Recent Comments

Readers: More gun restriction won’t help

| January 16, 2013

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings in Connecticut late last year, ending a particularly gruesome year for mass murder in the United States, Overdrive readers delivered a message counter to general-public polling data in answer to our own question on gun ownership and official restrictions. With President Obama’s announced priorities on tightening restrictions and media outlets reporting poll results showing a fairly even split on most questions about the need for more or less controls on ownership, nine out of 10 Overdrive readers say they either favor fewer restrictions or stand in support of the regulatory status quo.

“If the government enforced the current regulations prohibiting violent criminals and the psychologically impaired from obtaining guns, these atrocities would be far less,” wrote Lou Segarra of Elmont, N.Y. His home state’s government, as of this writing, had just made a move ahead of the federal government to write new restrictions on magazine capacity to no more than 7 rounds into its existing laws, among other changes. “Instead,” Segarra added, “the government simply uses these horrific acts to grandstand and make new laws … in an effort to justify their salaries.”

Reader Craig Hansen told the story of the two times he’d had to “present” his weapon in 32 years of ownership. “Both times it did save my life,” he said, “thereby saving my family too.” While he says he’s grateful “for the security our police and armed forces afford us to enjoy in the peace and sanctity of everyday life … sometimes you’re on your own.”

Such as the time he backed up a local deputy during a break-in at a neighbor’s house. “Our deputies are really spread thin here and could use a break,” said Hansen. The deputy “was glad for the help. I respect you if don’t like or want a gun, but I do … and I want the same respect given to me.”

Find other responses below:
Russell Steen: Where does it end? The government has no plan, no budget, no morals – now they want our rights as well.

Charlie Baker: The only reason for government to enact gun control is to keep the people from resisting the government. The Second Amendment was written to allow the people the means to resist tyrants, whether they be domestic or foreign.

Chris Nixon: Gun control does not mean gun confiscation — that’s a ridiculous fear instilled in gullible minds by a gun industry driven by profits over humanity. I’m a gun owner, and a Second Amendment advocate, but I have no use for an assault rifle designed to kill humans in mass numbers on the battlefield.

Shawn L. Hubbard: With all due respect, civilian assault rifles fire one bullet with every trigger pull, just like any other gun. Assault rifles are no more dangerous than any other gun. The difference is that the gun has a cosmetic aesthetic that appeals to people. If you believe these guns should be banned, then you believe in banning guns, period.

Gordon Alkire: Guns do not walk into a place and pull their own triggers. Same with automobile accidents where people are killed — the car did not get into the accident on its own.

  • Liz Larson

    Seems to Me that all races are prone to mental instability.Was’nt it a white guy in the Newtown shootings?Was’nt it a white Guy in the Aurora CO. theatre shootings?How about the bombing of the SSi building in OK City?Racial profileing is just as dangerous as mass hysteria gun control.

  • Liz Larson

    If you are an United States Citizen speaking our language and abiding by our laws.Willing to defend this Country.yes you do.Because thats what my ancestors did.And none of them were English or spoke

  • Liz Larson

    Well We always had reloaders and made our own amo.Regulating that would be hard.

  • Squattingdawg

    You say gun control does not mean confiscation, then you need to look up history in Germany, as to how Hitler to the guns away from the people, He instituted control first claiming it was for the good of the children. The later banned private ownership. The picture of Obama surrounded by children looks just like the one taken of Hitler signing he same bill on Germany.This is capitalizing on the deaths of our children which is about the worst thing the Demo could do.

  • Jes Cox

    Ever wonder what Obama would do if he was face to face with a “zip gun”? Bet he wouldn’t like it if the person said at the same time, “ya sure got ah pretty smile”…

  • joseph morris

    Constructive criticism;
    The number of deaths has NOTHING to do with GUN legislation or we would eliminate every form of death instrument with more fatalities .Some people react to stress in different ways and we now have to uncover unstable behavior such as the five year old student who so terrorized his teacher by making a gun out of leggo blocks that he was suspended from school for two weeks. Or the other 5 year old who terrorized his teacher with a square piece of paper with a corner torn off. No matter what political party you belong to putting an armed guard in every school will not change the target. JUST AS WE PUT FIRE EXTINGUISHERS IN SCHOOLS WE COULD MAKE GUNS AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE PROTECTION. Those six adults would have gladly shot the crook as he shot his way into the school. They gave their lives to delay him until the guns arrived and we repay their sacrifice by outlawing guns on school property. Truckers used to carry weapons to protect themselves when carrying large sums of cash. Now you would need a permit for every state you travel in to have it in your vehicle a concealed weapon permit for every state and still could not produce it unless threatened by someone pointing it at YOU , not to help someone else because you are not being threatened.

  • joseph morris

    People argue about religion and politics, but the political ,arguementis about restriction or entitlement are usually about how to change the bill of rights. When have you heard this much legislation about limiting the cost of education, health care, or the abuse of programs. Nobody is concerned that financial banks can not be prosected if they keep your money

  • joseph morris

    As I grew up police carried a 6 shot revolver that wouldn’t jam and usually two auto-reloads. Then then were restricted in ammunition choices to protect the criminal from being seriously injured in a gun battle. Then they were told that they needed to carry a 15 round capacity in a smaller caliber because of the increased firepower of the criminals. It now takes more hits to injure a criminal and now we are going back to limit the number of rounds a cop can carry? You know it is not going to limit the criminal. I saw a few comments on zip guns. I made a single shot with a zippo lighter but got rid of it when a better gun became available over the counter with six reloads for $1.98.

  • joseph morris

    It has been ten days since the trial, were you charged with premeditated assault with a deadly waepon? Were you charged with entrapment since you told him you were away but were waiting for him? wHAT DID HE GET SINCE HE DID NOTHING BUT ENTER YOUR HOUSE BY A WINDOW.

  • joseph morris

    Instead of the NRA endorsing video games which although violent teach hand and eye co-ordination,rapid decision making and planning, they should be telling their members to call their member in Congress. They listen to lobbyists because they get paid,-they only listen to the people when people call them and the lobbyist can’t get through. If you are serious enough to call, you may be serious enough to vote against his re-election.

  • James M.Stepp

    Any gun control goes against the US Constitution. I can respect anyone who doesn’t see a need for an AK or an AR,but the idea here is,if you plan to defend your life and home,more is ALWAYS better. You don’t put in just the exact amount of fuel you know it’ll take to get to your next stop,do you? No-you fill the tanks,because you don’t KNOW what might happen between here and there. Well,same principle applies to your defense-you don’t KNOW how much of a fight you might be in for,and you sure as hell don’t wanna come up short in that fight.

    The Second Amendment gives us the right to own and use whatever gun we choose,and I CHOOSE to own guns at LEAST equal to anything the Military is carrying,since when the confiscations happen,that’s what I’ll be fighting. And,by the way,DON’T think the confiscations won’t happen. That part of the Communist Agenda is already bought-n-paid for. Obama HAS to provide. We’ll do what we can to stop it though,’cause we’re not QUITTERS.

  • James M.Stepp

    I guess you’ve all heard the theories that Sandy Hook didn’t happen,it was orchestrated BY the Government to provide the public rage needed to cram gun control down out throats. Whether it happened or not (There’s even videos of the actors who played the grief stricken parents,talking and laughing) it was a perfect chance for O to really push his gun control agenda forward. Leave it to HIM to politicize a tragedy.
    Anyway,this is all playing into an eventual confiscation of guns,unless WE stop it. Already a movement is going on with the County Sheriffs to refuse to back any unconstitutional gun legislation. If the Feds (actually the UN,probably) attempt to confiscate,a County Sheriff has the Constitutional authority to stop them at his County border. Be sure to ask your Sheriff if he will defend the Constitution as he promised when he took his Oath of Office. If he says he will,ask him to send a letter to VP Biden affirming that fact. We want him to realize just how hard this is going to be for him to implement.

  • James M.Stepp

    “Obama said it’s worth it if even one person’s life is saved right?” The thing is,beer drinking isn’t a Constitutional right. Granted,making booze illegal didn’t work at all. But what Obama is trying to do is take away Americans’ Constitutional Right to own and bear Arms in the name of “saving one person’s life”. Regardless how many lives he thinks he’s saving,he CAN’T take America’s Rights to accomplish that result. (Not to mention the number of newly unarmed victims of violent crimes he would be condemning to death.)

  • James M.Stepp

    Their whole argument amounts to their thought (if you can call it that) that guns are different because they have no other purpose than to kill. (Don’t shoot me-I’m just the messenger)

  • James M.Stepp

    MY guns will be with ME until they bury me,because I’m a RESPONSIBLE gun owner.

    Your car is a land mine. Perhaps you are a “safe” car owner,but where will your car be in a year,5 years or 10 years?Lost,stolen,forgotten about,sold or given to whomever?? And then somebody gets it and makes a bad decision,like,what-drives drunk and hits a bus? MASS MURDER BY CAR!!! There are FAR more cars than guns,so your argument doesn’t hold water. (BTW-I collect TRUCKS,too-wanna ban THOSE too?

    EVERYBODY who is legally able to own a gun should have one. Those of us who LIKE guns should have as many as we can get. If you can’t be a responsible gun owner,don’t own guns. Land mines-sheesh!!

  • James M.Stepp

    And YOU didn’t answer Mousekiller;are you sure you won’t be in a car accident and kill someone in the next year? Same principle applies. Both the gun and the car are tools. the owner is responsible for use of the tools. When you get a car,you have to think of these things too,but you obviously don’t. I CAN promise you,though,that GUN owners give a hundred times more thought and care to their GUNS than any CAR owner,except,of course,the collector/restorer.

    M is right-your question is absurd. You should wait until your high wears off before you take on such “high” thinking.

  • James M.Stepp

    Liz-they’d grow up to be just like Ronn-whiny brainless Liberal Twits.

  • James M.Stepp

    If we can’t get the new “Gun Control” measures changed,when you die,your family will automatically become Felons,because Feinstein,in her incredible wisdom,dictates that once you register the guns,they can’t be sold,given away or otherwise disposed of;since your family’s name isn’t on the paperwork,it’s a Felony for them to have the guns.
    Nice work,huh?

  • Doug

    jescott418, you hit head right on the nail. In this Sandy Hooks incident, several party’s had information about the mental state of this guy. It was their fault, ultimately. The mother, knowing of his mental state, thought it wasn’t an issue for him to have access to weaponry, as well as those who evaluated him previously. I am not a gun owner, but believe in the constitution still. It really is a relevant document still. Most people live by strict moral values. But we fail as a country to address these aspects, we tend to look for fault in something or someone else, when the real issues need to be addressed. I attribute this terrible outcome to failure at higher levels, ie., those who could have prevented this. In this country, people are never at fault, unless it seems suitable. The possibility of stricter regulations seems scary. Since most of these issues deal with insanity, that is what needs to be addressed. After all, “what is this? Russhy?” strives to maintain an open forum for reader opinions. Click here to read our comment policy.