Giffords Shooting in Arizona Spurs Gun Law Debate

Reader Comments
Back to article

The issue is not new laws its enforcement of current laws, fact is Laughtner was expelled from college due to mental issues, that were NOT reported to NCIS, if it was he would have not been able to purchase the hangun to comit the crime.
(the law works when they follow the law)
This is a text book case of reactionary thinking.
it seems to me that better enforcement of over 10,000 laws might improve things, over just a bandaid fix.
As a person in NJ, i can say that the Mayor of Newark was on tv the other day and said of the hundreds of shooting that happen a year in my 4 year's in office i have had only 1 law abiding citizen commit the crime.
He later went on to say "i fear not the law abiding citizen of New jersey, but the one who got it illegally from the Iron Pipeline.

John of NJ 3:57PM January 26, 2011

When are we going to grow some **lls and stop kowtowing to the NRA. If this group is using assault weapons to go hunting...then they are NOT hunters but killers. When the second amendment was created, the writters did not have anything even close to assault weapons or high capacity gun magazines. The NRA is buying, bullying and pressuring our weak-kneed politicians into keeping these laws which are detrimental not only to politicians but to all American citizens. Politicians calling for a weapon ban to protect their yellow butts is an insult to all. It's not just their lives in danger, it's more so innocent bystanders who are in danger of the mentally unbalanced. It's time to stand up to the NRA and demand a permanent ban on all assault weapons for the sake of law-enforcement, the innocent who are killed or injured just to keep a few pompos, arrogant richmen happy. Wait until one of them are shot down and then they will hollar---gun ban!

A. Geary of IA 7:21PM January 25, 2011

"Never let a crisis go to waste"! stated a non-mayoral candidate for the City of Chicago. Gun control by its proponents is actually restricting firearm possession by the American public. The anti-gun liberals are fully aware that the Tuscon tragedy is the direct result of the culture of political correctness and "rights" bestowed on those mentally unstable citizens to protect them from public officials who wish to remove them from the public due to safety (the public's as well as the mentally unstable individual).
The fault of this tragedy is not the firearm that was used in the massacre but because the college who kicked out (asked him not to return) this individual failed to report threats to the police (and hence the FBI who approved the purchase of the firearm).
However, it seems that the anti-gun proponents are now using this tragedy to further their own agenda.

DODAVATAR of CA 4:51PM January 25, 2011

I have exhibited possible alternatives to a ban on so-called assault weapons: Voluntary buyback program, federal anti-crime law, and encouraging gunmakers to place microstamping and smart-gun tech on the assault weapons (by granting them a tax credit).

jvj of MD 3:46PM January 25, 2011

I suppose that in case there cannot be a ban on military-style semi-automatics (often called "assault weapons"), why not an alternate approach. One way might be a federal law where the feds prosecute those that use so-called assault weapons in a crime, especially in cases whee the crminal and weapon go across state lines.
Also, why not use the example of gun buyback programs as run by churches and local police departments? Why not a national voluntary buyback program where the federal government gives money to private owners if they willingly turn in their military-style semiautomatics?

jvj of MD 3:35PM January 25, 2011

What is to be done with military-style firearms? Why not encourage gunmakers to intall microstamping and smart-gun tech on these so-called "assault weapons"? Microstamping is where the gun's serial number is imprinted on any discharged bullet shot from the barrel of the gun. Smart-gun tech is where the firearm is electronically programmed to be fired only by it's proper owner. we could also encourage gunmakers to place microstamping and smart-gun tech on common handguns and 50-calibre rifles. The federal government could use a voluntary approach: an income-tax credit equal to 25 percent of the gun manufacturer's income (i.e. a gunmaker earning $1.2 million dollars a year could earn a tax credit worth $300 thousand if the company places the microstamping and smart-gun tech on all it's handguns and military-style guns).

jvj of MD 3:30PM January 25, 2011

Since the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller has already ruled against a total gun ban (lesser forms of gun control being a different story), it's time for the what-you-ma-call-its to stop preaching fear of something that noone even supports anymore-a total gun ban.
It's reasonable to fear or oppose say, a ban on military-style semiautomatics. On the other hand, fear of a total ban on private firearms is an overreaction.
For those gun owners who vote Republican because they think Democrats want a total gun ban:
1)The Supreme Court has already said no to a total gun ban since 2008.
2)The Democratic Party platform has never mentioned anything about a total gun ban.
3)Noone is going to support anything already prohibited by the nation's highest court.
4)Almost the only time a congressional Democrat called for a total gun ban was California senator Diane Feinstein's comment from 1995,

jvj of MD 3:21PM January 25, 2011

Gun control laws have done little if anything over the many years they have been in existence to curb violence because it is not the Gun that is the problem but the people who for one reason or another have or take on issues. Our 2nd Amendment rights were initiated by the Continental Congress to allow law abiding citizens to possess firearms. The Supreme Court has ruled now that it is an individual right to own firearms if you are a law abiding citizen. We have police to caputre those that disregard laws concerning firearms, such as felons who disregard the law that states they no longer can maintain a gun in their possession. With over 10,000 thousand laws already on the books against firearms, new laws will do nothing to curb violence that criminals or the disillusioned will follow through on, if they are hell bent to do so. We all are capable of killing someone if the circumstances affect us in a certain way, and only those with will power to follow the law will do so, others will not and no amount of laws will change that. It's no different then that of a restraining law on the books. If the perpetrator wishes to ignore such a law and commits domestic violence agains his or her spouse, nothing will prevent that from happening. It happens day in and day out. So, for those ignorant liberals who think they know more than others or believe they are elitest, you need to get with the program and recuse yourselves from thinking your way is a better way, when in essence it is not!!! More gun control laws are not needed...

Mike Banyacki of CA 3:08PM January 25, 2011

I am a mexican, reporting from Ciudad Juarez, the most dangerous city in the world, thanks in part to gun control. In an effort to "reduce crime"; the army visited our houses and took away our guns two years ago, leaving us with limited defenses against crime. At this time there are about ten dead per day in shootings, carjackings, kidnappings, robbery, etc. Reports will tell you they are "drug cartel wars", but many innocent honest people have died. I have been a good employee all my life, and suffered robbery twice last year, two hard working friends died for being in the way of a shooting. All this in median neighborhoods in places where nobody will label them "dangerous". Drug cartels are well armed, with potent guns provided mostly by american citizens that buy them easily; and in exchange drugs flow easily to the USA, at this time the greatest consumer in the world. US people can buy potent weapons and return to buy more in a short time, drug users can easily obtain them and decide to go on a shooting spree. This lethal combination has to explode eventually, anywhere in the world it is present.

Emilio Guizar 1:00PM January 25, 2011

Wake up! The real issue is not gun control. The real issue in the AZ shooting is mental health. Our society is failing to identify and help those people who have mental health issues. It was no secret that this man was sick. But, nothing was done about it.
As sad as it is that people were killed and wounded in AZ, the facts are very simple. Responsible gun ownership reduces crime and saves lives. There are currently many laws in place that address irresponsible gun ownership. We do not need additional laws and controls.
Many nations have attempted to lower crime by outlawing guns. Look at Great Britian, Canada, Australia, etc as examples. When legal gun ownership is restricted, crime escalates.
Unfortunately, as long as there are people, violence will exist. Take away the guns, and there are other tools to wage violence upon your fellow humans. There are baseball bats, knives, bombs, etc.
When citizens are allowed to legally carry a concealed weapon, then our society has a chance to more efffectively control random crime. You can not expect a police officeer to be present every time a crimainal wants to create a crime.

Jim in Seattle of WA 11:33AM January 25, 2011