NRA president: Banning assault weapons won't do much

(CBS News) The National Rifle Association was consulted by Vice President Joe Biden's panel that President Barack Obama tasked with coming up with proposals to curb gun violence. On Wednesday, the NRA described its opposition to the president's new plan as the fight of the century.

We sat down Wednesday with David Keene, the president of the NRA.

BILL PLANTE: You're against the ban on these so-called "assault weapons," because you don't believe that they're used in that many crimes?

DAVID KEENE: Well, they're not. They're not used in very many crimes. And all the statistics show that. Anybody who dies from any reason at the hands of a criminal or somebody who's insane or in an accident, for that matter, is a tragedy. Nobody's saying it isn't. But what I am saying is that banning these firearms is not going to accomplish very much.

NRA president: Door-to-door gun confiscation a "legitimate fear"
NRA: Obama "attacking firearms and ignoring children"
Obama calls for sweeping new gun laws

PLANTE: What about the ammunition magazines? The White House proposes limiting ammunition magazines to no more than 10 rounds.

KEENE: You know, it -- that sounds good. They did it last time they had an assault weapons ban. And, you know, it -- in fact, there have been studies of how many cartridges are used in the average violent crime, and it's about three.

PLANTE: But what the White House is suggesting is that if the high-capacity ammunition magazines had not been available, there wouldn't have been time to kill as many children in Connecticut, as many people in the theater in Colorado.

KEENE: Sure, I mean -- I mean, that -- and that sounds reasonable. I'm not saying it doesn't sound reasonable. In one case, it might be true. In other cases, it might not be. But I can tell you this: if you're familiar with -- with -- with a rifle of this kind or a rifle fed by a clip, a shooter, not -- and I'm not talking about an expert -- can change the clip like that, in less than a second.

Keene says the NRA is willing to discuss wider background checks on gun buyers, but not if those records become part of a national registry. He fears that could lead to forced gun buybacks, which he calls the equivalent of confiscation.

[hardtalk]

What is he saying? I tell you what he is saying. For all he care, these school tragedies can continues as long as the gun progits keep surging wiht sencond amendment excuse.

[intonews]

So if it's not going to help so much then start here and see where it takes you. Is it me or do they protest too much! The paranoia that is being represented here is palpable. The group is become more and more pathetic and desperate. My family owns guns and all bought with background checks...how about also starting with ALL guns bought with background checks no matter where you buy them...NRA how about rallying around that. That's the least you could do or do you find some crazy reason for not doing that too?

[btj76]

Say we ban large clips and assualt weapons. We go to 5, 7 or 10 round clips. The shooter in Newtown was able to get two pistols and a rifle in the school. What happens when another mentally ill nut gets into a public place with 3 pistols with any of those clips, as well as extra clips, an m14 rifle, which is not considered an assualt rifle, with 3 10 round clips and kills multiple innocent people? What do we ban next? And, what if that same nut gets into a public place with 3 six shot revolvers and 2 semi auto 5 shot shotguns? All of these guns fire as rapidly as you can pull the trigger. And since they have gotten long guns into public places, I don't think any of these can be considered impossible. What do we ban next? Keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill has to be the solution. As a gun owner and an NRA member, I have no problem with background checks on ALL gun exchanges, even though criminals won't comply with that and will keep on killing. I also have no problem with some type of mental health check, if it's possible to do that.

[Maerzie]

I would hope that every voter will keep track of how their representatives vote on this issue, and remove the weakling puppets at the very next opportunity. We need thinking, feeling people in Congress, who represent the majority "OF THE PEOPLE", as our government is intended to be! Money does not buy them votes in an increasingly educated, THINKING population. Gullibility to paid propaganda is fading rapidly as people learn to THINK!

[Maerzie]

Sorry Keene, but you're wrong! If 5 people get murdered, instead of the 25 to thousands possible with the newer,rapid-fire weapons with enormous, war-exclusive magazines, yes, that IS success. Each life saved is a success. Each mentally deranged shooter getting help is success. The breadth of capability of the weapon is the essential ingredient that must be eliminated from civil society. Assault weapons were nowhere in the imaginations of the writers of our Constitution, though murder and criminality was considered to the utmost extent for the times. No hunter ever needs a hundred rounds of ammunition, and any target sportsman, who is in such a frenzy to want a hundred rounds at a time, is not a sportsman, but also a poitential nutcase to be watched. Aiming precision can also be practiced on a golf course or a pool table.

[Twystedd]

No, he's not wrong. It takes a second to change a magazine. Even if he had to change magazines ten times it would have only taken a few seconds longer to fire as many rounds as he did and it would not have changed the outcome.

He did not have a weapon that will fire "hundreds of rounds of ammunition" without changing magazines.

Once he had access to those defenseless, innocent children it didn't really matter what weapon he used, or how many rounds his magazines would hold.

And this is not about "needs", it is about rights.

You don't need free speech. Want to give it up?
You don't need a speedy, fair trial. Want to rot in jail?
People don't need to vote, should we repeal suffrage?
You don't need to be free, shall we all become slaves? You go first.

This is about the further erosion of American's >rights<, rights that were guaranteed by our constitution, not needs.

[notenuff]

I usually vote conservative but this is not a democrat or republican issue it is a sensible citizen problem. Lets get rid of assault rifles they are not needed or necessary for the general public so therfore why the heck would u fight to keep them???????

[TheDocD]

What we need is for someone to show up at David Keene's house on the next big holiday with an AR-15 and a couple of 100 round clips and then see how he feels about it.

[ReadItForYourself]

If the NRA says the ban won't do anything, then why not let it go through? If it's not going to mean anything, why are they fighting it?

[endoracing]

Your statement is only half right, they will not do anything to curb violence. What they will do is take away the right of law abiding citizens to own what they choose.

[Robert_23143]

Mental illness is genetics, environment, culture. Removing it is impossible as many babies are born every minute. The science is not there and never will be in our life time or scientists and doctors are GODs. But the bullet that comes at the end of a gun can be stopped tangibly. What you ask even GOD cannot do, why do you ask human to do when even GOD can't. David Keene is a MORON!!!

[Robert_23143]

The NRA can says it's law, policies or business and money and whatever. And they walk away from it. But good people do what is morally right. David Keene and Wayne LaPierre will have to answer to GOD in hell one day.