Guns opinion ~from the Virginian Pilot news

In my opinion, this letter published by a Virginian is a succinct and convincing argument about the gun regulations debate.

I own a deadly weapon that I operate almost every day. 

It is my car.

In order to drive my car, I had to be a certain age. I had to pass a written test and an operator’s test to prove that I knew the rules of the road and could operate the car safely. I had to purchase a license, which must be renewed periodically.

I am required to maintain insurance, which costs several hundred dollars a year, to protect other people in case I injure someone or damage others’ property with my vehicle.

But I can walk into a store and purchase many types of guns, including assault-style weapons, without any proof that I am mentally stable, know how to operate the weapons safely or have any insurance to protect the innocent people I might maim or kill either by accident or deliberately.

I shake my head in wonder at how anyone could continue to defend such irresponsible laws.

Elaine Scholl-Iglecia, Virginia Beach VA

Guns kill people- echo from The Baltimore Sun

Stephen Paddock broke two windows in his Mandalay Bay hotel room on Sunday Oct 1st, and then opened fire on 22,000 attending a concert across the street. Fifty-nine people were killed and 527 injured

A bump stock- photo taken in Utah

This opinion published in The Baltimore Sun is more evidence for the fact that guns kill people- particularly assault weapons designed for the purpose of killing people.

Outlawing bump stocks isn't nearly enough; it's the weapons themselves that need to be banned

After Las Vegas, it's nice to see that some Republicans are willing to consider banning bump stocks, the devices Stephen Paddock apparently used to make a dozen semi-automatic assault weapons mimic the firing rate of a fully automatic machine gun. 

Several top Republican senators and House members, who (it goes without saying) are normally opposed to anything resembling gun control, have said they are open to the possibility. 

Even the NRA says it supports additional restrictions on the devices. But that's not nearly enough.

Bump stocks are modifications to guns like the AR-15 and AK-47-style weapons Paddock used that take advantage of a rifle’s recoil to allow a shooter to pull the trigger far faster than a human could ordinarily do. The shooter pushes forward with his non-trigger hand (usually on some kind of forward grip), and the bucking of the weapon against his shoulder causes his finger to depress the trigger multiple times per second. That’s why recordings of the gunfire at the Las Vegas massacre sound like machine gun fire, not someone pulling the trigger repeatedly. There is no practical civilian application for such a thing. It would be useless in hunting, self defense or target shooting because it makes the weapon hard to control and nearly impossible to aim. About the only thing it’s good for is firing indiscriminately into a crowd. We should absolutely ban them and similar devices, like trigger cranks, which achieve a similar effect.

But we would be kidding ourselves if we believed that would have prevented something like the Las Vegas killings. It is not just the modification to Paddock’s assault weapons that made them so deadly, but the nature of the guns themselves. Gun advocates like to claim that “assault weapon” is a made-up term, with no real meaning, and that weapons like those Paddock used are only cosmetically different from hunting rifles; and no more deadly than semi-automatic handguns. But this particular mass shooting demonstrates how false that is.

Handguns can fire a shot with each pull of the trigger, just like an assault rifle, but they typically only have an effective range of about 55 yards. Paddock fired from a perch about 320 feet above ground and about 400 yards away from the concert crowd. 

Only a rifle could have hit a target at that distance with any kind of accuracy. But, a hunting rifle typically requires the shooter to pull back a bolt to chamber a new round after each shot, which greatly limits the rate of fire.

Hunting rifles also don’t usually have detachable magazines, like assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns do. Paddock reportedly had large capacity magazines, meaning he would not even have to change those frequently. Rapid fire, even without a bump stock, can quickly cause a gun’s barrel to become so hot that it would burn the shooter’s hand. Assault weapons tend to have barrel shrouds or forward pistol grips to solve that problem. Rear pistol grips or thumb holes in the stock also help the shooter control the weapon during rapid firing.

We don’t yet know all the details of the arsenal Paddock had in his hotel room, but one other common feature of assault weapons would make an attack like the one he perpetrated more difficult to stop. Assault weapons often are designed to accept flash suppressors, which both help prevent the shooter from being blinded by muzzle flash during rapid firing and make it harder for others to detect his position. Police reportedly found Paddock not because they could see exactly where the shots were coming from but because the gun smoke in his room set off the fire alarm.

Finally, the death toll and the severity of injuries was so high not just because of the number of bullets Paddock was able to fire but because of their effects on victims’ bodies. Weapons like the AR-15 have a muzzle velocity about three times that of handguns, meaning the bullets strike with substantially more force. 

After the Pulse nightclub shooting, Wired magazine interviewed trauma surgeons about the difference between wounds caused by handguns and by assault rifles. The former typically cause relatively simple, knife-like wounds. The latter crush bones, pulverize organs and send ripples of trauma throughout the body.

By all means, yes, we should outlaw bump stocks. But this mass shooting is a textbook case for why we need to ban assault weapons, too.

MaineWriter- In other words, assault weapons kill people. Proof!

Webster Provision is Well Placed in New York Gun Control Law

New York Gun Control Law Also Makes it Criminal to Use Guns Against First Reponders- called the "Webster Provision".  Nevertheless, there are already 1 million assault weapons already in the hands of gun owners.....unbelievable.

This law is an important public safety provision because heroic First Responders certainly can't risk being "set up" by criminals, when they are trained to save lives.

In advance of President Barack Obama's report to the nation on a plan for implementing gun control, especially about the sale of assault weapons and ammunition, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, signed an aggressive state reform today. This law helps build momentum in advance of the President's announcements expected tomorrow.  Although gun control laws are long overdue in this nation, thousands are killed while hoarders build arsenals, the implementation of reforms comes with risk.  Politicians are more fearful of criticism from the National Rifle Association than they are of voters!  Therefore, many Republicans cave to the special interests of the gun lobby.

Finally, after years of trying, New York became the first state to dramatically stiffen its gun laws, after last month's horrific school shooting of children in Newtown CT, by passing a tough assault weapons ban and provisions to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill who make threats.

"This is a scourge on society," Cuomo said Monday night, six days after making gun control a centerpiece of his State of the State address. The bipartisan effort was fueled by the Newtown tragedy that took the lives of 20 first graders and six educators. "At what point do you say, 'No more innocent loss of life'?"

The measure, passed the Assembly 104-43, and also calls for restrictions on ammunition and the sale of guns.

"This is not about taking anyone's rights away," said Sen. Jeffrey Klein, a Bronx Democrat, when the bill passed the Senate late Monday night. "It's about a safe society ... today we are setting the mark for the rest of the county to do what's right."

Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two "military rifle" features such as folding stock, muzzle flash suppressor or bayonet mount. The proposal reduces that to one feature and includes the popular pistol grip.

Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family will be subject to a background check through a dealer. New Yorkers also would be barred from buying assault weapons over the Internet, and failing to safely store a weapon could lead to a misdemeanor charge.

Ammunition magazines will be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines will have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine will face a misdemeanor charge.

Another provision places requirements on therapists, psychologists, registered nurses and licensed social workers who believe a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally. They would be required to report such a threat to a mental health director, who would have to notify the state. Any registered handguns — or registered assault weapons purchased before the ban — could be taken from the patient.

Moreover, this law also increases sentences for gun crimes including the shooting of a first responder that Cuomo called the "Webster provision." Last month in Webster, two firefighters were killed after responding to a fire set by the shooter, who eventually killed himself. 

The measure passed the Senate 43-18 on the strength of support from Democrats, many of whom previously sponsored bills that were once blocked by Republicans.

The governor confirmed the proposal, previously worked out in closed session, also mandate a police registry of assault weapons, grandfathering in the estimated 1 million assault weapons already in private hands.

It was agreed upon exactly a month since the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy.

"It is well-balanced, it protects the Second Amendment," said Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Long Island.

Cuomo said he wanted quick action to avoid a run on assault weapons and ammunition.

Assemblyman Steve Katz said legislators were being "bullied." He said the bill is "solely for the governor's egotistical, misguided notion." (It doesn't seem, to me, to be misguided and egotistical to want to prevent more deaths by gun violence.)

Republicans argued the bill wouldn't stop mass shootings or other gun crimes but instead turns law-abiding into potential criminals.

Republican Assemblyman James Tedisco said the bill was dangerous because it would give people a "false sense of well-being."

"You're using innocent children killed by a mad man for a political agenda," said Tedisco. "You're actually making people less safe." 

But, Maine Writer responds, the Republican Assemblyman Tedisco obviously didn't have family members involved in the horrific tragic murder of innocent children in Newtown, CT.

American voters must demand public safety provisions from the Congress. Political leaders have a moral obligation to follow Governor Cuomo's brave leadership, to protect innocent people from preventable deaths by gun violence. These provisions are long overdue, albeit absolutely necessary. If germs were the cause of thousands of preventable deaths, we'd be dealing with a public health crises. "Guns" are the "germs" we must eradicate to prevent gun violence.

Gun Nuts - A Chaotic Approach to the Second Amendment

"Gun Nuts" are a group of zealots who use the Constitutional Second Amendment to project paranoid fear of government. 

They believe their right to own guns, to protect themselves against a non-existent threat, is more important than shielding the public from the harm caused by those who abuse Second Amendment rights.  Zealots deliberately stir a frenzy of mistrust against the conscientious people who simply want to protect the public from the weekly massacres of innocents. 

Nevertheless, almost every week, the world is subjected to images of American gun violence. 

Our nightly news covers too many massacres, because Second Amendment gun nuts believe they have a right to own any kind of a gun.  

I recall the 1960s old black and white TV nightly news projected tragic killings and body counts from the Viet Nam.War. Watching those brutal visuals during the dinner hour overwhelmed Americans and caused our nation to turn against the Viet Nam War.  

Therefore, it's a mystery why Second Amendment zealots continue to project their unwarranted fear of being denied any guns, when Americans are subject to the violent consequence of unbridled weapon ownership.  Unfortunately, Americans may be desensitized to violence. Perhaps we're no longer able to respond appropriately to the calls for gun regulation. 

Otherwise, if visuals still have an impact,  Americans should be as outraged by gun violence as we were as a nation against the Viet Nam War.  Congressional action in support of an assault weapons ban should be a bipartisan "slam dunk", because the public safety is at risk, while zealots continue to amass arsenals of deadly weapons.

Gun nuts, who believe their rights to own murderous weapons are more important then protecting innocent lives, are projecting a Schizophrenic attitude toward gun regulation.  We simply can't permit unbridled chaotic thinking about this public health gun problem.  Indeed, public access to assault weapons can't be tolerated while, at the same time, we continue mourning the growing litany of innocent victims of gun violence. 

Rhetoric in support of Second Amendment rights has reached a paranoid crescendo with gun nuts going viral on social media to muckrake as much fear as possible against any regulation of deadly assault weapons.  Perhaps these gun nut zealots should be subject to a mental health screening as a pre-requisite to keeping the arsenals they already own.  Call them obsessive about guns, say they are paranoid or observe them as gun hoarders.  However these gun nuts are categorized, the summary of their behavior is certainly not rational.  Their schizophrenic approach to gun regulation must be treated like a viable mental illness.  

Gun Nuts must be subject to reality checks, which includes frank reminders about the consequences of their obsession, and treated with enforceable common sense regulations to curtail the compulsion to own guns.

Suicide By Cop - Tragic Oregon Gunman Should Not Have Had a Weapon

As a nurse, my question about the tragic explanation for the Oregon mall shooter being driven by a "suicide by cop" motive, whereby he killed two innocent people before shooting himself, raises a public health issue about how suicidal people can buy guns?
(Since writing this it's been determined the Oregon shooter sole the assault weapon but he knew the person who owned it....Will the person who owned the gun be charged with manslaugher for this crime? Who needs assault weapons except to kill people?
PORTLAND, Ore. • The gunman who killed two people and himself in a shooting rampage at an Oregon mall was 22 years old and used a stolen rifle from someone he knew, authorities said Wednesday.

Jacob Tyler Roberts had armed himself with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and had several fully loaded magazines when he arrived at a Portland mall on Tuesday, said Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts.

How did this sick intentioned man gain access to an assault weapon?  

In my experience, people motivated by the "suicide by cop" brutality often put others in harms way, while intending to bring harm on themselves.  These individuals usually have a documented mental health history and should, therefore, be prohibited from gun purchases.  Without a doubt, regardless of the individual motive, if the gunman were unable to buy or obtain a gun, there were would be two less causalities in today's account of the Oregon mall shooting. In this case, the National Rifle Association mantra "guns don't kill, people do", is as misguided as the man who pulled the trigger on innocent people.  In a "suicide by cop" incident, innocent people are often put in harms way.  They intend to harm themselves without regard for who might be caught in the vice of their desperation.  These people should never be allowed access to any deadly weapons.  

Definition of Suicide by Cop:  "Suicide by cop is a method in which a suicidal individual deliberately acts in a threatening way, with the goal of provoking a lethal response from a law enforcement officer or other legitimately armed individual, such as being shot to death.  Other names include death by cop, suicide-by-police, copicide and blue suicide (a reference to the blue uniforms worn by many police officers). Two technical terms used in research are officer- (or police-) assisted suicide and victim-precipitated homicide, though these are much broader and encompass other situations beyond this subject."

Jacob Roberts may have been motivated by a broken relationship. Sadly, the killer's actions are being second guessed as having been motivated by a relationship breakup.  Obviously, the killer exhibited some irrational behavior in advance of this traumatic behavior.  Access to mental health counseling could certainly have intervened in this tragedy, especially if the perpetrator of the crime had been preventated from buying a gun.

Regardless of what motivated the killer's intentions, the undesputable fact remains crystal clear - if the killer had no gun there would have been no mall shooting. Prior to this shooting, without guns, there would have been no theater mass killing in Denver, no school shootings, no assassination killings of political officials and far fewer domestic violence murders, as in the incident involving a Kansas City football player.

Hundreds of preventable deaths will be elimianted by stronger gun control of unnecessary assault weapons; but increasing revenue for mental health programs to help prevent the "suicide by cop" traumas is also vitally important. Both actions will save innocent lives.

Assault weapons purchases are totally uncessary. Moreover, they create a public health hazard by increasing the number of preventable deaths.  It's impossible to understand how politicans continue to support the sale of deadly assault weapons when there's virtually no proof that they create a safer "anything".

Hundreds of dead people are the result of politicians who continue to block gun control legislation.  There's no end to this traumatic misery.  As a result, we've become a nation in perpetual mourning.  

It makes no sense, as the mortalities continue to rise.  

Second Amendment Rights were never intended to result in the deaths of thousands of innocent people, who find themselves at the mercy of mentally ill individuals. Assault gun control and improved mental health coverage must respond to this growing public health tragedy.