The gun control debate Sen. Feinstein does not want to have

Washington Times Communities ^ | September 17, 2013 | Sara Marie Brenner

[jazusamo]

WASHINGTON, September 17, 2013 — Americans are becoming more accustomed to hearing, “breaking news, there has been a shooting…” as we listen to the radio or watch television. Monday morning, we began our week hearing the same. This time, civilians at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. were terrorized by a gunman.

~snip~

If politicians and policy-makers would simply study the data, it would be clear that gun ownership should be encouraged in order to reduce the number of murders. There most certainly should be a gun control debate, and about that Sen. Feinstein is correct, but not in the way that the anti-gun lobby would want.

We should be discussing how to encourage more gun ownership, and whether taxpayer dollars should be allocated to help citizens learn how to better control the firearms we own. This is the gun control debate we should be having. By expanding the option for citizens in the United States to own a firearm and carry it, whether concealed or openly and in any location they choose, there would not be “gun free zones” that cry out to become the targets of a gunman on a rampage.

Senator Feinstein and others who are anti-gun should set the politics aside, and examine the reality of the statistics if safety is truly their end goal. Should they disregard the facts, then their true intentions must be questioned and exposed.

[Dick Bachert]

[P-Marlowe]

If the uniform of the day included a holstered .45 then this kind of mass killling would never occur on a military base.

[jazusamo]

You’re absolutely right.

[MeshugeMikey]

” if safety is truly their end goal”

the big IF

nothing to see here folks just contaminated hot air from the mouth of the senior senatress from Scam Francrisco

[jazusamo]

That says it all.

[MeshugeMikey]

difi is ready for those of us who disagree with her inane rants...

This Message Not Approved by the NSA

[aruanan]

I have a boss who was talking about some report saying that people who had guns and were victims of a home invasion were more likely than not to be shot by the invaders with their own guns after having been disarmed. Yeah, I said. Better to give up those guns and be completely at the mercy of the home invaders.

I said all that statistic means is that homeowners need to have more training in planning for a home invasion and completely wiping out the invaders. After this happens a few highly publicized times, future, not-yet-dead, home invaders may start doing the "this could happen to you" imagination game and realize the potential cost of doing that kind of business is just too high for comfort.

[Mr. K]

mass murders by a nut with a gun can number in the 10s,20s, or even more people

But when someone ELSE has a gun, they are usually less than 4

We need to ARM MORE PEOPLE? instead of disarm... because if only one life is saved...

[VerySadAmerican]

There was absolutely NO evidence an AR-15 was used. Yet every media outlet reported that the shooter had one.

I wonder if Feinstein is going to call for security guards and cops only have single shot revolvers. If that had been the case the shooter couldn’t have killed but one person with the guard’s gun.

[VerySadAmerican]

Two thugs attempted to rob the wrong family in NW Houston the other day. The guy killed one and injured the other. And it didn’t take a bunch of rounds either.

[MissMagnolia]

I wonder if Feinstein is going to call for security guards and cops only have single shot revolvers

They won't be happy until it's slingshots and spitballs ... and then they'll try to outlaw rubber bands.

[Cyber Liberty]

Well, yeah. You could put someone’s eye out.

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

“There was absolutely NO evidence an AR-15 was used.”

Yep. The FBI has confirmed that there was NO AR-15 involved.

[weps4ret]

Why on a military reservation do we not have armed military?

DiFi does not care for the Constitution, or the Amendments. She is endeavoring to limit 1st Amendment by defining journalists and then arresting the rest I suppose. How dare you be critical of me you pismire! She wishes to control by eliminating the 2nd Amendment rights.

The reason there is a 1st Amendment is because the 2nd Amendment protects it from the polutedticians!

Gunner

[jeffc]

Gun control is not what the gun-grabbers are after. The ultimate goal, little by little, is an outright gun ban.

[freedom1st]

I would love for Ted Cruz to take the opportunity and gives DiFi another public lesson about the Constitution.

[jazusamo]

I believe you're boss may have been reading propaganda put out by the gun grabbers. There's much evidence to the contrary and here's one article from Forbes.

excerpt:

As much as gun control advocates might wish otherwise, their attacks are running out of ammo. With private firearm ownership at an all-time high and violent crime rates plunging, none of the scary scenarios they advanced have materialized. Abuse of responsibility by armed citizens is rare, while successful defensive interventions against assaults on their lives and property are relatively commonplace.

National violent crime rates that soared for 30 years from the early 1960s began to decrease markedly since 1993. Last December the FBI reported that murder and other violent crime rates fell again by 6.4% during the first half of 2011 compared with the same period in 2010. A Gallup poll indicates that “Americans’ preference regarding gun laws is generally that the government enforce existing laws more strictly and not pass new laws.”

Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby

[jazusamo]

I concur, gun-grabbers are after an outright ban.

[TauntedTiger]

Thank God we have the second amendment to protect us from fascist types like her. /s