TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 2 °C Saturday 25 May, 2013

After Newtown massacre, Obama backs ban on assault weapons

The US president has thrown his support behind a Democratic senator’s attempts to reintroduce a ban on certain types of guns, a ban which expired eight years ago.

Image: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP/Press Association Images

US PRESIDENT BARACK Obama has thrown his weight behind a bill to reintroduce a ban on civilians owning assault weapons, in the wake of a gun massacre in an elementary school that shocked the nation.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the president would support a law proposed by Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein to prohibit the arms, defined as certain types of semi-automatic firearm with removable magazines.

“He is actively supportive of, for example, Senator Feinstein’s stated intent to revive a piece of legislation that would reinstate the assault weapons ban,” Carney said, when asked what Obama would do about gun control.

Carney said Obama would also support any move to ban high-capacity clips — magazines that hold dozens of rounds — and close the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows unlicensed individuals to sell guns privately.

Feinstein vowed on Monday to bring the bill forward, telling CNN: “It’s going to be strong, and it’s going to be definitive. And it’s going to ban by name at least 100 military-style semi-automatic assault weapons.”

Expired in 2004

A previous ten-year ban on military-style assault weapons was allowed to expire in 2004, and many US citizens have since rushed to arm themselves with semi-automatic versions of rifles like the Kalashnikov or the AR-15.

On Friday, a 20-year-old man used a Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle in an attack on a Connecticut elementary school, killing six staff and 20 children aged six or seven in a hail of high-velocity .223 rounds.

The slaughter has revived calls for stricter controls on arms in civilian hands, but Obama and Feinstein may encounter tough opposition from America’s legions of shooting enthusiasts and a well-funded pro-gun lobby.

Obama has long supported a return of the assault weapons ban, but did nothing in his first term to put his own political muscle behind attempts to revive it.

America has suffered an epidemic of gun violence over the last three decades, including 62 mass shooting sprees since 1982, three of the deadliest in the second half of this year alone.

The vast majority of weapons used have been semi-automatic handguns or military-style assault weapons obtained legally by the killers.

There were an estimated 310 million non-military firearms in the United States as of 2009, one for each citizen. People in America are 20 times more likely to be killed by a gun than is someone in another developed country.

- AFP, 2012

Read: Dogs sent to Newtown to comfort school shooting survivors

Read: Obama tells Newtown: “We will have to change”

Read next:

Comments (86 Comments)

  • Charlton Heston will be turning in his grave, “from my cold dead hand” seems appropriate now! Fair play to Obama, enough innocent people have died.

    Reply
  • Seriously WTF would anyone that’s not in a war situation need say an AK-47 for, come on like, that’s not a weapon 4 defence that’s an out an out mass murder killing machine,

    Reply
  • even for hunting nobody needs a assault rifle or a fully auto over 5 shots if you haven’t hit it by 5 just give up..we are Lucky here with our strict gun licencing

    Reply
  • Reg 18/12/12 #

    Heard that idiot McGuirk on the radio at the weekend stating that banning guns won’t change things and that the UK did little after the Hungerford and Dunblane masacres. The UK now has very strict laws like ourselves and rightly so. You at least have to make access to weapons difficult.

    Reply
  • About bloody time!

    Reply
    • Colm 18/12/12 #

      It’s definitely a step in the right direction!

      Reply
    • Feintein an Israeli who supports teachers in Israel having guns but not in US, and Obama whose drone bombing policy has murdered far more children in his time telling people to give up their rights. I can see many States telling the Feds to take a run and jump. Obama and Congress are overstepping the mark again

      Reply
  • To oppose this you’d have to be a criminal or just mad.

    Reply
  • Also jack up the price of ammo and restrict sales points. Unbelievable you can buy the stuff in Wal Mart! Slap a 95% sales tax on it too, to be used to fund rehab & counselling services for victims of gun crime.

    Reply
    • Then you’re not deterring gun crime AND just punishing responsible shooters. Think about it, most of these people expect to and do commit suicide after these massacres. The financial impact of purchasing the ammo won’t really make much of a difference.

      Reply
    • Last week a “responsible shooter” fully contributed to the death of 26 people. Sorry, no one can justify a housewife owning a weapon used in warzones.

      Reply
    • You’re still not answering my point Cathy. Why should someone who has and never will have a hostile intention towards another human being be punished when less than 0.1% of his demographic might do something wrong?

      Yes assault weapons should not be allowed. Here in the Netherlands a military weapon can be acquired, but it must be semi-automatic and there are extremely strict checks to go through. Fail any one at any time and any weapon you have will be confiscated. They do have their utility but it is usually only recreational shooters who would want one. The most available are for hunting. But basically adding a complete double charge on all ammunition like Kate is suggesting is just ridiculous and wrong. As I said why should 99.99% be punished for what 0.01% could do.

      Also Cathy he wasn’t a “responsible shooter”. He was a man with mental instability who should never have been near a firearm. It wasn’t even his, it was his mothers firearm which should not have been in the home pure and simple.

      Reply
  • why anybody thats not in a war zone would need a gun that can fire 50 to 100 a min il never understand.land of the free at what price innocent children . the american gun industry is worth billions and you can be sure that there will be people who will not want this in .its nothing to do with the right to carry arms its money and money talks

    Reply
  • When assault rifles were banned before sales of this type of weapon went through the roof. The same thing will happen again. The law that they are proposing is to ban the sale of Assault Weapons not the possession of them. So apart from making good headlines it does nothing to prevent this type of event happening again.
    And as to tougher regulations to get this form of weapon, in this case it wouldn’t have made any difference as they belonged to the killers mother. A well respected primary school teacher who just happened to like shooting.
    As horrible as this event was thankfully its rare even for America. And you would be much more likely to get shot with hand gun rather than an assault rifle in America. But nobody from Obama down will even consider a ban on the sale of these.
    Canada has similar gun owner rates to that of America and the same type of weapons are available yet these types of killing sprees are unheard of. Likewise in Switzerland every Swiss national is obliged by law to keep at least one assault rifle in their home, yet again no killing sprees. So the problem lays elsewhere other than gun ownership.

    Reply
  • Regardless of it being semi or full auto, the problem is also the clip size, which i think is also mentioned in the article. I enjoy shooting myself, but never saw the need to have an assault weapon to shoot clays or game. Gun nuts can do without in my opinion.

    Reply
  • I see both sides to this if now you take away the guns you have all the criminals who are tooled up but at the same time criminals everywhere have guns bombs with enough money in any country you can get hardcore weapons but we don’t all carry guns here we leave it to the Garda. It’s madness to have guns so readily available who’s to say if I had a gun to hand all my life I might have stupidly used it as a teen after a row/drunk. They are all for freedom in other places when I can only imagine the fear that parents feel every morning dropping there kids off to school you have your own nation living in fear while your out showing others how to run theirs. Time to step out of the dark ages a right to bear arms was great before you had a cops and phones and everything else the modern world provides. Everyone having a gun has no place in the modern world you are no long the country we all look to as the way forward you are being left behind.

    Reply
  • Hopefully some sense will come from this can’t see the republicans letting it through and then there is the likes of Fox News . http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/12/17/fox-news-gun-control-sandy-hook-newtown_n_2318431.html

    Reply
  • Didnt an American G.I massacre 13 afghani kids and mothers in their house its their culture that is the problem they have none Hollywood is their bible.

    Reply
    • ….JackD BBC world news report this am ..the lone soldier who did this “faces the death penalty” several surviving Afghanis are reported to have said there was more than one soldier involved in the killings. We will never know the truth…..

      Reply
  • when will the americans get more like the swiss? 300 years? 700?

    Reply
  • Somebody here mentioned Israel, actually each reservist in Israel (in Israel as man as woman have obligation to serve in army) have his/her weapon at home. Did you ever heard about massacres like this in Israel? I do not think so. Weapon is not something bad, bad is the human who operate it.
    What next when somebody will do massacres with axe? Forbid the axes?
    Think about it by answering yourselves what was happened when alcohol was forbidden in USA, the same will happen when firearms will be forbidden….

    Reply
  • Interesting to see the practicalities of the bill, will only the sale of new rifles be ban with currently held assault rifles be exempt under a grandfather clause, in which case their will be a rush on gun shops before the law comes into force and the continuing problem of the massive grey market in second-hand guns in the US or will current holders be required to surrender their weapons, in which case you have the problem rounding up all these weapons, including those that have been purchased second hand and hence not registered, something that will also see a massive increase before the implementation of the bill.
    It’s a step in the right direction but unless they extend Brady Bill Checks to include checks of mental health, safety training, provisions for safe storage and on others living with the potential buyer and require the checks for all transfers of ownership of a firearm instead of only for a purchase from a gun store, then they will only manage to decrease the severity of a future shooting rather then the likelihood of one occurring.

    Reply
  • I think this is attempt to do something, but not good enough to tackle the problem. So what he can ban guns that spray bullets, but still allows normal pistols etc. All he can achieve with that is perhaps to limit some nutter in number of kills per session from 20+ to maybe couple? And just an example Columbine high was in 1999 so when the ban existed and they had all sorts of guns there so ban not quite worked with them.
    You have to ban it all to make real change and this won’t happen in USA.

    Reply
  • Lets remember those 65 million people who legally own guns, that didn’t shoot anybody today, or yesterday, or ever!

    Banning guns is just another step in controlling the population!

    Why not add further regulations? Like a full health profile, and practical testing! Like a driving test!

    Reply
    • @adam reeves well said.there are millions of americans who hold legally owned firearms & are responsible with them.same with the swiss.education & health screenings are the key.there are people who shouldnt have them but unfortunately they will find a way whether they are legal or not.hitler banned guns when he came into power because an unarmed population are sitting ducks for a tyranical government.wonder how many people would have been forced into concentration camps had they all been armed.

      Reply
    • Exactly. Fact of the matter is, 56 million people have been killed by their own governments, after gun control had been implemented.

      Before you red thumb, do your research!

      Reply
    • Exactly. Fact of the matter is, 56 million people have been killed by their own governments, after gun control had been implemented.

      Before you red thumb, do your research!

      Reply
    • ….Nelson old educated chap…”yes assault weapons should not” ….correction ….” no assault weapons should not” poor grammar kind of underlines your point…..ok ready for the ear bending….Ahahaaa!

      Reply
    • …Ad…and that is a fact…read up a bit on public surveillance in America…though doubtless worldwide…a remaining problem being individual ownership of weapons…read up on the phenomena of the “Prepper” fraternity..not in USA alone apparently …along with stockpiling of food and liquid weapons and ammunition deemed essential to protect your pile!…..

      Reply
  • It is too late to ban them in the U.S. now, there are too many already in circulation.
    SchoolTeachers will have to be trained as armed security officers as part of their portfolio of qualifications.

    I can’t imagine why she had such weapons in the house anyway ,
    as a Child the Gunman’s mother said to a baby sitter ‘ Do not take your eyes of him, or turn your back on him , not even for a second’. I could understand why she would want a pistol though, with a kid like “Chucky” as a son.

    Reply
  • Excuse me if I’m wrong but I think all civilian assault riffles in the USA have to be incapable of going automatic. So I can’t see this doing much but please the mob.

    Reply
    • And can only hold a few rounds.

      Reply
    • James, you are excused. It was a simple mistake. It is a criminal offence to convert to full automatic but it is impossible to prevent that being done with very little engineering expertise. Automatics and semi automatics are not required for sport hunting unless the objective is to hunt humans down.

      Reply
    • I was just going on what a couple of Americans told me while at a shooting range over there. You’ll have to admit though with a bit of engineering skills you can make a lot of dangerous things.

      Reply
    • You’re correct about the US regulations of automatic weapons James.
      Peter… is being daft. Yes, you could make the necessary components to do the conversion (you’ll need a lot more expertise than he’s saying you will though, and a lot more equipment). You could also make bombs or cook meth. All are highly illegal and all will see you given heavy prison sentences and all have specialist law enforcement agencies tasked with enforcing the law banning them.

      Reply
  • If your going to disarm the people then you should also disarm law enforcement. Oh and by the way, do you really think banning guns in the US is going to make any difference?

    Reply
  • Anericas last great stronghold of freedom being taken away, hopefully everyone stocks up on assault rifles for their own good

    Reply
    • Barry 18/12/12 #

      The freedom to use weapons of war to mass murder people?

      Reply
    • Barry 18/12/12 #

      Given their right is to bear arms…. Please do tell where the limit to this is?

      Should they be allowing civilians to own land mines, missiles, c4 explosives? If not, why not?

      There has to be a realistic limit to what arms a civilian has access to, assault rifles and automatic weapons have no useful purpose other then in a war

      Reply
    • What has the word FREEDOM & Killing Machines got in common my friend?
      The only things that guns are designed for is killing !

      Reply
    • Why shouldnt somebody be able to own landmines, Id bet the rates of illegal scrap metal salesmen with both legs would decrease substantially.

      People should have the freedom to protect themselves, if that requires an assault rifle or landmines in their eyes then so be it.

      Reply
    • Stephen, you might want to let us know where you live. I’m a bit worried that I might accidentally set off one of your privately owned landlines.
      But seriously, you belief that ownership of assault rifles, landlines and god knows what else is an expression of freedom……..?

      Reply
    • …EddyB…whoa! Explain ….as PeeRich cannot…Olympic trap shooting …

      Reply
  • The muppet followed by more muppets has anyone commenting here actually read the US constitution , the only way he will take guns from legally held gun owners is by civil war .

    Reply
  • No point in banning those kind of guns, will just go underground.

    Reply
  • He continues to shred the constitution.

    They banned drugs, and look at how well that worked.

    They ban assault rifles and…..anyone wanna guess what happens next?

    Reply
    • Innocent children won’t be shot dead at school?

      Reply
    • I vote this the stupidest comment of the year. Actually ‘dumb’ doesn’t do it justice

      Reply
    • Michael, lock and load if you disagree. The big bad man is going to take your toys off you, I hope.

      Reply
    • jrbmc 18/12/12 #

      It’s not the guns that kill people! It’s the nuts that get there hands on them ! Change is good but unfortunately a change in law now will take several years to reap the benefits .

      Reply
    • giveitupwillya…incredibly unthinking and inane comment.

      Reply
    • Well a nut will not be able to kill as many people if he can’t get his hands on an AR-15 now will he.

      Reply
    • And if something takes a long time to do and will be difficult it’s not worth doing is it? That attitude is the same reason America is the fattest nation on earth.

      Reply
    • Because the use of class A narcotics was enshrined in the constitution. What a wonderful place it must have been. Everyone so smashed they couldn’t be bothered with guns.

      Reply
    • This comment was in response to Michael above.

      Reply
    • Michael 19/12/12 #

      Wow boildyeggs, great response, really constructive.

      Sadly, I’m going to be right on this issue, which is unfortunate. Repealing the second amendment is a knee jerk reaction that’ll only lead to higher percentages of criminals having weapons, against people who are unable to defend themselves, or to be protected.

      How bout Obama says the same things about the 150+ children he’s killed in Pakistan.

      Oh that’s right, we’ve all got rose-tinted double standards. I forgot.

      Reply
    • Michael 19/12/12 #

      Also, Paul, you are delusional to think that is a dumb comment. How about some discourse, rather that a such a childish comment.

      If my comment is “dumb” then your response must surely be a notch lower

      Reply
    • Well Michael at no time had Obama suggested repealing the 2nd amendment. He is going to look into reintroducing a ban on high powered assault rifles. If your contention is that you need such weapons to ” defend yourself” then America is truly at war with itself and these tragedies only feed the paranoia and further the cycle of violence. Unfortunately the only real winners of this are the NRA and the arms industry. Might I ask you this. Does it seem reasonable for an individual to be allowed own several handguns and assault rifles. Is the next step to arm our teachers. Do you not get how ridiculous and liberal the laws are where carrying a concealed gun is the norm. Shoot first ask questions later.

      Reply
    • I’m curious – if an assault weapons ban will fix this problem…
      …then why didn’t the more extensive assault weapons ban that Connecticut has had on its books since 1994, and which is still in force there, prevent the shooting?

      Or could it be that the problem is more complex and requires a better solution than a simple soundbyte-optimised slogan? Could it be that they need to actually sit down and talk and look at the problem and find its root cause and work on that? Could it be that both sides will have to accept compromises and work within their legal framework?

      And can posters here live with this deeply unsexy, far-too-pragmatic solution and its high chance of working if adopted?

      Or would y’all prefer to just keep slinging mud?

      http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/81/2012/12/17/124153_600.jpg

      Reply
    • Michael 19/12/12 #

      Nailed it Mark. Thank you.

      Reply
    • …EdKav….sadly this is the truth of the matter ….Ok dear red thumbs…can you imagine super powers giving up Nuclear weapons completely!? ….no of course not…

      Reply

Add New Comment