Obama’s historic gun control opportunity
The massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in which 27 people, including 20 children aged six to seven were killed, sent shock waves around the world and once again reignited the debate over gun control in the United States.
Sadly, these types of massacres are becoming increasingly common in the US. Two days ago, barely a week after the school killings, another shooting spree took place, this time in Pennsylvania, when a gunman shot dead three people before being killed himself. Only three days before the Newtown shootings a man began firing randomly at shoppers in a mall in Oregon, killing two; in July a mass shooting took place in a Colorado cinema, which claimed 12 lives.
This year alone similar shooting incidents which resulted in mass killings also took place in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, Oklahoma, Washington state, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Texas. When one looks at the gun statistics coming out of America such mass shootings are hardly surprising. In 2012 there have been 17 million applications to buy guns in the US; the figure since 1998 is almost 157 million. There are 89 guns for every 100 Americans and last year 8,583 people were killed by guns in the US.
How many more massacres need to take place before meaningful gun control measures are enacted? Yes, many Americans are attached to their guns, there is a constitutional right to bear arms (outdated in my opinion) and the National Rifle Association, with 4.3 million members, is one of America’s most powerful lobby groups. However, it is about time that some soul searching takes place in the US over such easy access to firearms. How can one justify, the sale, for example, of semi-automatic military-style assault rifles?
President Barack Obama, who knows how to rally Americans and to make a good case for a cause he believes in, must now take the lead in convincing his nation that some sort of gun control is badly needed. In 1994, for example, Congress passed bills proposed by President Bill Clinton to restrict the sale of certain kinds of assault weapons. Unfortunately the ban was allowed to expire in 2004, because President George W. Bush did not believe in gun control and was too sympathetic to the NRA.
Obama now has a historic opportunity to support, and push for, landmark gun control legislation. He should lead a nation-wide campaign, along the lines of his healthcare reform package, aimed at convincing Americans on the need for changes to the country’s gun laws. He should not be afraid to take on the NRA if necessary, whose leaders have now demanded armed guards at every school as a way of preventing such massacres.
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” NRA vice president Wayne La Pierre said on Friday in response to the Newtown massacre. Flooding the country with more guns, however, hardly seems the ideal solution to the problem of having too many guns around.
After the Connecticut killings Obama called for “meaningful action” to stop such massacres, pointing out that “there was no excuse for inaction”. He must now be true to his word. Michael Bloomberg, the moderate and level headed mayor of New York, has urged Obama to bring about gun control legislation, and attacked the NRA’s “paranoid, dystopian vision of a more dangerous and violent America”. The President should listen to Bloomberg.
Furthermore, Dianne Feinstein, a Democratic Senator from California has declared that she intends to introduce an assault weapons ban bill on the first day of the new Congress. A number of conservative Democrats, who traditionally have not been in favour of gun control, have hinted they may back new legislation. The ball is now in Obama’s court.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
37 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Luciano Bianco
Dec 28th 2012, 17:29
Basically, if it LOOKS like a military firearm, then it is...
this leads to controversy and confusion.
watch this video and see what i mean
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0
Luciano Bianco
Dec 28th 2012, 17:25
in the spirit of googling it, i have. first to come up wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
second to come up again wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
if you believe everything the net tells you then at least do read the above articles.
if you want a real definition:
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm
Anthony White
Dec 26th 2012, 12:56
To cont on previous statement to Luciano Bianco. EVEN OBAMA has an armed security force chasing after him to protect him who will kill if they see the opposition needed!
This is just the normal verbal diarhea.
a continuation to the scope ARM the criminal and profit corruption that is normal in America and the majority of countries as seen in UK.
Luciano Bianco
Dec 24th 2012, 14:53
also please get your gun facts straight. there is no such thing as an assault weapon. what you mean is an assault rifle and this is a FULLY automatic firearm. the one used in this tragedy was not. It was a semi automatic firearm (1 trigger pull = 1 shot) similar in operation to a semi automatic hunting shotgun.
assault rifles are restricted to military and law enforcement even in the States
Eric Soames
Dec 24th 2012, 17:49
Luciano Bianco: ' ... no such thing as an assault weapon.' Google it.
Anthony White
Dec 26th 2012, 12:51
Luciano, you cannot explain to people who have an agenda: TO ARM CRIMINALS!
You will only get the normal verbal diahrea which is normal in cases like this from their supporters.
Have you not seen that in america even those that are AGAINST guns (so they say) are themselves carring guns. A quote from one of these so called antigun bluffers also carries a concealled weapon to blast anyone( be contd)
Luciano Bianco
Dec 26th 2012, 20:11
Mr Sommers, so you believe everything the net tells you.
Google is a search engine meaning that ANYTHING with some relevance is pulled up.
If a politician decides that something is an assault weapon, then it is at least for google
Eric Soames
Dec 27th 2012, 08:07
Luciano Bianco: '.. believe ... net tells you.' Where on earth did you get that from what I said? I know what the words mean in English and I understand the context they're used in the gun control discussion, a subject currently in the news here in the US. I was pointing out the fact that maybe you might want to look into the semantics; also Google does not define but directs.
Eric Soames
Dec 27th 2012, 08:35
Luciano Bianco: 2. Concluding my point; it is then up to the inquiring minds to pursue the quoted source of information. You know, like in a library. Scorning facts because they may also be found on the 'web could be interpreted as technophobia. BTW, this same model semi auto [convertible to full auto] was also used in upstate NY on Xmas eve, and the recent Mall and aurora Theater shootings.
Luciano Bianco
Dec 24th 2012, 14:48
Obama also said that in doing so there is no guarantee that things like this will not happen. I am sorry but this is another politician using a tragedy to push a personal, purely political agenda.
Qoute "There is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence in our society."
New York Times Youtube channel President Obama Delivers Gun Control Statement Dec 19 2012
J Micallef
Dec 24th 2012, 15:10
Mr. Bianco, but at least we managed to see some tears flowing from Mr. Obama....or not?
J Micallef
Dec 23rd 2012, 21:29
Perhaps it's also useful to remind people about the Dunblane school massacre which occured on 13 March 1996, where despite the reports to the Police that the perpetrator, Thomas Hamilton, was unstable and possibly dangerous (mind you, a reports was made by a local shooting organisation).
Mr. Hamilton wanted to kill and found a gun. Mr. McVeight, in the US, was a tad more creative.
Mr Tony Gatt
Dec 24th 2012, 14:48
But since then gun laws in the U.K. have been massively tightened. This is not going to happen in America, where money talks in politics.
Mr Richard Scotto
Dec 25th 2012, 21:00
Yes,true,Uk laws were massively tightened,almost resembling the ones of a communist dictatorship,to the detriment of the law abiding.Where the legal market ceased to exist,criminal gangs stepped in and took its place.Nowadays,the level of gun crime in the UK is much higher than ever,certainly much more than when a law abiding person could legally own a pistol or semi auto rifle.
J Micallef
Dec 23rd 2012, 21:28
Perhaps it's useful to remind people about the Oklahoma bomber, Timothy James "Tim" McVeigh, who on 19 April 1995 single handedly and without the use of a single firearm, killed 168 people.
Eric Soames
Dec 24th 2012, 14:24
J Micallef: Perhaps it's useful if you fact-checked first. Tim McVeigh was 27 when the Oklahoma City bombing happened, and 33 when he died. You'll also find that he was not alone. Terry Nichols was convicted as an accomplice and Michael Fortier, though not at the scene, for failing to warn the authorities. The was also the suspicion of the presence of a 3rd heavy set person at the crime scene
J Micallef
Dec 24th 2012, 15:09
Ah, Mr. Soames, thank you for clarifying that and the detail of the people involved.
As for his age, I did not mention that, I only said that the act happened on 19 April 1995, and that he (ok, 'they') killed 168 people without a single shot being fired.
Still....not a single firearm was used in that case, was it, or have I got some other detail missing...?
J Micallef
Dec 23rd 2012, 21:18
It is very evident that people are mixing gun control with gun criminality. Out of the 8,583 alleged killings by firearms, how many were related to cases like those of Newtown? How many are the result of street gangs and dis/organised crime?
America should start thinking how to reduce the production of monsters and asocial persons. They need to clamp down on bullying and peer pressure.
Paul Caruana
Dec 23rd 2012, 20:17
A 2008 supreme court ruling reaffirmed the constitutional right of US citizens to bear firearms so in practice, short of a constitutional amendment which will not happen, there is very little the US congress can do.
I would suggest that any eventual law banning assault weapons would ultimately be overturned once the NRA takes to the US supreme court!
Mr Tony Gatt
Dec 24th 2012, 14:50
The wording is for militias' right to bear arms. These are individuals.
Eric Soames
Dec 26th 2012, 18:49
The 2nd Amendment: 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.
Joe Zammit
Dec 23rd 2012, 16:49
Maria,
Italians say: La verità offende, i.e. truth offends.
But Christ told us that truth will make us free.
If we really are sad on the killing of innocent children, we should ALSO be sad on the killing in America of thousands of innocent children in their mothers' wombs.
Otherwise we would be shedding ONLY crocodile tears indeed!
J Micallef
Dec 24th 2012, 08:38
I rarely agree with you, Joe Zammit, but this time, I tend to share your views.
Whilst I beleive in a woman's right to decide whether to carry on with the pregnancy (but I would NEVER vote for abortion) I do think that dramatisation is all it takes to touch people's hearts...huh!
So in the US, for those that advocate abortion, carrying a gun now appears like a crime.
Crocodile tears = Obama!!
Eric Soames
Dec 24th 2012, 14:03
J Micallef: '.. carrying a gun now appears like [sic] a crime.' No sir, shooting people is the crime. Tightening up gun laws, like banning the sale of assault weapons, which had passed under Clinton but was allowed to lapse under Bush, and the still extant 7 day waiting period, does not mean people will not be able to own guns just that more care and control goes into who becomes a gun owner
Eric Soames
Dec 24th 2012, 14:07
J Micallef: [2] Easy for you to make a sweeping statement about Obama from the comfort of where ever you're sitting. I might be worried if you were a gun owner, you seem to enjoy taking pot shots.
J Micallef
Dec 24th 2012, 16:08
Eric Soames, I like your quick wit, honestly, I smile with the pot shot comment. :-)
What I do not like is the way Obama (rather, politicians in general and many people driven by various agendas) try to use a tragedy to convey a message they would wish to.
I am all for mere sensible legislation, but what I am afraid of is a knee-jerk reaction where human rights end up trampled in the name of law
J Micallef
Dec 24th 2012, 17:48
@ Eric Soames - not saying Obama has a cushy job, president of the world's superpower, but I'm sorry that I see though him and often find him artificial and made up. More or less like all those before home - whether Reps or Dems. That's my opinion. He's inherited a split nation with mady differences and problems.
I'm wary of laws that trample on rights, and worse get copied worldwide.
Eric Soames
Dec 24th 2012, 18:27
J Micallef: Thanks for your good spirited humour. Politicians in general do get my goat but I tend to defend Obama because he's been battling unreasonable antagonism from day 1.
J Micallef
Dec 25th 2012, 11:40
@ Eric Soames
I always welcome good humour. We all live in this one huge village called Earth, and we all want to see it grow better.
All the best to you and your dear ones.
GL Calleja
Dec 23rd 2012, 16:29
"“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” That is one true statement if you lived in the USA or anywhere else at that. If you take away the guns from the good people only bad people will have guns. Nobody should own assault weapons, although they are the weapons of the drug dealers. It would be a blessing if nobody had guns but that is the impossible.
Mr Tony Gatt
Dec 24th 2012, 14:53
It is a very foolish statement- how do you tell the good guys from the bad? In the good old days the good guy wore a white hat and the bad guy wore a black one. Happy days!
Mr Richard Scotto
Dec 25th 2012, 21:17
First of all,I would like to point out that the term "assault weapons"is emotionally charged and ballistingly meaningless.You might be surprised to know that it was coined up by a certain Adolf Hitler to instil fear into the Russians during WWII.The anti-gun advocates use it for the same reason.Secondly,to state that modern style rifles are primarily used by drug dealers is factually incorrect.
Eric Soames
Dec 23rd 2012, 14:49
While I agree with, at the very least an assault weapons ban, I fear that the GOP will attempt to trade their support for one against tax increases for the top 2% earners. The President is said to be ready to make his exasperation with the Republicans blocking Boehner's negotiations public. Let's hope he will also lay into those sympathetic to the NRA.
Joe Zammit
Dec 23rd 2012, 12:23
3. We recognize the actions of the man in black as a grave offense against life and goodness and the fibre of society. But we insist the actions of the man in white is a matter of choice and preference and even necessary for the good of—take your pick—the mother, the father, society at large, an overpopulated planet, or even the child!
Crocodile tears indeed!
Maria Borg-Olivier
Dec 23rd 2012, 15:44
Comparisons are always odious but in this instance this one is particularly offensive!
Joe Zammit
Dec 23rd 2012, 12:22
2. But when a man dressed in white comes into a room with an unsuspecting child in it and takes that child’s life by injecting him with poison, or ripping him to shreds, and removing him from his mother’s womb, we are usually one of three things: oblivious, apathetic, or supportive.
This shows those who are double-faced persons indeed!
Joe Zammit
Dec 23rd 2012, 12:22
1. Consider that when a man dressed in black comes into a room with unsuspecting children in it and takes their lives by violence and bloodshed, we are shocked, outraged, angered, saddened, confused, and deeply grieved.
Please choose the reason of your report below: