Comments on: Katie Couric's Notebook: Gun Violence

[astar91dk]

Mrs. Couric has a history of gun bias. I work for a metro Atlant PD and in the early 90's one of our officers was involved in a shootout with two armed thugs while off duty in her apartment complex. During the interview Mrs Couric assumed that this officer would be in favor of stringent gun control, however when she gave her opinion on gun control, Mrs. Couric was appalled. I have been in law enforcement for 20 years and I can't recall the number of times I have seen a private citizen use a firearm to deter a crime or used it to save their life or another innocent persons life. As a police officer, I always tell citizens that they can never depend on the police to protect them, we are never there when you need us and we are always there when you don' t want us there.
From twenty years of dealing with it everyday, I can tell you with certainty that gun control laws do nothing to deter a criminal from having a firearm. 95% percent of them are convicted felons and are already banned from having them, yet they toss the law out the window and carry/use them any way.
One last thing, the old saying "if guns are outlawed then only criminals will have them" is a fact. If guns were banned today, every one of them, a black market would be created through the criminal element, to sustain what they desire and you, the unarmed citizen, would be left with no way of protecting yourself or your family. Think about it, we have done such a wonderful job with the war on drugs and yet there are more drugs in this country that ever before.

[savageob1]

i help out a dealer at guns shows,as a matter of fact we had a show in concord n.h. last weekend (don't believe me- check for yourself!). there is NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE! all sales on the property where shows are held must go through a licensed dealer! it is a federal crime to sell any gun without a background check on the premises, and notifications are posted to that effect! people, like katie, who say this are at best ignorant and at worst propagandist liers!

[Pound_Sand]

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 they 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 and spare us your whining.

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 is that they: have no control over the number of guns people possess, have little knowledge about the number of guns citizens have hidden away, and no way to confiscate them without using force of arms. "Stay free baby!"

These guns stand in the way of their creation of a Socialist "utopia" (like North Korea). That's a very good thing.

http://moonbat.urbanup.com/2399367

[Pound_Sand]

OK Katie we get it. You have a hatred and/or an irrational fear of guns.

But, 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.

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.

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

http://libtard.urbanup.com/3089619

[jack_herman]

Hey Katie,
By comparison report these figures. Firearms deaths, intentional or unintentional pale in comparison.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html

[rayhubbard]

"But just about anyone can walk into a gun show and buy a weapon from a private dealer, no questions asked."

It appears that you are all too willing to spread the misleading propaganda issued by the Brady Campaign, without any research or investigation of your own. Federal law requires all firearm dealers to be licensed, and also requires them to conduct background checks on buyers, even at gun shows. There is no "loophole" for gun shows as far as background checks are concerned.

[BlackPR]

Ericagain, As for your notion that all the gun buying is being done by anti-american, anti-government nutcases, you couldn't be further from the truth.

Let me educate you.

Last time they implemented the assault weapon ban prices skyrocketed and us uneducated gun-people know that. So when it looks like the ban is coming back? Why not buy a gun today for $1000 and sell it for $3000 in a year or two. If only all your investments did so well.

So really, most of the buying is simply an investment strategy -- even if the ban doesn't pass, gun prices rarely go down, and they go up during bad economic times, so it's a VERY safe investment.

Sorry to dissapoint you by letting you in on the Big Secret of the gun buyers. The joke's on you.

[BlackPR]

EricAgain, You don't really NEED free speech, do you? Only a select few NEED to be protected from unreasonable searches (only if you have something to hide). What does NEED have to do with a basic right? I could make a very good case that you don't NEED to criticize our goverment, but that turns a "right" into a "choice," and i'm sorry to inform you, it's not a choice.

We have free speech so we have to put up with people passing out White Power leaflets, even though it disgusts us. And (thankfully) we have the right to keep and bear arms, even if you don't like it or don't feel the need to have one.

lets keep it that way, okay?

[bondsman_dotmac]

You it seems wish to pander to those that wish to take away second amendment rights. Do you think that making more laws will stop those that wish to commit a crime since the laws on the books now are not doing it? If someone broke in to your abode how would you protect yourself? It is not hard for someone to get a gun on the street to use in a crime. And the time it would take for an officer to get to you if you could call it would be to late. The citizen is the first defense that is In opposition to crime. Want to stay safe be armed, being unarmed makes you a target for crime.

[ericagain]

Katie,

Since the nomination of Barack Obama for U.S. President, military-like assault weapons and ammunition have been bought up at a pace that has put production by gun makers about a year behind orders. Anti-government groups, criminals and psychiatric cases have become the number one domestic homeland security threat to this nation as a result.

It is a shame that the media and the politicians alike have made a forum that discourages public discussion of the subject. The recent censure of the Missouri Information Analysis Center's frank discussion of the Modern Militia Movement is just another example of how law enforcement safety has been compromised by politicians of all parties. Intelligence must be kept free from political manipulation.

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. They are the ones properly trained for their use. There is no need for the general public to have access to these mini weapons of mass destruction.

Eric