need to add title here

The Way Of The Gun

April 12, 2009 6:50 PM

Americans are buying guns and ammunition at a startling rate despite the economic downturn. As Lesley Stahl reports, the economy, as well as the election of Barack Obama may be the reason for the run on guns.

Recent Segments
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Add a Comment See all 70 Comments
by carlbovino July 20, 2009 10:42 PM EDT
Thinly veiled anti rights propaganda. The extremely biased reporter laced every thing in the gun grabbers agenda into this smear piece. What tripe, nothing new and on par with the crap the liberal media excretes.
Reply to this comment
by jCd1996 July 20, 2009 5:25 PM EDT
I'm a liberal, but don't try and take my guns away. People kill. They use cars, guns, knives, pipe bombs. People kill. CRIMINALS will always get their hands on guns. Law abiding citizens need to be able to protect themselves.

I was in Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots. Law abiding citizens used guns to fend off the looters and thugs. Others scrambled to get their hands on guns only to find out they had to wait..........................I'm a cop. I'm always armed. If I was taking a class at Virginia Tech that dreadful day and that kid came into my class shooting, things may have been a little different.
Reply to this comment
by lapistola07 July 16, 2009 4:49 AM EDT
Let me first say I feel real bad for the victims of Virgina Tech. I truly do, and if there wasn't a ban on weapons on campus, then cho seung hui would have thought twice or been stopped. But, this doesn't give anyone the right to take away my right to own multipe semi-automatic firearms to protect myself and my family from the Cho-s of the world. And they do exist. I voted for Obama, but on this we differ, especially after my life was threatened by a Cho like character for no reason, but his mental illness and his meds. I sleep better at night with my guns. What you have to realize is this is not a gun problem, its a drug problem. Every shooter like that is whacked out on meds or illegal narcotics. You want to stop the shooting, stop the prescription and or illegal drug problem. That's your problem. Most gun owners I know are the best of America, and they will protect you when you need it. Don't take away our freedom to protect you, ourselves, and our family.
Reply to this comment
by valmach April 29, 2009 3:03 PM EDT
I live in Scandinava we have on average 16 murders a year..one third by guns. Americans are just ignorant and crazy.. and believe having a house full of guns will protect them.. But not from themseleves...
Reply to this comment
by chicken0207 April 26, 2009 11:28 AM EDT
People aren't crazy to have multiple guns. They collect and use them . If you use that argument then people who collect stamp's,coin's,book's,art,car's,postcard's,and knifes. That is pathetic because guns are nothing more than tools because gun's don't kill people people kill people. If you take away peoples gun's they will kill each other with axes and knife's, take away axes and knife and they will kill each other with club's then stick take away sticks and they will kill with there hand's and you cant take away peoples hand's.Also most television reports don't know the difference between an assault weapon and a hunting rifle. Just because it looks like one doesn't mean it is one. A civilian version of the m16 is the ar 15 and when ui see the news all i here is this person or that person was killed with this semi-automatic m16 assault rifle. To be an assault rifle it must be fully automatic a semi auto ar 15 is a common hunting rifle and i see them used all the time to hunt anything from squirrels to deer because it is such an a versatile sporting rifle available to the regular person. Our media has become a black hole for gun rights they don't focus on the fact that guns are used to support some people way of life as hunters. The media just pushes the left winged political view of gun's and does not understand them properly.
Reply to this comment
by FyukYiu April 19, 2009 12:10 AM EDT
Gun owners with more than one or two guns are Fanatics. Hiding behind your guns is shameful to these United States Son. This is 2009 not 1709, reality is their is to many Nuts out their that don't get it. Home protection yeah,but a freakin' arsenal?! Don't being Greedy and Don't Tread On Me!
Reply to this comment
by H8Ugrad April 18, 2009 10:47 AM EDT
Congress is to vote what the people tell them to. Its the people and there heart and mind they need to listen to. Get a clue you have rights.
Reply to this comment
by Habemus_Terrestre April 16, 2009 2:39 AM EDT
The solution is to modify the lobby and campaign financing laws. If the NRA cannot finantially influence Congress, Congress will vote with its heart and mind not with its pocket. It applies, of course, to every other organization that influences Congress to the detriment of the interest of the people.

-OZ
Reply to this comment
by wittkopper April 16, 2009 12:04 AM EDT
According to statistics published by the Centers for Disease Control, an estimated 75,766 people died from acute and chronic conditions directly attributable to excessive alcohol consumption in 2001; these statistics do not take into account the many millions of Americans, many of whom were children, who suffered profoundly as a result of being in some sort of intimate relationship with a person who consumed alcohol excessively.

In the United States, far more people die as a direct result of alcohol abuse than from gun deaths; far more people are negatively impacted by their own or another person's abuse of alcohol than by their own or another person's improper use of a gun. And yet alcohol can be found just about anywhere, just about anyone of any age can buy it (legally and illegally) in thousands of places in every city in America, and it's advertised in so many places that it probably wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that every single person in America sees many advertisements for alcohol every day.

So, we should outlaw alcohol, right? Well, no--we've tried that before, and of course it didn't work, and it won't work now, because even though banning alcohol would save tens of thousands of lives and positively impact the lives of tens of millions of people, the bottom line is that even people who drink responsibly like the way they feel when they drink, and they aren't about to give that up, and that includes many of the people who want to ban guns.

Outlawing guns won't work, just as outlawing alcohol won't work; too many people like to own guns, and too many people like to drink. To paraphrase an old cliche, alcohol doesn't kill and hurt people; people abusing alcohol does. Like it or not, the same goes for the guns. Rather than banning alcohol or guns, which we know won't work, we have to figure out a way to reduce the number of people who are killed or hurt by alcohol and guns by implementing rational restrictions, keeping our judgments to ourselves, keeping our minds open, working hard, educating people, and most of all, by conducting respectful, honest dialogue around these issues.
Reply to this comment
by toolll April 15, 2009 11:25 PM EDT
I am a liberal. I don't believe in blaming inanimate objects for the ills of our society. Guns were far more available in the 1950's , and we didn't have mass shootings. I remember seeing handguns for sale in the Sears Catalogue. The same ones the Police carried. There were no complaints about criminals being better armed than the Police.
We also didn't have the disparity in wealth and pay we do today. People were more invested in society, they didn't feel disconnected and use drugs as a way to escape.
Making drugs legal would solve 90% of the problem. No profit, no reason to protect turf, no drug cartels.
Switzerland is far more heavily armed than we are. Almost everyone is in the National Guard and has an assault rifle in their home. They don't have the problems with guns we do. They DO have UNIVERSAL Health Care. It's not because they are afraid of other citizens, it's because they feel connected to them and society as a whole.
Talk of banning guns only makes people feel more disconnected from society and gives right wing kooks ammunition to create fear and mistrust amongst the ignorant and misinformed. It also shifts the focus away from the issues we really need to deal with.
Reply to this comment
by AlphaMale77 April 15, 2009 10:58 PM EDT
The debate here isn't if one should own a firearm, and whether one is capable of using a firearm effectively. If we are to argue that point, you may want to remove many of your police officers and soldiers due to their effectiveness or ineffectiveness in different situations. There are instances where officers have been disarmed in the field, are you suggesting that the individual should never have been sworn in? The matter of debate is simply that one should have the choice to choose, rather than that choice being forcibly made for them by someone unfamiliar. If you are uncomfortable with the idea of a firearm, so be it, that is your prerogative. We certainly shouldn't impose our will on convincing you otherwise. There is a level truth to the fact that certain people probably should never have anything to do with a firearm. These people could be perfectly normal law abiding citizens like you or I. These same people however could pose a danger to themselves or others around them due to their lack of common sense, a motor vehicle is probably enough of a threat. There are also people who just don't understand that "deadly force is the last resort" and consider the pulling of the trigger to be the first act. Your point is well taken that just because you could, doesn't mean you should. In the state of Michigan, for instance, you can use deadly force on someone breaking into your home. (Verify this for yourself people, I will not testify at your trial) A couple of years ago, two truant teenagers were attempting to break into a home in the city of Benton Harbor where the homeowner could have shot them, but DIDN'T and waited for the police to apprehend the subjects. There have been many cases where a gun has made the difference in saving lives. Guns are not toys and they are not meant to inflate ones ego to feel masculine.
Reply to this comment
by KCGIll April 15, 2009 5:54 PM EDT
It seems that some people are equating gun ownership to safety. If this was the case then the United States would be the safest country in the world.

The argument of "who will protect you or your family?" from criminals or some type of apocalyptic scenario is an interesting one. People should not assume the accountant down the street will transform into a Die Hard character and save the neighborhood. The higher probability is that the accountant's gun will be stolen, lost, taken by a family member, or used in some kind of domestic dispute. The question is: are you safer with the gun totting accountant as your neighbor?

Just because you can buy a gun doesn't mean you should.
Reply to this comment
by t1726 April 15, 2009 4:17 PM EDT
I am sure that many of you have seen poor usage of our first amendment rights on sites such as the one that we are on now! That does not mean that we should take that right away from some people that lack proper web etiquette! This right, in the U.S is yours to behold, This is your fore father givin right!

Your second amendment right will also be abused, By some that seem normal one day, and insane the next! The simple presence of a gun does not create the violence, it simply facilitates it! In Rwanda during the 1990's people were getting hacked up with mechetes! What should we do next? A sharp object ban? Perhaps Having some more intense social safety nets would help!
Reply to this comment
by jjbravo April 15, 2009 4:12 PM EDT
worry about your kids smoking and dieing from cigarettes not guns, if they smoke they will die for sure, if some nut gets a gun i'll use mine to take him out
Reply to this comment
by Chasm1122 April 15, 2009 1:55 PM EDT
Reading this series of posts, I am struck by the level of anger of some of the contributors. I suppose that this is a product of our age, part of the ?politics of rage,? a political tactic which has always destroyed rational democratic debate (though this may in fact be a purpose of the folks who fund the sources of this politics.)

That aside, I am also concerned that there are a lot of very angry people out there with guns. I fully support gun ownership for reasonable, law-abiding citizens; I do worry about those angry citizens, however.

It is my understanding that the percentage of murders committed by strangers is relatively small, whereas the percentage of murders where the victim knows the killer is much higher. In many cases, the murders are a result of an angry boyfriend / husband / family member seeking satisfaction for some grievance. Handguns, in particular, are a very portable and effective way of venting our anger.

PS to ThatthingIsentyou and fnbrowning:
My earlier post regarding citizens owning RPGs, tanks, and tactical nukes was meant tongue-in-cheek, pointing to the absurdity of absolutist arguments. Thanks for the lessons, though. (By the way, fnbrowning, I didn?t appreciate being called a ?knee-jerk anti-gunner? ? if you had seen some of my earlier posts, you would realize that I?m anything but that. In any case, I?m not going to get angry over it.)

PPS to Shmooie, JamesB621, et al. Thanks for a your more reasonable perspective. Too bad that angry folks of both the right and left usually out-shout more reasoned voices.
Reply to this comment
by AlphaMale77 April 15, 2009 1:00 PM EDT
The media and politicians have coined the term "gun show loophole." What exactly does it mean ? This so called loop hole, if you want to call it that, only exists at gun shows ? Or are they just sensationalizing the fact that thousands of people attend these events and illegal activities, such as illegal sales, can take place there ? These same illegal sales take place elsewhere, an apartment or home, street corner, back of a car, why do we not have a special name to identify it such as black market sales loophole or such ? Gun advocates haven't always been against common sense legislation. What we are against are people who aren't familiar with the issues and simply pass judgment based on information gathered from soundbites. Most politicians, and media types, including the public at large know very little about guns. The simple answer is they don't like them and that is all they care to know. For example, take Congresswoman Carolynn McCarthy on the subject of "barrel shroud." They like to use terms like "gun show loophole, cop killer bullets, SEMI-automatic, assault weapon" just to name a few. These terms are intended to bring a cinematic value to those who are uninformed, to make a weapon or situation sound more menacing. I grew up in California, the land of Senator Frankenstein ! I waited my 15 day waiting period/ background check, had to pass by BFSC (Basic Firearm Safety Cert Test) in order to pick up my firearm. By the way, I paid full price at the gun store. California has arguably the toughest gun laws compared to any other state in the union. The federal ban on so called "Assault Weapons" may have expired, but California has their own version and that is still in full effect. Do you think California is any safer ? Do you think your common gangbanger cares if he or she will remove the extra rounds from his magazine for compliance or wait the 15 days to purchase from his favorite supplier?
Reply to this comment
by BigJake46 April 14, 2009 7:55 PM EDT
I'm not sure if I can add anything to the array of rhetoric already splattered across cyberspace in response to the news show about guns and their place in society. Let me just say I have often observed the irony of those who vilify the firearm and yet will be the first to call for armed support when their own lives are threatened. You cannot escape the simple interactive fact that the balance of power resides where the power is greatest. Nations have learned this the hard way at times, but it is nonetheless true in person to person relationships when it comes to violence. So, if the solution appears to be to remove the instrument of violence in order to suppress the violence, why then do we need armed professionals in standby mode? If arms are truly the cause, then those who carry arms are just as likely to commit a heinous act as those whom they have disarmed, are they not? They are human like the rest.

What appears to be happening is the abhorrence with the interruption of peaceful co-existence. Pirates plying their trade in the open seas are dispatched with relative ease and surgical precision when an innocent person is held in the balance. If we, the innocent, cannot be armed in our own defense, who then is going to provide that comfort of knowing that pirates of our safety will be prevented from doing harm to us when we are at the mall or the park? The only other recourse is a police state. The government structure will have to take on new responsibilities as our protector and guardian. Where is the freedom in that? I know of no provision in our venerated Constitution which allows for such a thing. If that is what those who propose disarmament intend, then I think the alternatives are far graver than the random acts of violence which surface during stressful times. The cause is not the firearm, but the desperation of a human animal who has lost control of his ability to achieve any semblance of order in his chaotic life. Punishing the innocent achieves little when such is the case. Such thought flies in the face of "diversity" for I certainly am not the same animal as he who resorts to such action.
Reply to this comment
by t1726 April 14, 2009 6:11 PM EDT
I think that the debate here is not all or nothing! Closing a gun show loophole does not impede anyone's gun ownership right's. It makes it harder for the ones that should not have them, to get them! Of course criminals will always be able to get guns, there is no way around it, any one is capable of snapping! But why make it so easy?

I believe in gun ownership rights, but what is wrong with having to go through a background check? As far as an assault weapon ban, i think that is ridiculous, considering that you can buy a pistol or hunting rifle that will, in essence fire a bullet as fast as you can pull the trigger!
Reply to this comment
by April 14, 2009 2:30 PM EDT
Everyone of the Pro Gun Control crowd should really ponder, if Gun Control is really what you want. Do you really wish all the law-abiding citizens to be disarmed at the mercy of every individual wishing you harm? Do you truly believe that Gun Control will keep you safe and the criminals will no longer have Guns? Do you truly believe that the erosion of any right will not lead to another, then yet another until we no longer know the meaning of Freedom? Do you truly believe that dis-arming America is the first step in a greater agenda? If this is what you believe, than perhaps you are on the right side of the debate.

If you don?t believe in the above, what do you want? What do you hope to achieve with your cry of Gun Control? Do you really want to be stripped of your Rights? Without the 2nd the others are just words. Do you actually want to regain your safety and hold onto what you have worked so hard for? Do you actually want to worry less when your loved one?s are not by your side? Do you actually want the criminal to pay for their crimes, not put into an environment that better prepares them for the next time? Do you actually want Criminal Control? Then perhaps you are on the wrong side of debate. Perhaps you are expending a lot of time and energy attacking something that cannot possibly achieve your goals. Perhaps that time and energy could be better spent writing your Government Leaders and other influential people, demanding your rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, against those who wish to take that away. Demand your right for protection both from domestic as well as foreign criminals. Demand them to get tough on those wishing us harm! Demand stricter laws against those who, by commission of their crime, have taken yours away! Demand that prisons be just that, not a country club! Demand your right to criminal control! Criminal Rights, don?t think so. Citizens Rights & Criminal Control, are the only answer. Remember a person is not a criminal until they are convicted of destroying yours. Then what rights should he have? I?d say enough to sustain him and not his desire to do others harm. He should leave prison with the thought; I never want to go back ever. Not thinking; that wasn?t bad!

Until we separate the Wheat from the Chaff, within the Gun Control group, the true agenda will never come to light. The issue of Gun Control will continue to be fogged. Are you for Gun Control or Criminal Control?

C_Mike
Reply to this comment
by AlphaMale77 April 14, 2009 11:27 AM EDT
Correction on "there are NO gun laws" I meant to say there are NO GUN STORES
Reply to this comment
See all 70 Comments
  • 60 Minutes, 11.22.09 60 Minutes, 11.22.09

    43:21 November 22, 2009

  • James Cameron's Avatar James Cameron's Avatar

    12:43 November 22, 2009

  • Maziar Bahari: Witness Maziar Bahari: Witness

    11:53 November 22, 2009

  • The Cost of Dying The Cost of Dying

    14:07 November 22, 2009

  • Web Extra: At Home, At Peace Web Extra: At Home, At Peace

    1:38 November 22, 2009

  • Web Extra: Comfort and Costs Web Extra: Comfort and Costs

    1:51 November 22, 2009