Wall Street Journal Trashes Bloomburg on Guns.

[pepsi71ocean]

Here is my rant on this take it for what its worth, Oh and i did take quotes from the article.

Source

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...492837174.html


A most thorough article written about gun laws and how Bloomburg still doesn't understand it.

But the facts quoted by the reported survey National Association of Chiefs of Police of more than 20,000 chiefs of police and sheriffs. In 2010 it found that 95% believed "any law-abiding citizen [should] be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense." Seventy-seven percent believed that concealed-handgun permits issued in one state should be honored by other states "in the way that drivers' licenses are recognized through the country"—and that making citizens' permits portable would "facilitate the violent crime-fighting potential of the professional law enforcement community."

It gets better then this.

A 2007 national survey of sworn police officers by Police Magazine found that 88% disagreed that "tighter restrictions on handgun ownership would increase or enhance public safety." In the same survey, 67% opposed tighter gun control because the "law would only be obeyed by law-abiding citizens.

So should this madness continue, because even the Police side with gun owners.

One incident took place at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs in December 2007. There were 7,000 people inside when an armed man came on the church's property and began shooting, killing two people and wounding others. What stopped him was a parishioner who had permission to carry her permitted concealed weapon on church property. Despite this and other incidents—preventing shootings in schools, a mall and other public places—there is no case on record of a permit holder accidentally shooting a bystander.







And an earlier rant about the Shootings



I fail to understand how stricter gun laws will solve future mass murders, when our current laws are not enforced as it is now?

Case point;

Homes was seeing a psychiatrist whom he sent a note book detailing the mass murder plot even before it happened, and yet the book was magically found in the mail office, away from the eyes of his psychiatrist. Frankly, if that book was found in hands of the psychiatrist then he would have been guilty of an ethical crime, for which the psychiatrist should have been at fault, do I believe that there is a chance that the psychiatrist saw this note book and then made an attempt to hide it, its possible.

Unfortunately no new facts will come out about this case since the Judge put a gag order over the whole case.

What about Gabby Gifford’s?

The shooter in this case one, Jared Lee Loughner. Loughner is a perfect example of lack of our gun laws at all making any effect on the outcome of a situation.
Loughner was rejected by the US Army, citing medical issues they saw him not fit to have a gun, and yet they didn't even report him to NICS.

The Arizona Sheriffs department was called to his house on multiple occasions for domestic disturbance calls. Once again the Sheriffs department didn't report him to NICS...

In fact the county college and Loughner also have more then 5 encounters with police resulting in the county college disbarred him until he saw a psychiatrist. The college, told police and the police didn't report him to NICS....

The first gun shop that Loughner went to refused to sell him a gun because they thought he was not of sound mind. They did notify police but the police didn't do anything, nor did the police report him to NICS....

Had anyone in the police or the Army done their jobs Jared Lee Loughner would have not been allowed to procure a firearm via legal means.

Fort HOOD Massacre.
U.S. army psychologist Major Nidal Hasan, opened fire at a military base killing 13. Yet once again the signs were there that he was not of sound mind. He had twisted views of the US involvement in the Middle East, and yet despite warning signs the Army didn't even think about having him see a doctor. Instead they ordered him to go back to Iraq where he refused to go, even after several attempts to get his transfer changed.

Now there are many Army personnel who argued that had they been allowed to carry weapons on base that Major Nidal Hasan would not have been able to go through with the shooting.

Even with Gabby Gifford’s there was a call for arming civilians, in-fact there was a CCW holder at the Gabby Gifford’s shooting his name was Joe Zamudio. He has become the poster child for the NRA since then. But the fact is he showed that with proper training armed civilians are not going to just go shooting at anything, and I quote from an article.

" "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out. "

This is where trigger control is most important, something where people who have to go through training to get their Carry licenses need to have done. When I worked for Brinks we went through the same training, so the idea that he would have shot the guy holding the gun is nonsense, since the guy who had disarmed Loughner was not posing a thread to Zamudio.

And that is my rant for the day. In the end take it for what its worth, but the question that should be asked is not if more gun laws would help prevent mass murders, as much if enforcement of current gun laws would help prevent more mass shootings, for in the end should 120 million Americans suffer due to the negligence of one man, who escaped through the cracks in a system where people no longer care to enforce the more then 10,000 firearms laws on the books?

[Fourstaff]

I used to think guns should be restricted, but then I remember a grandma with a gun can silence a rampaging mass murderer. What is needed is better gun controls, with the local gun shop keeper responsible for selling guns to sane citizens just like a bartender is responsible for keeping customers sober.

[DannibusX]

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

I used to think guns should be restricted, but then I remember a grandma with a gun can silence a rampaging mass murderer. What is needed is better gun controls, with the local gun shop keeper responsible for selling guns to sane citizens just like a bartender is responsible for keeping customers sober.

That would be the best way to ensure guns don't get sold. There's a reason Congress passed a law that prevents gun manufacturers from bring sued over their products' intended use.

How about we hold people responsible for their crimes?

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by DannibusX

That would be the best way to ensure guns don't get sold. There's a reason Congress passed a law that prevents gun manufacturers from bring sued over their products' intended use.

How about we hold people responsible for their crimes?

Given that there are guns everywhere already, along with untraceable ones kindly sponsored by ATF I think the logical engame is to arm everyone with guns unless you can get every single gun off the streets, since that law abiding ones will return their gun while those on meds will keep theirs for a bit longer, possibly hurting a few before getting arrested.

[FordGT90Concept]

Related: CNN Poll: Gun control opinions following shootings

...

Those numbers are identical to where they were in 2011, and the number who support major restrictions or a complete ban has remained in the 48%-to-50% range for more than a decade.

...

This is why gun control policy is untouchable. There isn't a majority to overturn the Constitution and there's numerous cases that upheld the 2nd. It's a closed matter for the foreseeable future.

[Chevalr1c]

Oda already stated here on GN that he felt like going out and "shoot guns" (in the topic getting nonsensical titles). Let him solve the problem, no need for anything else except lack of people buying new firearms (no wait, it would be good for the economy if people bought some again to replace those Oda destroyed).