0

History’s on the side of assault weapon ban

The real assault weapon debate is only trumped by the abortion debate as most divisive. Both are elevated to extreme levels by the “at-all-costs” activists on both sides. This is my best opportunity to advocate a complete ban on the ownership of any assault weapon unless you are willing join to the military.

In the next few weeks, this topic will disappear after the so-called shock of Aurora, Colo., shootings, the victims’ funerals and the last of the critically wounded leave hospitals. “60 Minutes” may do a segment on the well planned massacre on its one-year anniversary.

The only missing link is a sensible and lengthy debate on why noncriminal citizens should have access to an assault weapons. The idea that a good citizen won’t turn bad is silly, such as the tragedy on July 28, 2012, when Mr. Daryl Benway shot his two kids in the head, then shot himself. I know we can’t prevent killings of any kind, but no gunowner can argue that their own children would not have a better chance in a mass shooting at a mall if the shooter can’t fire 100 rounds in 10 seconds. So far, pundits for the freedom of owning any weapon with a trigger do not possess the ability to hold a civil conversation or a sentence longer than three words without going into a tantrum on politics, race, and/or personal character attacks. Such is the present state of this country and if you don’t agree, just read the reply comments.

The good news is that history is on the side of proponents of a complete assault weapon ban like 90 percent of the world. The bad news is that weapons must get more deadly along the senseless deaths from some of our good and bright citizens first.

TONY WRIGHT

Albany

Comments

waltspecht 2 years, 2 months ago

Just what history is on the side of an assualt weapons ban? How about some documented referance to an unbiased report? So called assault weapons have been around since WWII. The main change has been the increase in human population, which increased the percentage of individuals prone to expressing themselves in a negative manner. Now is this due to TV and game violance? Or is it due to a failure of the Family unit? Possibly the overexuberance of those wishing to remove God from every aspect of developing citizens lives. Don't blame the impliment, blame the Society that has bred and created these folks.

1

rorschach 2 years, 2 months ago

If there is a ban on assault weapons I could live with that. The same holds true for me if the gun laws are left alone. Tim Mcveigh didn't use a gun and he killed a lot more people than the Dark Knight shooter in Aurora did. Access to the internet can give sociopaths means of killing that are even more deadly and efficient than guns can ever be. Psychos can learn how to make everything from dirty bombs to cheical weapons just by clicking a mouse on their PC. Also, "assault weapons" are indeed dangerous, especially in the wrong hands but please don't add to their lethality. I don't know of a semi-automatic weapon that can fire 100 rounds in ten seconds.

1

Progressive 2 years, 2 months ago

Only shallow thinkers condone the banning of guns. It is not the gun that kills. It is the mentally unstable person with a lack of respect for human life.

1

Nous_Defions 2 years, 2 months ago

Mr. Wright, when you write an opinion article such as this, it would help if it was based on fact not emotion. Let's address Daryl Benway; Massachusetts has a PERMANENT assault weapons ban signed by former Governor Mitt Romney. Daryl Benway did not use an assault weapon, he used a handgun. I'm 110% positive that murder is already against the law in Massachusetts, did that stop Daryl Benway? No! By what convoluted logic do you think that creating another Malum Prohibitum law will deter other deranged killers like Daryl Benway, James Holmes, etc.? Firearms ownership in mainland China is severely restricted; their school massacres were done by knife wielding psychopaths. Please place your feet on firmament, take a deep breath, and apply simple logic, and I believe you will see Malum Prohibitum laws for what they are, useless!

Here is a quote by John Lott ,author of the book (based on university studies) "More Guns, Less Crime": "If we finally want to deal seriously with multiple-victim public shootings, it is about time that we acknowledge a common feature of these attacks: With just a single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has occurred in a place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms. The Cinemark movie theater in Aurora, like others run by the chain around the country, displayed warning signs that it was prohibited to carry guns into the theater." See? Malum Prohibitum laws preventing weapons in public places do not work.

Secondly, Holmes' AR-15 with the 100 round drum magazine jammed after the first shot, Holmes dropped that weapon and did his killing with a shotgun and a pistol. Any experienced firearm aficionado would not choose to use a drum magazine. So you blaming the "Assault Weapon" does not hold water. I suggest that you research your topic before posting hyperbole on a public forum.

1

QUIK 2 years, 2 months ago

You started out with writing on the subject then threw a curve. Like I said in my writing we cannot stop killings of any kind. (the purpose of speeding laws, seatbelt laws or motorcycle helment laws). Every writing reply keeps avoiding my main argument that noncriminal citizen should not own assault weapon, period. Well such is the state of debating a hot issue. And the good thing is both candidates agree on banning the weapon!!

0

Jax 2 years, 2 months ago

So only criminals should own assault weapons? If you outlaw these guns, then you will have your way.

0

QUIK 2 years, 2 months ago

Maybe you should read more comments, they are full of opinions, facts and emotions, which is normal as it is when most people talk. In the 3rd sentence of the 3rd paragraph you should see me stating that avoiding killings is impossible. Mr. Benway was used to show noncriminal can commit crimes. Both killed, both had guns and only one had an assault weapon with the potential of mass murder. Understanding first is more important than criticism first.

0

Nous_Defions 2 years, 2 months ago

"So far, pundits for the freedom of owning any weapon with a trigger do not possess the ability to hold a civil conversation or a sentence longer than three words without going into a tantrum on politics, race, and/or personal character attacks. Such is the present state of this country and if you don’t agree, just read the reply comments."

Well, Mr. Wright, the first 4 comments are reasoned and articulate, care to continue the discussion?

0

art 2 years, 2 months ago

Views such as those expressed in this letter always interest me, in that, as noted by the other comments, they always seek to shift the blame on to the instrument and away from the person commiting the act. Does Mr. Wright support the total prohibition of alcohol as a way to stop drunk-driving deaths? The same principle would apply. I believe we tried that once and it was a gigantic failure. The person, not the instrument, must be held accountable.

Even more interesting is the fact that, should this killer be given the death penalty, these same people will be in front of the prison protesting the execution and telling us how the killer is "not responsible".

0

QUIK 2 years, 2 months ago

Good. Anytime a differing opinion brings interest, that a good thing in a world where everyone is huddled in their perspective corners and growth is held back on both sides. When I travel the world, I see and hear many ideas that are shocking but you don't have to go far to see that right here in the U.S. I think people should visit an Amish community and see whats their idea of being conservative or go to San Francisco for liberal.

0

QUIK 2 years, 2 months ago

Rorschach, as I have been stated time and time again. No society can eliminate all killings. I am only advocating banning one particular type of weapon (I’ll let someone else work on chemical bombs, dirty bombs, etc). I sure did overstate the rounds per seconds and that was not intentional. But the point was to give a viewpoint to debate the issue and find common ground like President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney have on banning assault weapons. The President wants to ban the weapon and the Governor did sign a ban on assault weapons in 2004. It’s good to see politicians agreeing despite those hardliners in both parties. Tony Wright

0

Nous_Defions 2 years, 2 months ago

You did not address the fact that Holmes did not use the S&W AR15 for the massacre. As stated in many news articles, that weapon jammed after 1 shot into the ceiling. So why are you asking for a ban on that particular style of weapon? There is no clear logic, unless your request for an "assault weapon" ban is politically motivated. and YOU stated "going into a tantrum on politics". And yes, make no mistake Mr. Romney is a politician, like most politicians who compromise principles and ethics for votes.

0

QUIK 2 years, 2 months ago

Remember if you do understand what I am saying doesn't mean you agree with the reasoning. It seems you must agree to just see the logic. Don't be hard on Mr. Romney because he has differing of principles from you. Life is full of compromises. Everyone has done it at one time or another, if they are truthful.

0

LoneCycler 2 years, 2 months ago

I hope president Obama does come out in favor of an "assault weapons" ban. He has never stated he is for the idea in public, though everyone including Mr. Wright seems to know it. This is why sales of so called "assault weapons" have been going through the roof lately. Like the president's recent support for gay marriage, he should put such sentiments on record, so the voting public knows where he stands on this issue.

0

QUIK 2 years, 2 months ago

I believe the President has spoken on the subject of assault weapons (as recent as last week, google it) but maybe not enough. Of course we as voters should do some research but the information is there, we are just busy in our personal lives.

0

Abytaxpayer 2 years, 2 months ago

You want a gun control Law! Try this one. It controls ciminals not the Law Abiding.

Anyone who commits a crime (any crime) and has a gun or indicates they have a gun during their crime is executed within 24hr of being caught. Any convicted criminal barred from having a gun if caught with a gun is executed within 24hr of being caught. Any person who is identified as a member of any organized gang is executed within 24hr of being caught with a gun on their person.

Now the Bleeding hearts will scream this is unresonable to take a criminals life when we can all just give up our guns.

Try giving criminals with guns something to fear and stop trying to make Law abiding society fear criminals with guns!

0

QUIK 2 years, 2 months ago

I have no problem with your suggest for that law, like millions of fellow citizens who have suggestions (suggestions do no harm). The hard part is to get other citizens and lawmakers to agree with your personal opinion. Also Mr. Daryl Benway (not picking on him, just that crime came during my writing) had zero crime record when he shot his two kids. Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

0

Nous_Defions 2 years, 2 months ago

Benway's murderous act had nothing to do with "assault weapons" so it has no relevance in a discussion concerning said "assault weapons" except as an emotional ploy. Again, please address the fact that the S&W AR15 Holmes possessed fired not one round that killed or injured anyone, except for a ceiling tile. If it was not a killing instrument in the theater massacre, why are you blaming it?

0

QUIK 2 years, 2 months ago

Maybe I didn't state my case clear enough. I was not writing to solely to blame Mr. Benway for the Aurora shooting. His mention is an example that noncriminals may committ crimes thus like Mr. Holmes. Read my writing again and see the idea of one particular weapon and the focus on lessing the number of victims (not stopping killings as a whole - impossible). I want to stay my point not the various types of assault weapons. As far as blame goes - the culture takes the prize.

0

QUIK 2 years, 2 months ago

I started the discussion, so normally the debate is based on my reasoning as the writer not those that reply. There is TWO points I was making. Mass killings with a particular weapon and that noncriminal should not have access to these weapons. I'm trying to stay on point.

0

waltspecht 2 years, 2 months ago

There are already manditory sentances for just those crimes. They tend to be the first dealt away when working a plea deal. There does need to be harsh treatment of illegal weapons users. Whether they be motor vehicles, baseball bats, knives or firearms. If it is used as a weapon, in the commision of a crime, there needs to be a non-negociated sentence at hard labor with no interaction with family and friends.

0

rorschach 2 years, 2 months ago

Food for thought... if the Aurora gunman had been armed with only a single shot breakopen 12 gau shotgun using "00" buck shot, with about 20 rounds, he would have probably killed more than 12 people. In the theatre setting, his semi-automatic glock 40 wasn't as effective as using the 12 gauge shotgun with "00" buckshot. I brought that up to stress the poibnt that a deranged individual can kill a lot of people even with a legal gun.

0

Nous_Defions 2 years, 2 months ago

His primary killing weapon was a 12 ga Remington 870 pump shotgun. Loaded with #00 buck, it would have fired 9, .38 caliber, pellets per shot with at least 5 shots in it's magazine. That's like firing a .38 special 45 times. You are correct rorschach, per the 1994 assualt weapon ban, this would have been classified as a "hunting weapon" and completely legal. If he would have used the "evil black rifle" the total deaths would have been less.

0

QUIK 2 years, 2 months ago

Good point, since most people may not beware of that knowledge.

0

QUIK 2 years, 2 months ago

Good point, since most people may not beware of that knowledge.

Upvote 0
Add photo Post reply

0

willie 2 years, 2 months ago

No need to argue on one side and the other needs to quit crying.

Ok , the need not to argue any point in weapon ownership here is plain and simple, this is the deep south and you all like your guns.

The other side needs to quit crying as NOT A SINGLE PERSON running a elected office, or any group of people have it in them to go against a super group like the NRA.

This latest shooting will calm down and you folks will continue on with your race baiting and infighting until the next mass shooting....................

0

Nous_Defions 2 years, 2 months ago

Willie, you and Mr. Wright have been the only commenters that have referenced the word "race", So you are the one "race baiting"!

0

rorschach 2 years, 2 months ago

The only reason that I commented is the fact that we are living at a time where home invasions are quite common. I would hate to be in a life or death situation in my home and found myself limited in my ability to protect my family by having to reload after each shot. If someone kicks my door in I would like to be able to shoot until I am sure that my family and I are no longer in danger.

0

QUIK 2 years, 1 month ago

Willie, it may seem like an argument on both sides, this is how people should workout differences instead of fighting or killings one another. I believe the NRA has about 4 million members out of 300 million citizens in this country. Power is given not feared, it can taken away. The South is not special for gun owners (they may think so). Anyway NOTHING stays the same, time will bring change (good or bad)

0

Abytaxpayer 2 years, 2 months ago

My above suggestion was meant as a deterrent to criminals who use a gun (any kind of gun not just assault weapons). My suggestion would make a lot of criminals think twice about wanting a gun and risk getting caught with it. Yet it would not affect law abiding citizens and sadly never prevent the crazy people who decide to use a gun (but what would deter them). I am just tired of government treading on my rights under the disguise of protecting me from criminals yet the criminals pay no attention to the law that reduces my rights.

0

QUIK 2 years, 1 month ago

Since Independence Day the government have taken away your rights as you call it and will continue to do so until we die. We elect people like you to change laws the way you want and others do the same from the opposite. Thus, conflict and anger will always be there for someone. Only the rich don't seem to have the same level anger as most middle income people do. Such is life.

0

FactCheck 2 years, 2 months ago

Mr. Wright - are you guilty of ignorance or purposeful statement of mistruths? No one is capable of 100 shots with an "assault weapon" in 10 seconds. Assault weapons are semi-automatic weapons, which means that you have to pull the trigger one distinct time for each round fired. 100 shots in 10 seconds would mean 10 trigger pulls per second. In actuality, weapons experts are only able to fire around 50 rounds in one minute with this type of weapon, which is roughly 1/12 the rate that you claim. Even at this rate you would have no ability to aim and would be spraying random gunfire with very little ability to hit a target. If you are going to spray rounds without aiming and expect to hit something you would need an acual fully automatic machine gun which is capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute.

0

QUIK 2 years, 1 month ago

In one of my replies, I confessed that I was wrong and that it was not intentional. I guess you are more of a weapon expert than me. I guess as an expert on ignorance you also know the difference of making a mistake verses being a person who has the correct facts without any consideration for a differing set of information that is wrong. Consider listening to the people around you making mistakes and being a little more compassionate when feeling the need to correct. Such is life around here.

0

Sign in to comment