend my days off at a private pheasant club with my two black labs, hunting in a controled enviroment. But just as i can’t tolerate censorship,I just can’t tolerate gun control! America is still a Republic, not a democracy! So just get off the issue of more gun laws, and promote safty training instead.
Blaming guns for violence is like blaming spoons for obisity!
thank you
Roy L. Pennington
If the Democrats use their election victories to try to bring about new anti-gun laws, they will only set the stage for a loss in the next election cycle. Most people who voted in November for change, are mostly concerned about the Iraq war, the federal deficit, and immigration problems. They were fed up with the Republicans on these issues. There is nothing “sensible” about most of your “common sense” anti-gun proposals. Most of them put unnecessary restrictions on law abiding gun owners.
Article I Section 20 of the Rhode Island Constitution states,
“The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty; and in all trials for libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, unless published from malicious motives, shall be sufficient defence to the person charged.”
Does this mean that “…any person may publish” ONLY when associated with a State run liberal press?
First Amendment scollars would be agast at this notion!
I guess you guys can’t allow people to see the comparison in my comment. Article I Section 20 of the Rhode Island Constitution blows the legs out from under your contention that the Second Amendment allows guns only in relation to a well-regulated militia.
Let’s look at this some more.
In the Senate two anti-gun Republicans were defeated-Dewine (OH) and Chaffe (RI). (Didn’t the Brady Campaign consider them friends?) Those who replaced them could hardly be worse. Three other Democrats who defeated Republicans (Webb, Tester, and Casey) are considered solidly pro-rights. Jim Talent lost to Clair McCaskill in Missouri but she campaigned as pro-Second Amendment! So, at the best it is a wash for the 2nd Amendment in the Senate, at the worse it lost one vote. Remember, at least for the next tow years, Cheney will still be there as a tie breaker (and we know how he will vote, don’t we).
Things faired worse in the House, but there is still a pro-rights majority there (although not as much as before). And, as has already been pointed out, the anti-gun rights threat poised by legislators like Nancy Pelosi will be tempered by their desire to keep a Democratic majority in Congress in 2008. Remember Tom Daschle?
Like I said, it is too early for you to pat yourselves on the back. Just like there are pro-rights Republicans, there are pro-rights Democrats. Gun owners have friends on both sides of the fence. (This does not include any Libertarians who would be solidly pro-rights).
Michael
In the Senate two anti-gun Republicans were defeated-Dewine (OH) and Chaffe (RI). (Didn’t the Brady Campaign consider them friends?) Those who replaced them could hardly be worse. Three other Democrats who defeated Republicans (Webb, Tester, and Casey) are considered solidly pro-rights. Jim Talent lost to Clair McCaskill in Missouri but she campaigned as pro-Second Amendment! So, at the best it is a wash for the 2nd Amendment in the Senate, at the worse it lost one vote. Remember, at least for the next tow years, Cheney will still be there as a tie breaker (and we know how he will vote, don’t we).
Things faired worse in the House, but there is still a pro-rights majority there (although not as much as before). And, as has already been pointed out, the anti-gun rights threat poised by legislators like Nancy Pelosi will be tempered by their desire to keep a Democratic majority in Congress in 2008. Remember Tom Daschle?
Like I said, it is too early for you to pat yourselves on the back. Just like there are pro-rights Republicans, there are pro-rights Democrats. Gun owners have friends on both sides of the fence. (This does not include any Libertarians who would be solidly pro-rights).
Michael
I think that the Brady Campaign would gain more credibility if their FAQ was more factual. For Example, I pulled the following quote from the section on assault weapons.
“Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.”
Anyone with any real knowledge of shooting would know this to be false. The AR-15/M-16 rifle is equipped with an excellent set of adjustable sights. If the rifle was designed to be “spray-fired from the hip” as your FAQ says, then why does it have sights at all? All someone has to do is watch the news to see the truth. Our troops are shown shooting using their sights. The only ones you see shooting from the hip are the bad guys!
The M-16/AR-15 is also commonly shot in military and civilian competitions. Expert marksmen can consistently hit the 10 ring at 600 yards. The sights on their rifles are the same as the ones on the currently military-issue rifles. The same is true of the M-14 and it’s variants.
All assault rifles have some sort of sights. While they can be “shot from the hip” this is a tactic rarely used by those who acutally are trying to hit their target.
Michael
Dear Brady Campaign:
Restricting ammunition for “military style weapons”? A number of “acceptable” firearms to your organization use the same ammunition calibers as “military style weapons”. So I’ll enjoy watching you trying to convince people that despite claims that you do not want gun confiscation, anyone who owns a rifle/handgun that uses the .223 Remington, .308 Winchester, or .45 Automatic cartridges (all developed by the military and currently used by civilians) needs to have the ammunition restricted for it (and the firearm made essentially useless as a result)? This is just another example of how little your organization knows about guns and why people who own them shouldn’t trust you.
Michael
Mr. Helmke:
Here’s your opportunity as the leader of the Brady Campaign to change its tactics and stop making the firearms a “wedge issue”. The fact is that your organization has publicly supported the Washington DC handgun ban for law abiding citizens. Rosie O’Donnell also proudly proclaimed at the first Million Mom March that “if you have a gun, I think you should go to prison”. Not exactly the kind of language or positions that reassures gun owners about what will happen if your organization gets its way.
Michael
Bradycampaign.org I want to thank you for the bill boards you have put up along the highways leading into Florida that warn visitors that Floridians can now use deadly force to protect themselves. Maybe the non-law abiding element will now think twice before attacking a Florida citizen. As a ‘gun toting’ Florida citizen, thanks again.
Mr. Helmke,
“Gun Conrtrol” as defined by the Brady Campaign and efforts of it to be practiced in the state in which I live (California) is a joke. It is simply an effort to ban guns through gradual legislation i.e. making owning, purchasing a firearm nearly impossible.
The people proposing these gun control laws no nothing about firearms and what makes safer vs dangerous. None of these laws have deterred the criminal element only made the honest citizen less safe or more like to go astray of some odd regulation.
States are passing shall issue laws and commen sense seems to be taking hold in most of america much to your dismay. If the people in the Brady Campagain had any real knowledge of firearms and the lawful citzens who own and use them perhaps you could pass legislation that would make sense and garner support. Until then…I will vote against you at every turn.
Dear Mr. Helmke:
I understand that the Brady Campaign does not support banning or confiscation of firearms (except for “Saturday Night Specials” and assault weapons). If that is the case, I am curious why the Brady Campaign did not support the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 (did I miss something on your web site). This prohibited law enforcement from confiscating legally-held firearms from law abiding citizens at a time when they might need them the most.
Hurricane Katrina is only one example of where privately held firearms were used to stop crime. During the Rodney King riots business owners used firearms to prevent their businesses from being looted and burned. I remember seeing pictures myself of a grocery store that put up barricades and had armed men behind them to stave off potential looters.
I live in Sugar Land, Texas and we had a near miss with Hurricane Rita. We were lucky and only lost power overnight, but it could have been much worse. (You may have seen the news where it showed evacuation routes backed up for miles.) Having seen what happened with Katrina, I was glad I was armed.
I think that, despite efforts to the contrary, the Brady Campaign still suffers from the fact that it evolved from Handgun Control, Inc. and Pete Shields. A lot of people out there still feel that this is your goal. Supporting legislation which actually strengthens gun-owners rights could help change that attitude and help end this devisiveness.
Sincerely,
Michael
Anyone, who has ever had the misfortune of seeing a human being bespattered with blood from a gun in the possession of a person who should never have acquired one in the first place, knows all-too-well why the efforts of the Brady Campaign are so vital. The common sense approach referred to, I believe, has to do with a logic (a hopefully ‘collective’ logic, if you will…) where most people understand the dangers of firearms & their uses/abuses ~ and how to properly legislate ownership. Yes, as many writers point out, one could argue that wrongs committed by such ill individuals with guns (like the shootings in downtown Chicago recently, where I live; as well as many other killings this past year ~ in a quiet Colorado high school & in an isolated Penn. Amish school, etc.) are not representative of every gun owner. Still, it seems obvious (at least to me), that too many innocent people are dying messy and horrific deaths in this country ~ & even worse, when you think that the victims include children ~ that perhaps could be prevented through stronger legislation. In a way, the push for tougher gun-control laws, reminds me of a famous quotation: “No book, no doctrine; no doctrine, no book.” (de Quincey)
Simply put, supporting the Brady Campaign’s work will make a difference in people’s safety ~ and that means a great deal to those who wish for a higher quality of life … for oneself and one’s neighbors.
Dear Mr. Helmke, I am a gun owner and gun collector. You like to lie alot about the functions of assault weapons. You say the flash hider conceals shooters at night, it doesnt, it is put on there so the shooter isnt blinded by the flash.
You also say the pistol grip is so you can hold an assault weapon in each hand, I dont know which fantasy movies you are watching, but holding a rifle one handed is a one way ticket to a broken arm.
You say barrel shrouds help a shooter maintain a high rate of fire, no they make it so you dont burn your hands, and the barrel is hot after about 20 shots, so you are in trouble if you dont have a shroud.
Bayonet lug, how many crimes do you see with bayonets, please tell us, then maybe I will back away from my position.
You lied about terrorists using assault weapons, because, over here, on average a semi auto AK47 costs 300-400 dollars. Over in the middle east they cost about 100-200 dollars. If you were a terrorist which would you prefer, a long importation with alot of paperwork(yes in order to export a firearm you need to do paperwork for the ATF) for a semi auto for about 400 dollars, or just drive down to your local market in Saudi Arabia and buy alot more guns(fully automatic, which is more useful than semi auto) for less than 400 dollars? I know you can answer this logically, as you are a smart person.
I know all of this and I am 15.
Do you think my arisakas will still be collectible if they are deactivated, and or modified so it doesnt have a bayonet lug. No, you arent on the side of collectors and shooters.
I would like to add that you say that we need laws against straw purchases. We already have laws against straw purchases. Every gun I buy goes into my dads gun cabinet(its basically his) but I buy it, this is legal, as I have no access to the guns, unless I am going shooting or cleaning the guns. In my state I can purchase and own a rifle, but I have to have the consent of an Adult.
Chase:
If you are interested in reducing gun violence, then get a handgun and take a course on how to use and carry it safely. Then, assuming your state of residence allows it, get a concealed carry license. At least you will not have to rely on the police to protect you. (They don’t have any legal obligation to do so, by the way!)
This is what I did.
Michael
If people want to make schools safer from murderous armed psychotics, then we need “common sense” gun laws like the repeal of the Gun Free School Zone laws which make schools an inviting target for these sickos. Sickos who want to become famous (if only for a little while) know that shooting a lot of unarmed people in a school will be big news. So, allow adults (who have had background checks and qualify for concealed handgun permits) to carry firearms on school property. Then, when a sicko shows up brandishing firearms and telling kids to line up against the wall, the armed adult can stop the attack. Unless you have armed undercover police at every schoolhouse in America, it will be easy for these crazy people to walk in and start shooting.
School shootings, like the one in Pearl, MS have been stopped early in the incident because an adult was able to access a firearm, but it took them time to do so because the gun was in his truck in the parking lot.
See wikipedia entry for Luke Woodham. Quote …Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, retrieved a pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham. UNQUOTE.
And this AP Article http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/101297/LA0540.htm
Minutes later, Assistant Principal Joel Myrick chased Woodham down outside the school, held him at bay with a .45-caliber automatic pistol he kept in his truck in the school parking lot. He forced Woodham to the ground and put his foot on the youth’s neck.
Could he have done that unarmed? Wouldn’t your policies prevent the saving of lives by people like Mr. Myrick?
If the teachers or principals at Columbine in Colorado or the recent school shooting in Pennsylvania had been carrying concealed handguns, I think there would have been a similar outcome - less victims and less killing.
A gun is a tool - for good or evil. Put these useful tools in good hands and you will have good results. Disarm good people and only bad people will be able to freely walk among us and slaughter us at whim.
If he had been allowed to carry concealed, Mr. Myrick could have ended the shooting spree much faster.
What polls are you talking about, Mr. Helmke? Here is a quote from 2000 from CNN.
In the latest CNN/”USA Today” Gallup poll, a majority of likely voters say they have a favorable opinion of the NRA.
UNQUOTE. from http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/12/ip.00.html
So, commonsense gun laws equal repealing gun bans, passing “shall issue” concealed carry permit laws, and allowing guns in areas which do not have full-time armed security. Guns in courtrooms, no, because you have armed deputies there to protect everyone. Guns in churches, libraries or schools, why not, since they do not have armed security guards?
I am heartened to see the many pro-gun freedom comments here on this website. Anti gun-freedom is not the way to go.
I have spent over 20 years as a police officer working the ghettos of one of the most violent cities in the United States. In the course of my career I have seen 1000 shootings and every one of them was commited by a human being. I have alse seen people killed with steak knives, beer bottles, cars, tire irons, pitch forks, hammers, one very interesting one with a large barbeque fork, several with butcher knives, bad drugs, overdoses of drugs, and every other thing that can be swung, punched poked or prodded. Not one of those instruments of death or destruction was dangerous until a human being picked it up and used it improperly.
DEmonizing an object is as fruitless as yelling at God for every flood or earthquake. When you do not address the real cause of violence it will never stop. You need to spend all that time and energy removing the causes of violence. The attitude of the people has to be changed. It cannot be acceptable to be a victim of life circumstances forever. You cannot stop violence if the people who cause it are told “it is not your fault. it is the gun, the streets , your lack of education, your lack of employment”… we have heard it all before. There are very few people who get mugged in Beverly Hills or in small town middle America. WHY IS THAT????? There will always be weapons in the hands of people. You need to address the people issue and then organizations like yours will have truly stopped the violence. Until you address the real issues, you are just being dishonest with everyone including yourselves.
actully 236 A rated canidates won
Interesting comments..
Nice site you have!
Lavoro eccellente! ..ringraziamenti per le informazioni..realmente lo apprezzo: D
The information I found here was rather helpful. Thank you for this.
luogo interessante, soddisfare interessante, buon!
cmqlr alwjgfmo liwdgxe fyngetjzk vrng eonciv antg
rlbxm gejxpz ywchn sqwu bzexdn cmxp hxpv http://www.alvbwyn.lctp.com
Luogo molto buon:) Buona fortuna!
E evidente che il luogo e stato fatto dalla persona che realmente conosce il mestiere!
luogo interessante, soddisfare interessante, buon!
Lo trovo piuttosto impressionante. Lavoro grande fatto..)
Stupore! ho una sensibilitŕ molto buona circa il vostro luogo!!!!
Howdy, not sure how this works coming in after all that spam and all…
Just wanted to say, in response to Kelli, I have been shot. My intestines had to be cut and sewn back together. I have been the “blood spattered” one and I’m lucky I wasn’t paralyzed.
If I had been allowed to have a handgun on me at the time it would not have happened. To me.
The guy who did it is out now. Good for him. Maybe you’ll see him next.
Thanks for lettin’ me speak my piece.
Dear Brady - People:
PLEASE…. Convince me,…..Show me how you are going to keep these types of firearms out of the criminals hands.Don’t just try to pump sunshine somewhere else with your words…Don’t just tellme me why you want to take these firearms out of my (Former Marine, Law Abiding, [Fought for your rights])hands. And tell me now how you can keep guns out of criminal hands so much easier than you can keep illicit drugs (Cocaine, Heroin, Marijuna, Extacy)out of crminal hands. Because these drugs have been COMPLETLY OUTLAWED for over 50 years yet you can still walk to just about street corner in any town in the US and readily aquire any variation of the above mentioned drugs, ANYDAY!
So don’t say another word about taking any firearms from law abiding citizens, until you SHOW US how well you can control a depleatable and restockable commodity like illicit drugs.
SHOW ME….NOW…..TELL ME….HOW???????
Come on…….COMMENTS directed toward this NOW!!!!