Katie Couric's Notebook: Gun Violence

By: Katie Couric
Topics: Katie Couric's Notebook

(CBS)

Thirteen people shot dead in Binghamton, New York.

Eight killed at a North Carolina nursing home.

Ten murdered across several towns in southern Alabama.

In the last month, seven mass shootings have claimed the lives of 53 people.

The enormity of these tragedies makes them front page news. But, on average, 32 people die every day in gun-related violence.

Gun control advocates say it is too easy for the wrong people to get their hands on a weapon.

Background checks are meant to keep criminals from owning guns. But just about anyone can walk into a gun show and buy a weapon from a private dealer, no questions asked.

The Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence reports that 83% of Americans favor background checks on all gun sales.

Legislators have an obligation to protect the Constitution.

They also have a responsibility to protect citizens from more of the tragedies that keep replaying themselves in communities all across America.

That's a page from my notebook.

25 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 25 Comments


by CraigBerkeley June 9, 2009 3:42 PM EDT: See what Gun Controller California and a lying California attorney, Gun Controller Steven T. Schoonover, and flip flopper James K. Olson did here to a Nevada citizen?s right to have a gun to protect herself after James K. Olson had broken into this Nevada citizen?s home! Gun Controllers Among Us, Marin County California Courts

Most liberal Gun Controller Marin County California has repeatedly thumbed their nose at the US Constitution, then imposed their illegal Gun Controller actions onto a Nevada citizen. What's next?

Lying California attorney, Steven T. Schoonover had the Nevada citizen served at 7:30 Thursday evening in Nevada for a 9 am the following Monday court in California and the California incompetent Gun Controller judge allowed that 1 day notice although illegal as have to be served more than 10 days before a hearing and furthermore it was to a Nevada citizen!

Three strikes you?re out lying California attorney, Gun Controller Steven T. Schoonover

http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3749
http://www.babelation.com/?q=node/1833
http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3630; Reply to this comment


by Pound_Sand April 14, 2009 12:14 AM EDT: Gee Clay,

You sound like one big talking point.

--"Katie Couric is absolutely correct our elected officials are not protecting Americans from gun massacres."

This concept is ludicrous. No one can predict the future actions of mentally disturbed people, nor can they necessarily identify them AS mentally disturbed until they cross over the line. Besides, you are stereotyping all mentally disturbed people as being dangerous to others which isn't true.

--"Semiautomatics need to be banned for civilian ownership period. Bolt action rifles, shotguns, and even revolvers are fine for law abiding citizens to own but semiautomatics are bad news when in the hands of mentally disturbed individuals."

Some shotguns and all revolvers are semi-automatic, so I guess they are OK after all. (I guess the talking points memo neglected to mention that).

--"Gun shows need to be banned."

That would only force people into unsafe, back alley transactions with butchers. These sales need to be conducted in clean, professional environments to protect the lives of the buyers.

--"Americans have helped slaughter 7,000 Mexicans because of our stupid gun laws."

When Mexican criminals chose to kill other Mexican criminals because of their greed and lust for power, those are freewill decisions that THEY make. America is not to blame for their stupid choices in life (unless you want to blame the American pot heads who actually FINANCE the violence).

--"If we fail to do this we only expect more massacres in the future."

Those massacres will happen with or without all of your banning fever. However the reality of anyone being killed in a massacre is infinitesimally SMALL. Those who give up freedom for "security" deserve neither.

--"These massacres are as much a political failure to write proper gun laws as they are a failure of a disturbed individual."

Hey, you cannot legislate morality, remember?

--"The British are right about American gun laws we are very stupid with the NRA representing gross stupidity."

Who gives a crap what the Brits think? Their country is slowly being overrun by Muslims day-by-day as they stand by and watch it happen. When Sha'ria is instituted by parliamentary law and women have most of their rights taken away, they'll wish they lived here massacres and all.
Islam is a pox upon the people it subjugates.

Banning guns is unconstitutional, but if it happened you would read these headlines:

"Molotov cocktail kills seven; Brady Campaign calls for ban on gasoline and glass bottles."

"Chlorine gas attack kills 23; Brady Campaign calls for ban on swimming pool supplies."

"Three people beaten to death with a baseball bat; Brady Campaign calls for ban on trees."; Reply to this comment


by claydowner April 12, 2009 4:10 AM EDT: Katie Couric is absolutely correct our elected officials are not protecting Americans from gun massacres. They do not have the balls to stand up to the NRA. What is happening in America is appalling and disgraceful. We need sensible gun control laws. We also need to ban semiautomatic firearms from civilian ownership except for law enforcement and the military. If you do your research on these recent massacres you will find at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and recent shootings in Alabama and New York a common thread: the killer used semiautomatic pistols with a large number of ammo clips filled with hundreds of rounds of ammo for ready use. Semiautomatics are the cause of so much death before the police can arrive. Semiautomatics need to be banned for civilian ownership period. Bolt action rifles, shotguns, and even revolvers are fine for law abiding citizens to own but semiautomatics are bad news when in the hands of mentally disturbed individuals. Gun shows need to be banned. Most of the killing in Mexico's drug war have come from semiautomatic pistols and rifles legally purchased in America and shipped into Mexico. Americans have helped slaughter 7,000 Mexicans because of our stupid gun laws. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves but the NRA has no shame because it is run by right winged radicals who do not care about human life.

I was stationed in the United Kingdom for three years while on active duty. I worked closely with British nationals most of whom were former service members in the UK armed forces. Many of the British thought our gun laws are stupid. They are correct American gun laws are stupid. The Statistical abstract shows in 2006 there were 14,990 homicides with 10,177 homicides committed by firearms. 2005 had 14,965 homicides with 10,158 homicides committed by firearms. When looking at homicides trends from the 1970's until 2006 approximately 80% of all homicides are committed by handguns. It is interesting to note the 80% handgun rate stays consistent through the decades even though homicide rates and numbers vary up and down. Clearly handguns are a serious problem especially semiautomatic handguns with large ammo clips.

All societies have mentally disturbed individuals and violence to some degree but America does the poorest in preventing massacres by semiautomatic firearms. We lock up more people in prison than any other industrialized country. Our homicide rate of 5.9 per 100,000 persons in 2005 and 6.1 per 100,000 persons in 2006 are also the highest of any other industrialized country. We have to have common sense gun control laws, ban semiautomatics, ban gun shows, more thorough background checks and come up with better education and training practices for the purchasers of firearms. We also need politicians who will stand up to the absurd political extremism of the NRA. If we fail to do this we only expect more massacres in the future. These massacres are as much a political failure to write proper gun laws as they are a failure of a disturbed individual. The British are right about American gun laws we are very stupid with the NRA representing gross stupidity.; Reply to this comment


by Pound_Sand April 10, 2009 11:51 PM EDT: Eric said:
"These arguments have not swayed me. I suspect that any other reasonable person reading the multi-paragraph rantings is convinced that this "sovereign" ideology is a danger, also."

I presume that you define "reasonable" as those people who share your opinion. After re-reading all of the posts here I saw very little that could be labeled "ranting".

What I did read was a lot of logic, common sense, actual facts/statistics and intellectually honest questions which Katie Couric will never address (because they don't fit into her Utopian worldview).

When I said: "We respect America's sovereignty and we love individual freedom because we're patriots" I made no mention of a "sovereign ideology". That's a straw man.

Respecting America's sovereignty in simple terms means
1) that international law has no has no jurisdiction in our court system, 2) that the U.N. has no right or authority to usurp the American political process and 3) as other countries do, we have the right to secure our borders.

There is no inherent "danger" in these positions.

Good evening all.; Reply to this comment


by ericagain April 10, 2009 4:00 PM EDT: If the only issue were truly to protect one's home from criminals, a shotgun is the best home defense weapon for the job. Yet the no-limits-to-firearms lobby must insist on having AK-47's and the like. And they state that if they lose them, all the other guns are gone, also.

This way of thinking has sunk the country into what it is today. It only fuels the so-called "Patriots", the "sovereign" militias and their ideology, dangers to the very institution that the founding fathers implemented.

These arguments have not swayed me. I suspect that any other reasonable person reading the multi-paragraph rantings is convinced that this "sovereign" ideology is a danger, also.

I am all for free speech. I am all for personal defense. But I am vehemently against this ideology and I believe that the first step in countering it is to educate the people about the threat to public safety. I believe that this is all that Ms. Couric has done, to start the debate. I cannot fault her for that, though we may not agree on all the details.

Eric; Reply to this comment


by Pound_Sand April 10, 2009 2:42 AM EDT: --"If George Washington were alive today, he would be appalled by the anarchy on our streets. If he put down the Whiskey Rebellion, do you think he would do anything less to keep military-like assault weapons from the public?"

The rebellion was a reaction to what many people considered to be an unfair tax and a Federalist power grab.

Washington wouldn't disarm law-abiding citizens as a means of combating unrelated groups of rebels. All gun owners who did not participate in the rebellion were, by definition, no threat to the government (regardless of how many, and what kinds of, guns they owned).

The anarchy you lament has been brought on by the Nanny State policies of Progressives, Liberals, Statists, Socialists, and teachers' unions eating away at our society's fabric.

--"When we take more time raising and educating our children than we take on the firing range, then maybe we will be able to look at ourselves in the mirror without shame."

People that go to the firing range aren't the problem, and they ALREADY look in the mirror without shame. (You're welcome to come and join us).

Seriously Eric when was the last time you saw a gangbanger, a welfare mom, a random pot head, or a member of the Jerry Springer or Maury Povich audience at a firing range?

Yes, this country has a lot of irresponsible parents thanks to FDR, LBJ and their fellow travelers who view irresponsible people as a voting bloc, but don't lump in the responsible people with them.

Gun proponents have little reason to be ashamed because we're the backbone of society.

We work diligently to provide for ourselves and our families. We pay our taxes, vote, support law enforcement, attend jury duty, volunteer for the military, support charities, mow our grass and under gird the economy. We play by the rules and teach our kids to do the same.

We respect America's sovereignty and we love individual freedom because we're patriots.

Can the gun banners, and those who want a global government, say the same? Absolutely not.

You, and those like you, will never disarm the American population so why wring your hands and fret about this?

Most gun owners have never shot anyone (and it's highly doubtful that they have future plans to do so).

Peace out.

http://maurytard.urbanup.com/3099850; Reply to this comment


by Pound_Sand April 10, 2009 12:13 AM EDT: OK Katie we get it. You have a hatred and/or an irrational fear of guns.

And, if you rely on private security, then realize that your opinion on this matter is rendered completely invalid.

All of your Chicken Little-style fear mongering will never outweigh the importance of private gun ownership to individuals and American society at large.

Our Founders were smart enough to know that power can, and often does, corrupt. So they gave the PEOPLE the right to bear arms to protect themselves against criminals, foreign invaders, and yes, even an American government that turns tyrannical. Thankfully we're not there yet, but the "Progressives" are pushing hard.

This gun control debate is silly and pointless because your position is demonstrably wrong, but you won't admit it.

Common sense tells one that unarmed people are more easily, and more often, victimized by criminals. Common sense also tells one that, since criminals by definition don't obey laws, making more laws won't improve things. And common sense tells one that "police protection" is mostly a reactive response to crimes that have already been committed.

Why is it that anti-Americans always want more gun control but rarely want more CRIME control? They are repulsed at the mere suggestion of controlling our borders, enforcing currently existing laws, building more prisons, executing murderers and child rapists, etc. And they use the ACLU to thwart justice and hinder law enforcement. Does that seem right?

The facts show that blue states with the most "gun control" have higher crime rates. Why should poor, inner city dwellers be denied the right to protect themselves? That sounds RACIST, SEXIST and HOMOPHOBIC.

By the way, I have attended 1-2 gun shows per year since about 1980 and there weren't any obvious gangbangers or "America's Most Wanted" types there. What I found was a lot of upstanding citizens, current/former law enforcement officers, current/former military personnel, and small business people. These are "the working people" that Democrats claim to represent, but don't.

I'll keep my money, my freedom and my guns. You can keep the "change."

http://libtard.urbanup.com/3089619; Reply to this comment


by Pound_Sand April 10, 2009 12:09 AM EDT: Eric said:
"I have said it many times on this forum: military-like assault weapons should only be authorized for members of the military and law enforcement."

Nonsense.

If the military and law enforcement ever become tools of a tyrannical government that usurps its constitutional limitations, then these forces become part of the problem. Our forefathers resisted the British with the exact type of weaponry that King George's troops had. That principle remains valid today.

I realize Eric that you are probably trying to obfuscate this debate by providing disinformation about so-called "military-like assault weapons" but it won't work here. Military weapons are fully automatic (a.k.a. sub-machine guns) civilian versions are not (despite their looks). "Oh the horror! That gun is military-like!" It's laughable.

Concerning:
"They are the ones properly trained for their use."

Not true. I am neither military/ex-military nor law enforcement/ex-law enforcement and I was properly trained years before "PROJECT APPLESEED" came into being: http://www.appleseedinfo.org/

And:
"There is no need for the general public to have access to these mini weapons of mass destruction."

Please spare us the melodrama and see paragraph 3 for a refutation. If you are so scared of guns, then move to England.

The Swiss are allowed to possess all kinds of powerful weapons that aren't allowed here. They have a very orderly society and a low crime rate. We should follow their example and just take it in stride.

The things that gall the moonbats most are that they: have no control over the number of guns citizens possess, have little knowledge about the number of guns citizens have hidden away, and no way to confiscate them without using force of arms.

These same guns stand in the way of their creation of a Socialist "utopia".

http://moonbat.urbanup.com/2399367; Reply to this comment


by ericagain April 9, 2009 1:50 PM EDT: If George Washington were alive today, he would be appalled by the anarchy on our streets. If he put down the Whiskey Rebellion, do you think he would do anything less to keep military-like assault weapons from the public? Your not fighting the British. You're opposing the very fabric of everything he believed in, the country and the government he refused to become king over.

Crime prevention starts with Ethics, not with weapons. This country is on a downward spiral that must enthrall the anti-government militias and fanatic lone wolves, which are stockpiling these weapons and preparing for their "Rebellion".

But the decline of the family is a far greater issue to this nation than firearms. It has gotten us where we are today.

When we take more time raising and educating our children than we take on the firing range, then maybe we will be able to look at ourselves in the mirror without shame.

Eric; Reply to this comment


by Pound_Sand April 9, 2009 12:11 PM EDT: Gee CBS would it kill you to have a PREVIEW FUNCTION?

RE: My Apr. 8th, 2:53 pm comment post, I need to correct two things.

The first sentence in paragraph three should end: "...then these forces become part of the problem."

The first sentence in the next to last paragraph should begin "The things that gall the moonbats most are that..."

We now return to regular programming.; Reply to this comment