Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, October 21, 2016

As the first anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting approaches, the nonprofit group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America has released an unsettling new television ad urging Americans to demand new gun safety measures.

The ad, which accompanies the group’s “No More Silence” campaign, depicts an armed gunman entering a school as people observe a moment of silence for the Newtown victims.

“On December 14th, we’ll have a moment of silence for Newtown,” the ad’s narrator says. “But with 26 more school shootings since that day, ask yourself — is silence what America needs right now?”

The campaign comes at a crucial moment for the gun reform movement, which has seen the momentum for tougher laws fade since Congress killed a bipartisan gun safety bill in the aftermath of the horrific shooting. According to a CNN/ORC International survey released Wednesday, 49 percent of Americans now say that they support stricter gun control laws — down 6 percent from CNN’s previous poll in January. The intensity of those who support tougher laws has declined as well; in January, 37 percent strongly favored stricter laws, while 27 percent were strongly opposed. That 10-percent gap has now disappeared, and now roughly equal numbers strongly support and oppose strengthening gun laws.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The National Memo
  • leadvillexp

    Gun control is out of hand the way it’s done now. It is done on an emotional basis and no logic. We do not need registration of firearms we only need the registration of the people that own and use them. This should be national as a CDL driveing license is. A background check every five years like a Hazmat license. It could be added to the drivers license. For those that think this could lead to government confiscation, the guns woud not be registered. You would have to show the license to buy ammo or a firearm any where. An armed civilian population is what keeps this country free and our forefathers saw this. The second amendment is not outdated as many think. If the Principal of Newtown had been armed with even a simple handgun and trained in its use the tragedy that happened there may never have been.

    • OKsettledown

      This is the best idea of seen in a long time. Thanks leadvillexp!

    • disqus_fsqeoY3FsG

      The death of your child or a loved one is emotional. Where there is no logic is the defense that people need assault style weapons and large magazines and clips to enjoy their 2nd Amendment rights. Our forefathers saw what was available to them at the time – a musket that shot one ball and than you had to reload. They never imagined the weapons available to the general public today. An armed civilian population is not what keeps our country free. You assume that just because a principal had a gun she would be able to control her fear and emotions and take out the shooter on her first shot, because that is all she probably would have got. It is so much easier to shot at a target, when there is no stress and be accurate and in control, but quite another when you are in the moment and you are scared and your adrenaline is pumping.

      • leadvillexp

        As I said a hand gun may have stopped it. There is no sure thing, but at least a chance. An unarmed person confronting an armed person has no chance. I also stated if she had been trained. Part of the training would be to learn fear and emotion control. Police, many who have never pulled a weapon in anger, also learn this type of control. This type of training would also lead to the mental evaluation as to whether the person is fit to be licensed to carry in a school.

        • disqus_fsqeoY3FsG

          I respectfully disagree, all the training does not guarantee a Principal, teacher, housewife, secretary, plumber can control the fear and the emotion when confronted with the reality of those horrific circumstances.
          This is a subject that there are completely opposite positions and hopefully some day we will be able to come to a compromise that neither side will feel totally comfortable with and than we will probably have reached a good compromise. Have a good day and Happy Holidays.

          • leadvillexp

            This will be my last reply, as you say we are on opposite sides of the fence. I have to ask, will the Police Officer that has never been fired upon or fired his gun in line of duty be able to control his fear and emotions any better than the people you mentioned? Remember it will be his first time under fire too and if he can’t where does that leave the public?

        • Independent1

          Fact is leavillexp, of around 11,000 homicide related shootings each year, less than 3%, less than 330, are justifiable homicides for the purpose of self protection. Less than 330 people out of 11,000 that are killed each year were actually able to find and get the gun they thought would protect them and were successfully able to use it to kill the perpetrator before he or she was killed. And another FACT IS, that most people who are killed by guns, are killed by someone who they know and never expected to be killed by the person who kills them – so the gun they owned for self protection is found were it has always been stored, if it wasn’t the weapon used to kill them. The notion that guns provide self protection, is nothing more than an NRA ploy in order to get more members into the Association.

          FACT IS, bringing a gun into a home, creates a far greater liability than a protectorant. There is a far greater chance that the gun brought into a home will end up being used to kill someone in that home, be it a resident or visitor, than it will ever end up being used as self-protection. With more than 100,000 shootings a year, the vast majority of them occurring in states with high gun ownership rates, guns in a home are an ENORMOUS LIABILITY. And it’s already started where insurance companies are asking, is a gun owned in the home, for not only homeowners, but life, and even medical insurance. Because insurance companies realize that by bringing a gun into a home, the probability that someone will be shot by that gun just went up by 5 times; especially for the woman or children that may be in the home.

          • leadvillexp

            Of those 11,000 homicides how many were committed by criminals in the act of committing a crime? Are you saying all 11,000 killed had a firearm available to them and couldn’t get it? You are right about many being killed by people that they know. Every day in the paper I see Orders of Protection being ignored and as a result people being injured or killed. The people know that they can attack the other person and by the time the Police get there they will have done their damage. The Police can not protect individuals only society as a whole. I prefer to call the Police but to rely on myself.

          • Independent1

            A fraction of those 11,000 are criminal type homicides, the vast majority are just normal people killing normal people. And the majority occur in states with 30-60% gun ownership rates, and the vast majority of them occurred in homes that own a gun. So easily, more than 5,000 of those killed could have been gun owners who were never able to get the gun they owned to protect themselves, or it was the gun they owned used by them to kill someone else, or that was used to kill them.

          • leadvillexp

            The stats sound like something from Hand Gun Control. There is more to it than those statistics. I don’t see anything normal about a person who kills someone else. If a gun is available I am sure it would be used. If none is available than a ball bat, knife, club or some other object would be used. You said most are familiar with their killer. That being the case they would not expect to be killed by them. Did the killer plan to kill or was it spur of the moment? So many variables statistics can be skewed any way the person wants. What is the number of people killed each year with knives and blunt objects where no gun was involved? To stop killing you would have to change human behavior. Taking away firearms will not do this.

          • Independent1

            Sorry, but you’re notion that if a gun isn’t available someone would grab a bat, knife, club or some other object is not true.
            Fact is, many people will use a gun to kill someone that they wouldn’t try to kill any other way. A gun gives people a sense of power they wouldn’t have with any other weapon. And that even comes with respect to committing suicide.

            How do I know that? Because when Australia passed stricter gun regulations and ran buy-back programs to get guns out of the hands of it’s citizens, the rate of homicides and suicides decreased by more than 50%. And also, if you study just violence itself America, which is really no different than in foreign countries around the globe, people die in America during acts of violence at a rate 5 times that of any of any other country on the planet, and the only difference in America is that during acts of violence, more people in America have access to guns. When during acts of violence people generally end up in hospitals with injuries in foreign countries, in America they end up in the morgue having been killed by a gun.

            The only people who should own guns in America are sportsmen wanting them for hunting and the police. The notion that guns will protect people is an NRA LIE created only so the NRA can sucker in more members. Wake up!! Owning a gun only increases your chance of being killed!!

          • leadvillexp

            While I will agree that a gun would make suicide and killing easier I see more people in our area killed by cars (on purpose), knives and by hanging than guns. The last two by guns that I can remember were a man attacking another man and his girlfriend and a hunter killed by his son by accident.

            The Australia thing is a lie. Crime has gone up and they have taken away many family heirlooms and relics. As to acts of violence in America, could it be that we are just a more head strong people that won’t back down and will fight ot the death?

            You like to say that the NRA lies but where are you getting your facts. Could they be coming from Handgun Control or another group like them. Stats and surveys can be skewed to fit the argument.

      • Jane Caspar

        Where does it say that the gunman will enter the school through the principal’s office?Does the principal keep his gun loaded on his desk?Does he have no other work to do than to sit there alert waiting to hear shots with his attention on nothing else but mayhem? Or not only the principal but the teachers. Are their minds focused on teaching or are they hardly aware of the subject at hand while they anticipate doom?

    • ralphkr

      You appear to have bought into the Canard espoused by so many conservatives that the Second Amendment’s purpose was to protect the populace from the government. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to have an armed militia available to defend the government and the very first use of that amendment was to gather a group of armed citizens to quell the ‘Whiskey Rebellion’ and to collect taxes for the Feds.

      Yes, I do agree that if someone had been at Newtown (or Colorado or any of the other mass shootings so beloved by Americans) and was a highly trained crack shot such as myself then there would have been much less loss of life but it is far more likely that any person with a gun would have merely added to the mayhem because no matter how well trained they are most people panic the first time they are in a fire fight.

      • leadvillexp

        Without an armed populace the government could do as it pleased as there would be no one to attempt to stop it. The armed militia refers to a state militia, not the governments standing army. The Federal Government would have to request the State Militia from the states Governor. This does not preclude the populace from owning firearms for their own protection and this goes all the way back, in common law to the English Bill of Rights in 1689.

        Being trained is necessary and should be required of anyone wanting to own a firearm, as well as a mental health evaluation. As for being a crack shot many times just the sight of another armed person will stop the crime. The criminals attention would be turned from the unarmed people being shot to the armed person confronting him. There is no sure thing and the armed person may end up just a stop gap and dead, but buying the Police the time to get there and save more lives. You can never know what any person including a Police Officer will do until he gets into that first fire fight. For many Police Officers that never happens, so we all hope they will perform as trained.

        • ralphkr

          Tch, tch, leadvilleexp. I suggest that you look at the truth. A) Second Amendment called for an armed, trained populace as a ready army to repel INVADERS & definitely is not intended to enable the populace to defend itself against the US government. We had no true standing army at that time plus, as further proof of the true intention of the Second Amendment kindly note that the first time the Second Amendment was utilized was when President George Washington (you just may have heard of him) called up 13,000 armed civilians in 1794 (no National Guard then) to take action to force the populace of Western Pennsylvania to pay the Federal Whiskey Tax.

          B) What B.S. that an armed populace can subjugate their government and that a sign of dictatorship is the disarming of the populace. A recent example of the falseness of that reasoning is that during the Weimer Republic (1918-1933) in Germany there were extremely stringent gun control laws making it almost impossible to own a weapon. After Hitler took power (most definitely a dictator) he had laws passed making it extremely easy (practically mandatory) for all citizens to acquire weapons including modern military arms EXCEPT that Jews were not allowed to have firearms of any sort.

          I do agree that no one knows how one shall react in their first firefight but I started hunting pheasants on our farm with a .22 caliber single shot handgun when I was six (an early member of “one shot, one kill club”) and was an Army sniper (trained by Rangers) & later a Sheriff’s Dept sniper. At one time there were two young gentlemen attacking me with full automatic WW2 German sub-machine guns (the model the US Army copied) with seemingly unlimited supply of ammo but I was nearly a half mile away & fired my customized bull bbl 30.06 twice and peace reigned (when you pay for your own ammo you tend to exercise stringent fire control). This was not my first fire fight but was the first one where I was facing full automatic fire while out in the open…so, yes, I do know how I would react and, since I am still alive, it is obvious that I always reacted properly in the past although I sincerely doubt that I would survive another fire fight at my age.

          • leadvillexp

            While I never said I doubted your ability to be a crack shot, and thank you for your service, I still have to disagree with much of what you said. The Continental Army was created on 14 June 1775 by the Continental Congress and that date is considered today as the birthday of the US Army. The Continental Army was disbanded after the Revolution because the people distrusted a standing peace time army. Congress still retained a standing regular army at West Point and the frontier. Because of the conflicts with Native Americans, they soon relized they needed a bigger army and created the the Legion of the United States in 1791, later to become the US Army in 1796. During the Whiskey Rebellion the President asked the states to supply Milita to quell it. It was up to each Governor to decide if he wanted to donate troops. Of all the states only 4 supplied Militia.

            I do agree with you about Hitler. You are correct in all you said.

            The Second Amendment was made to facilitate a called up citizen army but also for the people to protect themselfs. This included from a bad government. The people were very afraid of a strong central government at that time. The right of the people to bear arms, including military arms can be traced in Commom Law as far back as the English Bill of Rights in1689.The Second Amendment states the right of the people to bear arms not the right of the state to bear arms. The state only regulates the militia.

  • OKsettledown

    I agree that an armed citizenry can contribute to the safety of the people. The difficulty comes when one of those armed citizens uses their gun to kill people. A vital question is this: Would any of those school shooters have been denied their gun? How do we separate those who would harm others from those that would only defend? Is that possible? I know a number of loud-mouthed gun advocates that consistently threaten to use their guns to protect their families, their property, their territory (whatever that might be on a given day) and their own loud mouths. Should they own a gun? None of them have committed any crimes that I know of. I’m quite sure they would pass a background check. I think they are most likely harmless big-mouths. So how do we stop it? In the case of those who were determined to be mentally ill, how do we write a law that protects the privacy of loud-mouths and those with mental problems – and the right to live of those who get caught in the gunfire?

    • leadvillexp

      I agree with you about the name calling and hate. Who is the government? We the people. We have a voice lets make it load and clear that the politicians need to do our work. Put the emotions aside and start using logic. As long as humans are humans there will be good and bad. You can’t control what you don’t know is going to happen and you can’t control a person with no record of being crazy. You can protect yourself and others if you have the means. Ronald Noble, Interpol Secretary General said citizens should be armed and protect themselfs. The police can’t be everywhere. I recommend reading his full statement on ABC News.

  • Lovefacts

    I’ll admit I was shocked by SCOUS’ ruling on gun control. Although, why I’m not sure. In that last 30 years, starting with Reagan’s appointments–SCOUS has gone from ruling in favor of business 30% of the time to 80%. Make no mistake, this ruling against gun registration wasn’t about the individual right to own a weapon but about weapons manufactures have the right to sell their products unchecked.

    What’s lost by the NRA and SCOUS is that in 1786, when the Constitution was written, flint-lock rifles and pistols were used, not semi-automatics. And flint-lock fired one ball–and not all that accurately–then the person had to reload. These weapons were used for defense of home and country from outside attack and hunting for food.

    IMO, when SCOUS made its decision, it ignored not only the reality of today but also the history behind the 2nd Amendment. Yes, it states the people can keep and bear arms. But it also states this is in connection with a militia. The full Amendment says: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” So, Britain, which passed the English Bill of Rights of 1689–during the time King James, a Catholic, tried to subjugate the Protestants–upon which the 2nd Amendment is based–has become less violent and fewer weapons are owned by their population, while in the US both violence and ownership of weapons has grown exponentially.

    Not only are we dumbing down our educational system, creating a nation of sheep–be it political or religious–we’re gearing up to kill off one another. What a legacy.

  • howa4x

    Children’s lives are not important to the gun manufactures, they are not important to Wall st either where the only real concern is ROI from a spike in gun sales, even though the brokers have kids. We live in a country where corporations count more than people. This is why they can poison us, foul or water and air. Children don’t count to republicans either. That is why they eagerly took food from their mouths, with a self rightousness that sickens the soul. The true health of a society is how we treat our most vulnerable, children and elderly. If that is the case then we suffer from the chronic disease of indifference.

  • Defend The Constitution

    Since each infant will experience environmental variability as it develops, it is impossible to foresee anyone’s complete future potential.

  • jnap

    I keep thinking that there is a limit to what Americans can bare before they have had enough.
    Newtown didn’t reach that limit so the threshold has to be higher. Twenty-six dead wasn’t enough so would thirty do it? How about fifty or one hundred?
    The limit will be tested again, probably sooner than later, and the same question will be asked; have we had enough?
    The God of reason and hope must be crying. His tears should drown us all because if such an atrocity as Newtown can not move us then what can? When we put more value on the gun than 20 children and 6 teachers then we have surely lost our way. We should hang our collective heads in shame because the blood of those children and adults is on all of our hands and it will not wash off.