by Jeff Poor, 9 Jan 13
On Wednesday’s “Special Report,” Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer acknowledged a link between gun ownership and gun violence, but said Americans would revolt if Congress implemented sweeping, unprecedented gun control legislation.
“I think we are going to end up exactly where we started,” Krauthammer said. “We’re probably going to try an assault weapons ban. It will be a little bit tighter, but it didn’t work. It lasted for 10 years … If we had honest debate, the gun owners would admit, ‘Yes of course, guns contribute to homicide.’ …Japanhad 11 gun homicides last year. That is a weekend inChicago.”
The U.S. Constitution precludes aggressive gun control laws like those in Britainor Australia, Krauthammer said. (RELATED VIDEO: Pat Buchanan warns of revolution if government attempts to ban and confiscate firearms)
“We have a 200-year history and culture of gun ownership,” he continued. “We have a Second Amendment. … So unless you are willing to confiscate [guns] — which would be unconstitutional, and would cause insurrection in the country, [as] Australia did — these things will not have an effect, except at the margins. That is the tragedy here.”
"During Fox News’ “Special Report” Wednesday night, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said no proposed assault weapons ban will have a significant impact on gun violence — unless the federal government is willing to violate the Constitution and confiscate all the guns.
“I think we are going to end up exactly where we started,” Krauthammer said, referring to the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.
He said an assault weapons ban might make laws tighter, but statistics show such a ban does not actually decrease gun violence. If theU.S.were to have an “honest” debate about guns, he said, “gun owners would admit that yes, of course the guns contribute to homicide.”
Krauthammer noted thatJapanhad just 11 gun homicides last year, and “that’s a weekend inChicago.”
“We have a system that believes the rights, the Second Amendment, in other words, predate the Republic,” he said. “And the point of having a government as in the Declaration is to secure the rights. InBritainyou have no such right.”
“So unless you’re willing to confiscate, which would be unconstitutional and would cause an insurrection…these things are not going to have an effect, except at the margins,” he concluded...."
I would agree that people will not accept a sweeping ban on gun ownership; we are based on the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment is a vital part of that document; after all, gun ownership and the militia was the 2nd item to be considered so that does show it was rather important to the founding fathers, too.
A couple points here on the Krauthammer comments: First. the population of Japan is not the population of the US where there is a "diversity" of people, backgrounds, and ethnic groups which Japan does not have. In addition, much of the killings in the US are gang and criminal activity related and that also has ties to certain population groups with some being people here illegally. Second, let's also keep in mind the history of the US where the country came into being via a revolution and much distrust of a central authority. Keep in mind as well that the militia of the time of the Revolution and for the century that followed the Revolution and the adoption of the Constitution was armed the same as the Regular Army so the intent seems to have been to keep the population and the government on a par. It must be remembered, too, that the first action of the Revolutionary War was a response by the colonial population to an attempt by the British to seize the arms and ammunition of the colonists. When I hear the blather that the Founding Fathers "never imaged such things as "assault weapons"". why does anyone think that they would have had an objection to real military weapons in civilian hands under the aspects of the Second Amendment? Please spare me the "nuke' response since those have only been used twice in history and are not population control weapons but strategic power projection weapons as are aircraft carriers and subs for example. Now perhaps we should be concerned, however, with this administration's love of drones and push to provide population controlling armored vehicles to "law enforcement" groups when coupled with Dear Leader's comments about a "domestic force equal to the military" and what that is intended to do.
I love Charles Krauthammer. I watch him every evening....he's stellar....always on the mark.
Diane: I wonder, and you might know this; if Charlie K has mentione the subject of Rape Prevention. In particular, I refer to this article, concerning college gals, but it could mean anyone, anywhere at any time. What do you think???
- From (email):
You probably didn't really need more email, but anyhoo...
The sender of this email thought you might find the following article worth reading:
- Story Title:Indiana Lawmaker: More Guns Will Prevent Rapes On Campus
With the recent school shooting in Connecticut still fresh in people’s minds, the push for new gun laws and policies continues this week in Indiana where State Senator Jim Banks (R-Columbia City) has introduced a bill that would pave the way to get more guns on college campuses.
His rationale? Banks argued that allowing college students to carry concealed weapons will protect women from sexual assault.
Though the prospects of the bill being passed by Indiana’s General Assembly this year are small, Banks said the idea has support from the local members of Students for Concealed Carry, a national organization that has played a leading role in the push for campuses to allow students to carry guns. He also specifically mentioned that the organization has a large membership of female students (though he didn't give a specific number) concerned about campus safety.
This post was modified from its original form on 11 Jan, 8:00
"That's what's compelling about this issue, is how many female students there are around the state, who have very specific and real reasons to be afraid for their own safety on their campus," he said.
Most colleges shave strict policies forbidding guns on campus but efforts by groups like Student for Concealed Carry are starting to turn the tide. In just the last two years, colleges in four states sanctioned policies permitting guns on campus.
However, as NPR’s Indiana affiliate reported, the nature of sexual crimes committed on college campuses limits the likely effectiveness of a carrying a concealed weapon as a means to prevent sexual assault.
Debbie Melloan, a counselor at Indianan University’s Sexual Assault Services Center explained that “most sexual assaults happen between people who know one another,” making the willingness and likelihood of someone shooting a known attacker very slim. In fact, about two-thirds of sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the survivor or victim.
And on the larger question of guns on campuses, Garen Wintemute, a public health researcher at the University of California, Davis, has said that the chances that more guns in schools would keep anyone safer is "vanishingly small."
This isn’t the first time that women have been told that carrying a gun will keep them safe. When a South Carolina woman was kidnapped and sexually assaulted in November 2011, Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright told women in the community to “get a firearm” and conceal it in their fanny packs. Wright specifically mentioned a particular kind of small pistol, adding that “You ain’t got to be accurate. You just have to get close.”
Critics point to examples of guns actually putting victims in greater danger. A University of Pennsylvania study found that not only did guns fail to protect those carrying them, they were more likely to be used against them. People were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.
And as Tara Culp-Ressler at ThinkProgress notes, while conservatives like Banks are pushing for looser gun laws like this “under the guise of &lsquorotecting women,’” more attention should be focused on increasing education about rape culture on college campuses.
Further, what is so often ignored in these debates is the underlying problem of unhealthy attitudes toward women and the inadequate responses of school officials to sexual assaults. With three recent examples at Amherst, Boston University, and University of Missoula, there can be no doubt that action is needed now.
Campus safety is a serious issue and colleges and universities need to do more to help prevent sexual assaults. Whether or not letting students carry guns on campus is the answer is something each school will need to consider carefully.
This post was modified from its original form on 11 Jan, 8:04
Sorry, I misjudged the size, but in completion of the Krauthammer post, it ends as follows:
Abraham White is a communications associate at Campus Progress. Follow him on Twitter @abwhite7.
Not sure that I would support this. With all the drinking that takes place on college campuses, the sometimes poorly supervised "Greek Row", etc., and considering that there are just barely 18 year olds on college campuses and even 19 year olds, I would think that this could be highly risky. I realize that there are 18 and 19 year olds in the military but they are highly trained in weapons, much more so than the average 18 and 19 year old college student would be. I would prefer that they have more armed security forces on college compuses and that they be very visible rather than hiring college students who need a job to do this and unarmed on top of that.
To this I would add that co-ed dormatories are not necessarily as safe, either as you can have male and female students wandering the halls and most people would not question them while all girl dorms would immediately question a male in the dorm.
But concealed carry for college students, not smart IMO.