Renewed Calls for Gun Control
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-01-12/renewed-calls-gun-control
President Obama plans to attend a memorial service this evening for victims of the weekend shooting rampage at an Arizona supermarket. The gunman killed six people and injured 14. One of the injured, Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, remains in intensive care. The tragedy has led to renewed calls for tougher regulations on guns. But it has also had led some to urge looser gun laws to allow more private citizens to arm themselves for protection. The debate over who should be allowed to possess a gun and whether certain kinds of firearms should be banned.
Guests
Alan Gura
partner in the Washington law firm Gura & Possessky; lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court gun rights case District of Columbia v. Heller.
Daniel Webster
co-director, Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Josh Horwitz
executive director, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Many of the arguments in support of high-capacity magazines are completely unsubstantiated. To suggest one needs more than 10 chances to stop an attacker is not credible by fact. People who put themselves in situations where multiple people may need to be stopped certainly have justification for such implements; possibly standard duty police officers and certainly combat personnel. The objective there is to use the weaponry to bring harm to someone else.
I cannot recall a single incident in the past 20 years when a civilian successfully defended themselves from an attacker that required more than 10 rounds. Nor can i recall a time when a civilian need to ward off 30 people at once- these are the things you see in the call of duty or combat. To surmise that normal folk should carry a gun that hold 30 rounds 'in case' they are threatened holds virtually no historical relevance. What is real, however, are the numerous cases each year when some person (s) decide to use such weapons, including assault rifles, regardless of automation or not, to kill innocent victims. This IS NOT a 1 in 300million event, there are people who attempt of commit these acts weekly- that is the reality. So, the basis for support is founded in an event that does not occur.
I am not in favor of removing all guns from the hands of civilians- i am about limiting the danger people can do in moments of desperation of mental illness. And to suggest open gun shows, in any way, shape or form, is OK- that is just unacceptable. Your panelist suggests the issues is controlling mentally-ill members of society. That's well and good, but the easiest place for them to get weapons, even once treated and documented by law enforcement, is at a gun show. Unfortunately his words were full of paradox. Why must people get so defensive about any type of limit to weapons? If it is that easy to reload with a speed round, well, you should keep in practice so when the time calls to form a militia due to the duress of 'big-government' taking over, you and your friends are ready.
I have written to my local congressman and urged him to vote for a change in gun legislation. Self defense is not an adequate reason to justify a civilian with a 30 round clip. That gun and similar ones to it should be considered a weapon of destruction. I am glad this topic is being discussed. Not to long ago there was an AK-47 that was brought to The University of Texas Campus where things could have gone horribly wrong also.
@GW1980
Regulating the capacity, for example, would limit the damage one could do with a single firearm before reloading. When this person was apprehended he was reloading; it gave people a period of time to respond. It's really quite simple.
You are putting something in place that will make it MORE DIFFICULT. You are correct, zero guns would make it easier to reduce crime also, but this is not going to happen. So, we put things in place to ease the potential for damage.
Having two guns would also slow someone down or at least reduce the accuracy of shooting with one hand and one gun being in the non-dominant hand.
While in understand your thought process, are you telling me it's not worth putting things in place IN CASE people do things that are irrational?
If you drive under a bridge and someone dropped a brick on your car and killed your child would you think it would be a good idea to put up a fence on the edge of the bridge to DETER people from doing that again?
To me, being free also means being free to assemble, go to work or school, and not fear some random injury or death. It's not saying we move towards military rule, it's simply safeguarding for the lowest common denominator.
There is nothing different about laws that apply to sales at gun shows compared to other sales at other times and places. About people getting defensive :
1. "shall not be infringed"
2. liberty
3. are you really willing to sacrifice ANY of your liberty for an unfulfillable promise that the government will keep you safe?
a. this is the same government regulating our financial institutions and protecting our borders
b. this is a very dangerous slippery slope
In reply to roderickloui,
obviously you don't understand the intent of the 2nd ammendment. It's purpose is to allow the CITIZENS of the United States the ability to overthrow our OWN government in the event our OWN government attempts to take away our rights such as the 1st ammendment or becomes tyrannical.............. .
I have enjoyed Diane's show for some time and find it generally balanced. This morning left me less than thrilled. The leaning to a magazine ban was clear and the neutral position not found in many of her comments. Her use of inappropriate terminology, "automatic" without clarifying semi or full was misleading. As one who owns Glocks, was a Glock armorer and trainer, as well as a tactical firearms trainer for law enforcement I wish that the facts regarding these weapons was clearly understood. Diane continued to throw the name Glock and model 19 around as if it were the only thing that mattered. I do not care what weapon it was, the incident was horrific. But so is a knife attack, or beating with a bat. These happen far more than gun attacks do and we still can buy both and no one is asking to limit the size of the machete I can buy or the weight of my bat.
At one point the real issue of social injustice, mental wellness and political isolation need to be looked at and it will not come through another magazine capacity limit bill. You can put all the daisies you want in the end of the barrel, but until you change what drives the individual to such rashness, this will never change.
I like the image for this article. Shotguns, not Glocks. Nice.
This argument assumes that it is impossible to reload with downtime. Now I might be shooting myself here by stating the fact that when one is properly trained and practiced, you can reload with little downtime. As a law enforcement tactical handgun instructor, that was one of my main goals in training my officers.
Before the gun we killed each other with swords and with sticks and rocks before that. The weapon is not the issue, it is the unrest within the individual that killed this people.
The shooter could have done more damage by strapping an explosive vest on and taking out the whole crowd. Then what would we be banning?
The rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights are just as relevant in the 21st century as they were in the 18th century and those in between. The militia (the "whole people", as it were) is still a valid contemporary consideration. In times of civil unrest, natural disaster, or the absence of effective government (such as was evident after Katrina, and is fairly evident on our southern border), people have the right to effectively defend themselves, their property, and their civil order, at the local, state, or national level.
Providing for militia was addressed in the articles of the Constitution. However "quaint," those provisions still stand. However, the Second Amendment was not about the structure of the militia, but about preventing central power from eliminating the potency of militia. The fact that the anti-federalists insisted on a bill of rights, and the fact that it was incorporated into the supreme law of the land, should indicate that its provisions--all of them--were important. The idea that a government should not have a monopoly of force is timeless. Armed people are governed citizens. Unarmed people are subjects. This concept is essential to American concepts of individual liberty and federalism, which is why it was expressed as a right of the people to be armed. Even our technologically marvelous military cannot stand against its own people if they are effectively armed with semi-automatic small arms. Those arms are as effective in the common defense as they are in defense of person or property.
The argument for high capacity magazines is sound for certain self-defense situations. Cackalacky’s lack of awareness of events in which private citizens have used firearms and significant amounts of ammunition does not mean such events do not occur. For example, the riots in L.A. after the King trial, when store owners fought off a mob with semi-automatic weapons after the police had abandoned them. Ranchers confronting drug dealers escorted by Mexican military or Federales might like more than a hunting rifle to deal with the problem. I am not sure why a private citizen’s decision to carry a modern firearm with modern capabilities requires “historical relevance” (whatever that means). I am sure that there are realistic reasons for carrying or employing high-capacity handguns, or high-power handguns, or semi-automatic long guns in defense of self and property. That does not even take into consideration the roots of the Second Amendment in providing an inherently well-armed public capable of acting as a check against tyranny, insurrection, or invasion.
Timothy McVeigh did significant damage with a truck, diesel fuel, and fertilizer--something many veterans know how to do. No gun present. The problem with limiting the "danger" a person poses is that one must be aware of the specific danger. The gun, the truck, the fuel, and the fertilizer are not the root of the problem. Our ability to treat and constrain the mentally ill and the criminal is higher up the causality tree. The panelist is right.
People get defensive about limits of any sort when they are imposed by government. For example, when some people say that private sales of private property among private citizens are "unacceptable," other people are understandably skeptical that there is no agenda to restrict civil rights. Americans are just as agitated by infringements to freedom of expression, intrusive searches and checkpoints, and tactics like profiling. It's that pesky freedom thing. You can be as snarky as you like about those who are skeptical that more government is better, but this free forum is the gift of people just like them.
Regulating the magazine capacity would not have any significant effect on the harm done by violent offenders except in a few unusual cases. I do not consider it a worthwhile pursuit, and I think it is a bad tradeoff when I consider the benefits of an armed population. Zero guns will not reduce crime, it will only reduce crime with guns, and that only if it is well executed. Brutes will still be able to attack non-brutes, particularly without effective equalizers like firearms.
Consider what would be a better approach to the problem. If Loughner had a revolver and only shot Giffords, that would be a better outcome, but still not an optimal one. However, if Loughner had been effectively dealt with after being identified as dangerous by either the Army or Pima Community College, and not only did not shoot anyone, but also got treatment, that would be an optimal outcome, and one that does not require infringing on civil rights. The Tucson shooting is not a call to haggle over firearm features; it is a sign that we need to solve problems, not symptoms.
The brick analogy is fallacious. Putting up a fence on a public roadway does not infringe on anyone other than suicides and brick hurlers. The premise that freedom means freedom from danger is also flawed. Freedom cannot guarantee anything but free will and exercise. It does not relieve you from misfortune and its consequences--and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling snake oil. Our system is reactive for that reason. We punish crime after the fact, and we mitigate consequences to an extent. The more we try to pursue safety in lieu of freedom, the less we deserve of either (thank you Ben Franklin--and I'm trying to keep the Republic).
Yes, and trucks filled with fertilizer rigged to explode are illegal. My point wrt historical relevance means substantial evidence based on our own history showing that changing a law would make things better or worse.
You can throw an example of shop owners protecting themselves after a riot, but really... were you there? How many of those mini-mart, pizza shop, and record shop owners came to the streets with AK-47s strapped with a few hundred rounds... none. As for ranchers, same things. Do you really expect me to believe that ranchers along the mexico border engage in daily combat with banditos using this kind of weaponry? Only border patrol and other gang members use this style of weaponry. I sincerely believe you are making examples without basis. And yes, we do not here of this because it rarely happens. I agree, treating mentally ill is paramount. Is that more government? Is is then unnecessary to require and enforce background checks for all sales of all firearms? Why is this such a debate?
I had the experience of personally stopping a crime using a Glock 26 (10 rounds 9mm) back in '99. I had just clocked out after work as a chef at a micro brewer. As I left out the back door I noticed an altercation between my boss and a patron as I rounded the front of the building. It seems the patron didn't want to leave so I walked up and stood by in case my boss needed help. Suddenly the patron pulled a knife out of his back pocket and held it out towards my boss so I pulled out my glock and put the laser sight on his chest. After his eyes about popped out of his head he immediately reversed his stance and put his knife back in his pocket and left without a word.............. .
This is just one of the many incidents where an armed law abiding citizen has used a gun to PREVENT a possible murder or serious injury, but you'll never hear about them because they simply aren't reported to law enforcement.
I prefer to take responsibility for my own security because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away..................... .
Also, there are many jobs that are much more dangerous than being a congressional representative like deep water welding, off shore drilling, crab fishing (most dangerous) etc.. The people that do those jobs know and accept the risks (for much less $$ I might add), why can't our representatives do the same? After all they seem to tout their "public service" as some kind of higher calling don't they?
Diane's show on 1/11/11 addressed the root-cause of not only this, but most all mass-shootings: Mental Illness. An excellent show.
That said, and with a perspective of municipal service, and a history of hunting with firearms, I see no valid reason to own a 30-round magazine. The Glock 19 was designed for a 15 round magazine, and that should be sufficient for all legitimate purposes. The Colt M-16 was originally shipped with 20 round magazines (we're talking Vietnam-era) and I see no reason for any higher capacity. Coyotes killing your sheep? If you can't get 'er done in 20 rounds, you need to ask other farmers for assistance, not more magazine capacity.
The magic number of 10 rounds so sought in Assault Weapons Ban legislation, was a response to the LIRR shooting (again by a known mentally-ill person) which killed Carolyn McCarthy's husband.
He used a Ruger 9mm handgun, with a 15 round magazine.
The issue became the gun and the magazine capacity - not the fact that the system failed to deal with Colin Ferguson in a meaningful fashion prior to this incident.
Same for Cho in Virginia, same for Loughner in Arizona.
It's just easier to deal with an object, point to "meaningful legislation", and call it a political victory than face the uncertain and expensive task of fixing our mental health system.
The legislation we require has been there for years:
The mentally ill, who are deemed "a danger to themselves and others", should not have the means to purchase a firearm.
In my opinion, that should extend to many potentially lethal means, not just guns.
In Holland, where guns are rare, a disturbed individual killed or injured 19 persons - including himself, using a Suzuki hatchback.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/05/02/Death-toll-from-Queens-Day-crash-...
Have the Dutch banned Suzuki autos? High-capacity hatchbacks? Black cars? I await the Europhile response.
You're right 43north,
there is no valid need for 30 rnd magazines just as there is no valid NEED for cell phones and flat screen televisions. But there is no valid need to ban them either. Notice below that the shooter in the LIRR shooter emptied his magazine and then reloaded the magazine and emptied it again. Same can be done with a ten rounder (better option being to carry 3-4 already loaded 10 rounders in my opinion).
As I said in an earlier post, there are currently around 25,000 laws regulating guns already on the books and they all failed here. I seriously doubt 25,001 or 25,002 will change anything in the future since murder is already illegal and that law hasn't seemed stop any crazies.
The only gun I have high capacity magazines for is my Ruger 10/22 (25 rounders- a lot less reloading and a lot of fun! :) ), and yep, I don't really NEED them anymore than I NEED my cell phone and flat screen, but I probably won't be getting rid of either anytime soon.
As you said, there were many opportunities to stop this kid as a mental health case, and more regulations on guns will simply cause people to use other means like the family car or as in the UK, a huge rash of knife violence (Google it).
" A man named Colin Ferguson had risen from his seat on the Long Island-Rail Road commuter train, taken out a gun, and started to shoot at the 90 passengers in his car, emptying his gun of the 15 bullets in the clip, then reloading and emptying it again. As he tried to reload a second time, three of the passengers overpowered him. But by then the car looked as if it had been painted red. Ferguson had shot 25 people, in what would come to be called the Long Island Rail Road massacre. Six would die, including Dennis. He was found slumped over the lap of his son, Kevin, 26, who was the most severely wounded of the survivors."
Josh Horwitz commented: "Justice delayed is justice denied."
The same argument made to pass the USA Patriot Act, with no regard to efficacy or ill-effect.
Every progressive here should gag on the thought of: "just pass something - regardless" to show "official reaction" or "sure and swift measures" to this horrific assault.
garyls43, I'll correct one thing on your account of the Dec. 7, 1993 LIRR shooting:
Colin Ferguson had a bag containing the Ruger P-89 pistol, two 15 round magazines, and 160 rounds of 9mm ammunition, all purchased legally in California.
The Dec. 8, 1993 NY Daily News stated:
"While passengers looked-on in horror, Colin Ferguson the alleged LIRR gunman, calmly loaded deadly 9mm bullets into his clips."
What Ferguson did, was load 2 magazines with 15 rounds each, while most people either sought to move away, or just held their Long Island Newsday a little bit higher and not be confrontational with the serious business of the black man on the train. First rule: "Don't make eye contact!"
Second rule: "Don't get involved!" - neither worked that day.
As one of my black Correction Officer friends said on the 8th:
"You white people are crazy. No way I'd ignore some brother loading his 'clips' on the train. I'd be smacking that crap out of his hands."
Ferguson was subdued when his magazines were empty, and he returned to load from his remaining 130 rounds of loose ammunition.
Helen P. Netos wrote:
According to columnist Brian McGrory in today's Boston Globe, "Massachusetts [which has strict gun control laws] had 3.51 gun deaths per 1,000,000 residents in 2007, the third fewest of any state in the nation; Arizona had 14.95, the seventh most."
Helen, two observations: That data comes from a gun-control group, and I failed to see any legitimate citation of supporting documentation when on their website, reading the original article. (not the Globe's rehash).
Second, Arizona's figures will include all firearms deaths in our undeclared Border War with Mexico. Every drug dealer, "mule", "coyote", and illegal immigrant killed by gunfire.
Massachusetts has a similar sized population, so the 11% spread equals roughly 72 people killed.
Is that not within the realm of possible, if one reads the headlines of violence upon the border? Statistics only for statistics are worthless, methodology and data sources matter.
If I gave a "0" to every non-citizen killed in Arizona, I'd have a greater chance of having meaningful numbers to compare to Massachusetts, as I don't believe the Commonwealth to be involved in a border war. (except for the Dept. of Revenue, with tax-free NH)
Cackalacky, the reason this is "such a debate" is that people don't agree with you. Part of the reason I disagree with you is that you state as fact things that are not fact. For example, trucks filled rigged to explode are NOT illegal--watch "Mythbusters," etc. What IS illegal is using such a setup to commit crimes or to negligently harm people. The same is true of firearms. I can own, carry, even conceal (with a permit, subject to a background check) a firearm legally in Maine, but I am not legally allowed to fire it, particularly at people, except in the contexts of hunting, target shooting, or in justified defense (and even that is subject to legal scrutiny). Even an accident resulting from otherwise legal carry or shooting has sever consequences. That is as it should be. In a neighboring state, Vermont, I would not even need a permit to conceal the weapon. They have not collapsed into anarchy to date.
The fact that a number of Koreans defended their property with semi-automatic high-capacity rifles does not require my presence to remain an example that refutes your earlier claim, any more than the recent shooting requires yours to be true. Facts are independent of our perception. I never said anything about fully automatic weapons--that is your hyperbolic extrapolation. Fully automatic AK-47s, etc., are restricted, and have been since 1936. That restriction was made with the agreement of the much villified NRA, and there has not been any real interest in changing that.
(Continued)
Whether you believe that ranchers are struggling to control their property, protect their employees and livestock, etc. against serious incursions by armed brigands, drug smugglers, and human traffickers, does nothing to alter the fact that they are. It is a matter of record in various magazines. Ranch Rescue was a real operation conducted by former military and law enforcement professionals who patrolled ranches in border areas and documented a lot of what happened there. Testimony before Congress (including some by federal agents) also depicts a real problem there. As a matter of fact, the restraint shown by people living there is unprecedented. As late as the early 20th century, similar incursions would lead to a Pershing-style punitive expedition.
While I do not believe these events occur every day, they do occur more often than your paradigm seems capable of incorporating. Mass shootings do not occur very often either, and they don't only occur in the U.S. Like plan crashes, they are spectacular and tragic, but in the aggregate they do not significantly affect safety.
I am glad you think that treating the actual problem is worthwhile. Yes, it will require some changes in how we proceed. More government? Maybe, or maybe just better government and society. That is beyond the scope of a forum. The issue of background checks is not a Second Amendment issue, but a matter of privacy (Fourth Amendment, etc.) and doctor-patient privilege. There is also the premise, in this country, that my right to do something is not normally subject to prior restraint. The burden of proof is on the government, not on me, to whether I am competent to exercise my rights as a sovereign citizen.
(Continued)
Therein lies the issue around the misnamed "Gun Show Loophole." It is really a private property rights "loophole." I can legally sell a firearm or ammunition to anyone in my home state without a license or any government censure. That is because the federal government has no jurisdiction in the matter (it is not interstate commerce), and my state has seen fit (so far) to allow private citizens to conduct private business privately. The premise is one I think highly of--still that pesky freedom thing. I do not think that guns are exceptionally dangerous objects--no more so than cars, gasoline, sharp objects, etc. That said, if I sell a gun outside of my circle of friends and family, I go through a dealer just to cover my posterior, and to discourage anyone who would
Under our current structure, a background check would not have stopped Loughner. I am not sure we want to check more people, as such. In my early opinion, we should look at treating more people more effectively. I realize that is not as attractive a panacea as "gun control," but I believe it will be more effective across more problems in the long run.
43North, I have a background in military service, and even spent some time in military law enforcement. I personally see no need for me to carry more than the normal capacity for my sidearms, and I often carry either a .357 magnum revolver (six rounds) or a .45 pistol with seven or eight rounds. I typically carry two spare magazines or speedloaders, and feel pretty well armed. I don’t carry all the time. I cannot legally carry at work, nor when travelling to foreign countries, etc. I don’t carry a backup gun either, at least not to date—I figure the handgun IS my backup.
I am having some trouble with your post because, on one hand you seem to think that we should limit magazine capacities, etc., but later argue that instrumentality was never really the issue. Am I misreading that?
People have been shot more than seven or eight times, even with .357 or .45 caliber rounds, and not been stopped effectively. I was trained to fire controlled sequences when using weapons, and to aim center of mass twice, then to the head, then to the pelvic region, and to fire until the subject was no longer a threat. That would use up my first load very quickly—and that assumes no misses or malfunctions. Magazines malfunction frequently, and so do auto-loading weapons. This requires removal of a magazine, often discarding it. The next magazine might be the only ammunition left for the fight. Under those circumstances, having extra capacity would be helpful.
The other legitimate purpose for long guns with high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic functions is to serve as arms for the militia—a concept upheld by our courts. There are many civil defense reasons for groups of citizens to arm and be ready to fight. While most reasonable people do not think such dire situations are imminent, the right enunciated in the Second Amendment (and other writings by those who helped craft our government) takes into account the long arc of human events.
Disturbed at the tone of diane on this entire issue. She played the game of assigning assumptive blame, placing it on the other political side, and this dubious assumption lay beneath many of her statements and questions.
It didn't take much research to read or view the shooters videos to see that the attempts to smear political enemies using this mad man were simply in poor taste.
The entire hysteria of the media is as said by those who knew the shooter, exactly what he would have wanted, the entire reaction is probably why he has that huge grin on his face in the mugshot..and why he continued to shoot others after he hit his primary target. He got what he wanted.
There are always knee jerk calls for legislation after such shootings, and those are the worst ways to enact laws. Diane said that the winds are changing, oh really? Lots of what she says on this issue are very presumptious. I don't see the general political opinion changing on this at all, the last election where the democrats paid a heavy price didn't wake diane out of her bubble? I'm a democrat and I don't see knee jerk laws as any help, these are feel good counter productive laws that waste everyones time, and insult our intelligence, the folks that will carry out such incidents never obey such laws..that is a simple fact.
The only thing that really failed was the medical/psychiatric system, he should have been diagnosed and perhaps taken off his parents hands. But i'm sure the aclu would have been all over him if his rights were infringed upon by such imprisonment.
The fact is this, there are countless crazy people in a country of 300 million, there are countless guns as well. Instead of being distrought and hysterical over such an incident one should have a level head and be amazed that this doesn't happen more often. That says something, that it is a very very rare incident, and nothing to draw broad conclusions or legislation upon.
Furthermore when you use such tactics of using dubious presumptions of blame when attacking your political enemies you undermine trust.
It is very clear this shooter had his views and warped thinking long before any recent debate, political incident or so called atmosphere of political discussion.
One might ask why one side doesn't trust the other to make reasonable changes, well smearing the other side with false association to a murderer does that kind of thing. Beyond being insulting, it reduces trust in your ability to reason.
You might look at it from another angle. Look at attempts to limit abortion. The left will fight tooth and nail at even the slightest restriciton because they view it as a slippery slope, and a wedge for further restriction with the final goal of abolition, so they stand in the way of all restriction. There is no trust. This is the same with guns, the right see's the rosie odonalds, and perhaps even the diane rehmes, and they do not trust you will stop at anything reasonable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have struggled against tyranny. I didn't do that in order to substitute one tyranny with another.
-Tutu, Desmond Mpilo
In The IrishTimes,'ThisWeekThey Said', 31 Oct.
As a former soilder I beleive it is every citizen responsibility to be able to defend themselves, because the military may not be able to react in time. We must realize we are American and everyone must stand up and be able to defend THEMSELVES and not rely solely on the government. The government of the United States relies on the will of the people, the people do not rely on the government.
By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.
Benjamin Franklin
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
It is indefensible to espouse an approach to gun ownership based on 225 year old thinking without attention to the present. Research is that those who carry guns routinely are no safer in gun wielding situations than those who do not carry these weapons; crossfire kills. As a couple therapist I have spent much of my 28 year career attending to the safe storage of weapons of immediate death in homes with highly conflicted relationships. I am also a parent of a VT student who lost a friend and had another wounded in that terrible trauma. Surely if we can structure management across this entire nation of the deadly weapons called cars we can also structure ownership of another deadly weapon- guns. I think gun ownership is okay as long as there is a training and licensing process just like in the legal ownership and operation of a motor vehicle. We know that automatic weapons and high capacity magazines; are purchased by those who are afraid therefore feel the need to fight. They depend on the excess of money provided by the NRA and similar contaminated thinkers who use every penny in this fight. Again, after years of advocacy I know there is a huge population of those who agree to structuring gun and ammunition ownership and the real issue is how to activate that massive and powerful support in the face of the money of the NRA.