In the Arena

Gun Control: What Really Matters

  • Share
  • Read Later
MANDEL NGAN / AFP / Getty Images

Audience members applaud as U.S. President Barack Obama speaks on gun control at the University of Hartford, in Hartford, Conn., April 8, 2013.

I’m worried about what happens if the Congress passes the tepid but worthy background checks measure being debated this week.

It has become Armageddon because of the gun lobby’s intransigence–and the rest of us, the 90% who support background checks, will hail a major victory if it passes. But it won’t be a major victory. It could be, in the end, a significant defeat. This is, after all, a tiny piece of the gun control/violence puzzle. It doesn’t address the presence of semi-assault rifles and 30-bullet magazines. It doesn’t touch guns passed about privately among family and friends and gang members.

And it doesn’t address the most significant piece of the problem: the mental health issue. A few weeks ago court documents were released that recounted the infuriating struggle of Jared Loughner’s parents to control their mentally ill son. They took away his shotgun. They tried to prevent him from going out at night. They knew he was headed for something awful, but there was no way–no legal way–to control him. I know other people, wonderful parents, who live in fear that their mentally ill son, who has acted out violently several times, will be the next shooter. But their son is in his late 20’s and they have no legal way to control him.

It seems to me that the anti-gun crowd–and I am a vehement member of that crowd–is making a terrible mistake by not taking on the civil libertarians as well as the gun nuts. There should be a way that parents have more control over their violently ill children. There should be a  way that people diagnosed as paranoid-schizophrenics can be placed in a secure setting if they act out violently.

There was, in the One-Flew-Over -the-Cuckoo’s-Nest 1970s, a bizarre glorification of the mentally ill among certain elite sectors–it was society that was crazy, not the inmates. The mental institutions were closed. Drugs would control the inmates released into society. This was a monumental act of moral irresponsbility that was compounded by a series of court decisions that gave the violently mentally ill–especially those whose violent episodes were intermittent and  could present themselves as sane in court–the right to control their own lives.

I am not suggesting that we go back to the 1960s. I am suggesting that we tack back toward a less extreme position, where the testimony of parents, teachers and doctors has a greater impact on the control of these extremely dangerous people than it now does. That might have prevented the Tucson and Aurora shootings, although probably not Newtown.

Because here’s what is going to happen: If the background checks bill passes–and there is overweening celebration among the gun control crowd–and two months from now a lunatic kills 25 kids in a schoolyard, the gun lobby will be able to say, “See, we passed gun control and it doesn’t work.”

To be clear: I would vote for this bill in a heartbeat. I would go further and propose a nice, fat cigarette-like tax on bullets. But I am under no illusion that we’re dealing with the heart of this problem, and you shouldn’t be, either.

171 comments
Dr.Tokorov
Dr.Tokorov

The fact of the matter is, citizens have the right to bear arms, yes. But to what extent is that morally relevant? As a right-libertarian, I do not personally condone the involvement of state in my affairs as a free citizen. However, I also trust in the government to provide protection from violence and make it safe for my children to go to school in the morning. There comes a time when the "Right" to own a semi-automatic assault rifle capable of  killing several individuals  in rapid succession should be questioned. So, don't call me an unconstitutional liberal, for I assure you I am not, but everyone should just look at the rationality of owning weapons used specifically to effectively kill humans.

collioure
collioure

Joe is correct. This bill would have done little to prevent mass shootings, and I have yet to see anything from the gun control crowd that will. The problem is unstable young men.

Unfortunately by default the only solution put forward that will protect our school children was offered by the NRA's Wayne LaPierre - armed guards.

Beefbone
Beefbone

"the anti-gun crowd–and I am a vehement member of that crowd–is making a terrible mistake by not taking on the civil libertarians"   Klein has pretty well established his objectivity.  Time -- if it still were a credible source of rational thought -- would be embarrassed by Klein's presence, but it's not... which quite well explains his presence.

Patriot54
Patriot54

Frankly to freethehens.I am not sure how many people care what you are tired of. To the author, lying that 90% of Americans support the background checks does not serve you very well., and you know better. As for guns and violence, yes it happens, but it was proven in Boston this week that removing guns will not remove mass murder. Get over it. Some people are sick/evil and will always kill. No one in this country has the right to disarm me as my right is stated clearly in the constitutional ammendment that has repeatredly been upheld. You have no right to take that away.

NateJMcKay
NateJMcKay

@Skybearlove good point! Do you think mental health should be a greater priority? Or should we focus on both equally?

president
president

Gun only the product of metal, cars on the roads kill more people than guns but no one stops cars why? Person kills the person but not a gun!! It is foolish prohibit guns. The killer always find another weapon hammer or chainsaw ... limitation of weapons just limitation of rights for self-defense of rights in the constitution

freethehens
freethehens

(con't)

I'm tired of the apologists for hunters, who focus their killing spress on non-humans. And for the "sportsmen" who feel it is their constitutional right to shoot targets. Or the collectors (fetishists) who cry these laws would restrict easy access to their object of desire. Self defense? How many bullets do you need to keep around? If you want that form of protection, then you should have to pay more for the bullets needed to get good at it.

Although this failed legislation was soft, it was stronger than the one in place. If it came out of the outrage of children being blown away, so what? It alone may not prevent mass shootings, but gets the public engaged in stopping the NRA and gun profiters from controlling the debate, and the laws.

freethehens
freethehens

I think anyone who finds pleasure in using guns has some form of mental deficiency.  Guns are repulsive devices designed to maim and kill.  This shouldn't be an issue, let alone a debate. But humans love violence, so here we are. 

It is incredibly difficult to determine who will be go on a rampage, but the common denominator is still the gun.  The guy who blows away his family, and then himself,  was a "law-abiding" citizen  the day before, and isn't going to be on the radar for "mental health issues". 

The more guns bought by "law-abiding citizens", the more that end up in the hands of those who aren't; there are  too few restrictions, requirements and consequences in order to own them.

(con't)

leila53233
leila53233

The “heart of this problem” is that the intent of the Second Amendment has ALWAYS been to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.  Our right to keep and bear arms does not come to us UNDER the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment RESTRICTS the government from infringing on our inalienable, natural right to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights does not give us any rights whatsoever, but what it does do is plainly state what natural birthrights we have that our government is restricted from attacking.  The 2nd Amendment is our protection from the very real threat of DEMOCIDE—murder by government.  There have been over 260 million documented murders by government in the 20th century and the Department of Homeland Security has been buying firearms, billions of rounds of uber-destructive ammunition and furnishing Federal Government workers with targets depicted regular people (rather than the standard “terrorist” targets) like pregnant women, old men, children holding what looks like guns and other folks in an in-home setting.

kennonk
kennonk

"the 90% who support background checks" - Klein
"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." - Goebbels

Raweno
Raweno

I am very sorry to have to ask this Mr. Klein, or at least sort of, but how much exactly did you get paid to write this? 

You just strung a bunch of buzz-words together and called it news. Did you go to college? Is this how the press is being educated? 

Also: If this supposedly significant piece of legislature fails to address the most significant issue, mental health, then why are you just going to vote for it? If you are really that unhappy with it, ask for changes. You don't have to support a bill simply because its writer identified it as 'Anti-Gun'. You have nothing to prove, Klein. Instead of wasting TIME endorsing legal measures that you are unhappy with, why don't you take a refresher course on basic journalism?


emeraldseatown
emeraldseatown

Mr. Klein,

You spend most of your piece pointing out why the proposed legislation wouldn't work, then declare your support nonetheless.  Furthermore, you suggest more measures that are even less useful.  Do you anti-gunners even think before you propose restrictions?

If you make bullets extremely expensive, sportsmen and self-defense shooters won't be effective or safe shooters.  Nor will the police.  Criminals are already lousy shots, so they won't suffer at all.  If you don't care about the good guys' skill, you clearly don't worry about threats to your safety, and that makes you a pretty poor judge of what I need to protect myself.

ThomasJefferson
ThomasJefferson

DeweySayenoff, you are so duplicitous it's funny! IF a law is useless, we should have it anyway!

On suicides: IF "guns" were the cause of "suicides", how can you explain that Japan has THE highest suicide rate in the world (and has for many years) when ALL FIREARMS are 100% ILLEGAL there? Maybe the sad reality of suicide is related to something which has NOTHING to do with the availability of firearms?

Your "body count" math is also laughable because you completely neglect the POSITIVE and LAWFUL uses of firearms. FBI stats hold true that in as FEW as 685 TIMES A DAY (meaning it can be more), law-abiding citizens use a firearm to STOP a VIOLENT CRIME. In only 19% of those cases, is the weapon even POINTED AT the perpetrator, let alone fired! The simple act of the "good guy" just brandishing the weapon stops said assault! Remember the Clackamas Mall shooting in Portland last December? The scenario was strikingly familiar; a man with a Bushmaster AR-15 and multiple high-cap. magazines walks into a mall crowded with Christmas shoppers and yet, only 2 people perish! Do you know why? Because of a citizen who was carrying a pistol. When this good citizen faced off against the crazy shooter, the next round the cowardly lunatic fired was to end his own life! How ironic that the good guy didn't even need to fire a shot to stop the "mass carnage" huh?

SeanDesmond
SeanDesmond

I can't read something that's so poorly written and cited. Yellow journalism at its finest, seriously I understand your concerns but at least do the American people justice, educate yourself on weapon terminology and legal action available to containing the mentally ill, then write on it. You should be ashamed of this being published as a journalist for a magazine and Time magazine itself.

SeanDesmond
SeanDesmond

I can't read something that's so poorly written and cited. Yellow journalism at its finest, seriously I understand your concerns but at least do the American people justice and educate yourself on weapon terminology then write on it. You should be ashamed of this being published magazine Time magazine.

shaysite
shaysite

Given the number of firearms in private hands in the U.S., the only gun restriction that is likely to substantially reduce the violence and death toll is, what would be for Americans, a solution that would be extreme, given the context of our Bill of Rights: large scale mass gun confiscation, focused particularly on handguns.

Probably Joe is right about the efficacy of diminished civil rights for the mentally ill. But do we really want to go down a road where friends and family-and not just the courts and physicians-decide who is mentally ill? Couldn't that lead to a scenario like that of the Soviet Union, where a diagnosis for "mental illness" was used for political repression?

Maybe the current situation-as bad as it is-is simply the price of freedom.

ThomasJefferson
ThomasJefferson

Joe, you essentially ADMIT that the background check issue will probably serve no purpose in reducing crime, but you go on to support it anyway! Where is the logic? You know that we CURRENTLY have the Brady Law? This federal statute IS in force on all firearm purchases whether the dealer has their own brick and mortar "shop", whether they work out of their own private residence, OR if they choose to set up shop/frequent the dreaded "gun show" circuit. This law has been in force since the Clinton admin. and it did NOTHING to prevent the mass shootings that have happened since then. So, how will this newer supposedly "better" version serve any higher purpose?

I do agree with the rest of your article which pertains to mental health issues. We need to get away from the "privacy" issue when it comes to mental health records. Mental health records SHOULD be made public so they CAN be used to disallow that person access to a firearm. Case and point: the Virgina Tech shooter. This event could have EASILY been prevented, IF the State had allowed a law which would have made that whacko's KNOWN mental health issues public. Unfortunately, Virginia did not pass the law allowing such access until AFTER that deranged person went on his killing spree. Ironically, due to the extensive lobbying done by the ACLU, the State of Connecticut FAILED to pass a similar mental health record availabily law a mere few days before the tragic events at Sandy Hook!

DeweySayenoff
DeweySayenoff

Much of the gun debate has been coached in terms of what gun control won't do. The pro-gun folks seem to delight in the fact it won't stop things.  It won't stop crime.  It won't stop murders.  It won't stop tragedies like Sandy Hook.

Duh, Captain Obvious.

Hell, we have laws against rape, murder and speeding, and they're ALL broken.  Nothing STOPS things when it comes to human behavior except death and that doesn't seem to be an option talked about because it's not terribly practical.  But just because a law can't stop something doesn't mean we shouldn't have that law.  If we pass laws banning guns, naturally those who own guns will be criminals.  It's also a duh.  

What is being overlooked, though, is the body count.  Not the headline-splashing Sandy Hooks and Virginia Techs of the country.  But the incremental daily toll of Americans dying by firearms every day - three to four Sandy Hooks EVERY DAY scattered across communities throughout the country.  That silent count totals an average of 30,000 Americans killed by firearms every year.  Hundreds of thousands are wounded.  Every year.  That's a Vietnam EVERY TWO YEARS.  A World War II every ten years.  A civil war every twenty years.

So this article also doesn't adequately answer what REALLY matters in the gun control debate.  We're NOT going to STOP Americans from killing Americans with firearms (usually by suicide - to the tune of almost 20,000 annually) no matter what we do about guns.  But we CAN and SHOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF DEAD AND WOUNDED every year.  THAT is what really matters in gun control.  REDUCING the carnage.

Stopping it was never a practical, or even possible, goal.  It's not about stopping crime, either.  It's not even about reducing crime.  It's not about personal protection (though anyone who keeps a gun in the house, based on CDC statistics, is between 5 and 20 times more likely to die from a gun than those who don't, mostly because of suicide).  It's not about gun rights at all.  It's about saving American lives who would, if not for a gun, have lived.  We can't save all of them, of course, but we'd be morally bankrupt to not even try.

THAT'S what really matters.

anothervet
anothervet

All the big leaders that want to take away my weapons have the one thing I don't and that is a security force that follows them with a cashe of weapons that would make my ar-15 seem like bringing a knife to a gun fight, they dont need any protection we pay for theres with our taxs.

JaredRains
JaredRains

Im never reading time magazine ever again to be anti gun is to be anti american its fine not to like them dont like guns dont buy em i wont judge you hell ill use mine to protect you b/c i do like them so much but dont sit there on your damn high horse thinking that your better than everyone else b/c you oppose guns our fore fathers would spit in your face and laugh you right out of the room. to support repression of the second amendment is not only unamerican it it treason want to live somewhere civilians can have guns move to china or one of the European nations that oppress the citizen to the point of no free will. who the hell do the people in office think they are to tell me how to live my life and what i can and cant do they don't follow the laws they pass why should we? We need LEADERS in office not whiny little girls whom get there feeling hurt when they cant change this country's foundations to there liking by supporting this you are saying that the lives of all the members of congress of the president and anyone else whom receives armed escorts is more important than your own a life is a life doesn't matter if your a homeless vet trying to make it through the day or the illegitimate president of the united states. i wish they could teach common sense in school.

jhoughton1
jhoughton1

"I don't think it's OK for the government to require me to check with them before selling my personal property"


When you sell a car?  


Laws against rape don't stop rape.  Laws against embezzlement don't stop embeszzlement. Laws against...fill in the blank.  Should we not have those laws because they don't, of themselves, stop crime?  Reallky, what a stupid rationale.


Hadrewsky
Hadrewsky

We have an ignorant stupid morass of morons as a nation... Id like to see a workable solution to fix stupidity and democracy for one leads to the downfall of the other... Hitler did everything he did legally via the stupidity of Wiemar Germany. (I'll admit the Brownshirts rather skated the law if we must argue" ... A stupid nation does not fix problems and we are both stupid and have a nuclear arsenal.

Ignorant voters gave us the Second World War... that is terrifying without a nuclear arsenal in the hands of an idiot democracy.



BobJan
BobJan

Gun Control:what really matters,,,,, The only thing that matters is that you keep those donations to the Congress coming. We've got the best Congress money can buy.

kratos1256
kratos1256

There is no such thing as a semi-assault rifle. Or an "assault weapon," which is a completely fictional term made up by gun control proponents. "Assault weapons" are, quite literally, whatever the politicians define them as. It's a way to let them ban whatever guns they want. It would be like banning "hate speech" but defining it however one wants. "High-capacity" magazine is also a nonsense term. Politicians arbitrarily decided to label anything over ten rounds as "high-capacity." In reality, what they are seeking to ban are what have for decades been standard-capacity magazines. Regarding why one might "need" such magazines, well for one it's not your need to keep arms, it's your right to keep arms, but also, for the same reason the police like standard-capacity magazines. You could miss, or you might need multiple shots to down the attacker, you might have multiple attackers, etc...look at the woman in Georgia who shot at the guy six times, and hit him five times, but he ran out of the house and didn't die. Just because the guy is shot doesn't mean he'll drop, and in particular if he is high on a drug or something.

Universal background checks are fine I think if it can be done without any fear of a gun registry. But thus far, it seems a gun registry would be the only way to enforce such a thing, and historically gun registries have always been used for confiscation. We saw gun confiscation occur in New Orleans, and both Feinstein and Cuomo have talked about it. So it's not like we don't have politicians that wouldn't seek to do it.

BrendanG.
BrendanG.

@freethehens And I'm tired of the apologists for lunatics being allowed to run around loose. Lock 'em up, and you'll see these "events" become a thing of the past. (But then you wouldn't have the blood of dead children to dance around in while you call for civilian disarmament, would you now?)

Concerned_Citizen
Concerned_Citizen

@freethehens The people who keep the deer population down in a manner that causes less people to die in deer related car crashes is just down right sick, your absolutely right. Do you realize how stupid that sounds? Just because you don't understand how people can get their pleasure from a gun doesn't mean you can call it a mental deficiency. If that's how you run the argument than anyone who likes reality television is mental. I would say get a hobby but then you could say anyone who doesn't share your is unstable.

Patriot54
Patriot54

Please educate yourself before you try to navigate in the real world. It took a pressure cooker and some scrap metal to kill 3 and horribly mutilate others. Over 170 people injured.  Sick people are the common denominator, not guns. Who are you to question the mental capacity of those whose opinion is different from yours. You make rediculous staements from your imaginary world and present them as reality. You are right on one point only, this should not be an issue. I have a RIGHT, you cannot take that away no matter the words you speak or write.

aztecian
aztecian

@leila53233 where is your proof you psychopath!  provide proof about all this ammunition and target practice.  stop using fear mongering and provide something real.

aztecian
aztecian

@kennonk it is 90%, but a minority of 10% is holding it back...the obstructionist, dictating to the minority that is what it has come down to.

@BK718
@BK718

@Raweno this isn't journalism. It's opinion. If you went to college, you'd know that

kratos1256
kratos1256

@ThomasJefferson The privacy issue, is, IMO, a prime example of how with the protection of freedoms in society, it comes at an expense in security. There are numerous rights and freedoms we could eliminate that would help make us more secure. Too many people are fine with infringing on other people's freedoms, but rail if anyone wants to infringe on freedoms they themselves care about. People need to respect all freedoms, and even if they believe certain things shouldn't be free, respect the other side's passion for their own belief at least.

Patriot54
Patriot54

You can throw all the numbers you like, whether or not they are accurate, which yours are not. The fact is that your opinion can never infringe on my right. It is my right and it is not yuors to take away because your opinion tells you to. That would be communism. Hint, you are in the wrong place.

kratos1256
kratos1256

@DeweySayenoff Laws making rape, murder, and speeding illegal do not take away from anyone's rights. I guess we should also make alcohol illegal as well. And sports cars. And SUVs and pickups except for those who really can justify a need for them. And also outlaw most all junk food as that kills lots of people over time each year.

If you want to reduce the carnage, you need to take into account what is causing it in the first place. It isn't guns, it is things that cause people to use guns, such as crime in the inner cities and so forth.

bryan1700
bryan1700

@DeweySayenoff Pro Gun People are pissed because these laws will not affect criminals and only law abiding people, so how can they be happy? The only people that are happy about gun control are Gun Control LibTards like you and Criminals, that make their job safer for them. And yes its about rights and we should not sacrifice our rights in exchange to be safer. The founders of this country specifically warned against it. BUT YOU ARE A LIBTARD SO THIS ALL IS CHINESE TO YOU AND DOES NOT PROCESS IN YOUR LIBTARD BRAIN.

aztecian
aztecian

@JaredRains i wish they could teach basic grammar.  you're just another gun nut!  go back to school.

DeweySayenoff
DeweySayenoff

@JaredRains To express opinions is what America is all about.  If you don't want to read Time, don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out.  You're the problem.  Not part of the solution.

JKK9852
JKK9852

@jhoughton1 There are no background checks necessary for the possession of a p*nis and there are no restrictions on the size. The laws in place only apply to the misuse of the tool.  ;)

DeweySayenoff
DeweySayenoff

@kratos1256 The argument that "historically, gun registries have always been used for confiscation" implies something that can't exist in OUR country - wholesale seizure of weapons from law-abiding citizens.

Two reasons:  First, we elect our government.  We are a democracy.  If we, as a majority, decide to ban guns, then we will.  The government can't act unilaterally - not in THIS coutnry.  Maybe in others, but we're not talking about others here, so let's try to stay on point here.

Secondly, the government doesn't give a damn about your pop-gun.  Police agencies might want to know where weapons went, but like any dangerous thing, it's a good idea to know who has what.  It makes solving crimes when (not if, but when) a gun is stolen or used in an act of violence who was supposed to possess that weapon to track down who may have used it, or taken it.  It's a good investigative tool.  But the government doesn't care.  It has much bigger, meaner and better guns than ANYTHING you have.

Gun registries help cops find criminals.  Gun seizures will never happen in this country.  

But one could make a convincing argument that people who insist on guns for personal protection (in light of the proof that guns in a house shorten the average lifespans of the residents of that house) are paranoid (Violent crime is WAY down compared to 1990, as is overall crime.), delusional (believing that a gun is an effective weapon for personal defense is delusional.  It's an offensive weapon and a very poor defensive one.) and dangerous (for carrying around a weapon designed for offense among civilians).  Paranoid, delusional and dangerous certainly qualify for inclusion on a registry of individuals banned from ever owning firearms. 

Patriot54
Patriot54

another one, the proof is easy for you to see. Look up the homeland security munitions orders on the internet or watch it on the news. Over a billion rounds ordered. No fear mongering here, just the facts. Perhaps you should look the stuff up before you try to refute it.

Patriot54
Patriot54

aztecian, not even close to 90%, more like 40%

kennonk
kennonk

@aztecian I am disputing the validity of the 90% number. I believe it to be propaganda or creative polling. There is also a Gallup poll out there today that says only 4% of Americans believe gun control to be an important issue in America today. I doubt those numbers as well.

shaysite
shaysite

Right...It comes down to how much freedom you're willing to give away, not just whether you can use restrictions to make people safer.

Patriot54
Patriot54

and yet in your post above you use bad data to make your point. Jared expressed his opinion, once again it does not agree with yours so he is the problem. If you look at it historically, those who want to change the very foundations of the country would be the problem. Now who fits that definition? Using terms like gun nut is the low brow ploy to make us feel somehow less than adequate to discuss this. Hint: not working. Should we refer to those with your opinion as communists? News flash. We respect tradition and proudly stand up for our rights.

Concerned_Citizen
Concerned_Citizen

Totally false. Canada stopped the registration of long guns because they "could not find a single instance in which a registered weapon could lead them to the perpetrator." No criminal is stupid enough to leave a registered weapon lying around. If the weapon is there it's because A: they're dead or B: it wasn't theirs to begin with and will not lead to them. And you're working against yourself. "Violent crime is WAY down compared to 1990" it has been on the decline for over 20 years. Before the last weapons ban and in the years since it ended. And @kratos1256 makes a very valid point about the fire extinguisher and carrying a weapon. No one who is familiar with a firearm is going to have a round in the chamber walking down the street, and even if by accident they did the safety would be on.

Patriot54
Patriot54

DS, I feel compelled to say it again, you will NOT! You have no authority over my rights.

kratos1256
kratos1256

@DeweySayenoff @kratos1256 Except that it has happened, as DealBreaker pointed out. And you are incorrect in three ways:

1) Having a gun in the house for protection makes one no more paranoid than having a fire extinguisher in the house makes one paranoid about a fire. Furthermore, it is your fundamental right. Just because violent crime is down doesn't mean it doesn't happen. You also harm your own argument here. If crime is way down, then protecting people's right to have guns shouldn't be a problem.

2) Your notion that it is "delusional" to believe that a gun is an effective weapon for personal defense would be news to the armed security of important people of government who carry them and police officers who carry them. Guns are very effective for self-defense and the best thing one can have for self-defense.

If someone is trying to kill you, you don't fight defensively, you fight offensively until the threat stops or is eliminated. If North Korea attacks South Korea, South Korea will fight offensively in self-defense, with offensive weapons. It isn't going to use strictly "defensive" weapons.

3) Nor is it dangerous to carry around a weapon unless one is an idiot.

Your post is an example of why the government can never be trusted regarding guns, because they make up arbitrary definitions of things to justify whatever laws they want.

DealBreaker
DealBreaker

 @DeweySayenoff @kratos1256

I cannot believe you said Gun seizures will never happen in this country.  The last time a seizure happen... it was not to long ago and it happened right after there was no law, no medical, and no help  for several days, not minutes or hours; days. 25AUG2005 - after Hurricane Katrina hit, they went house to house collecting every firearm leaving people to fend for themselves. They said only law enforcement is going to have firearms.... Did they take them from criminals......... NO. 

aztecian
aztecian

@kennonk @aztecian if you want to dispute it, bring some data to the debate, otherwise quit obstructing the will of the majority!