Nevada Public Radio Listen Live

"BBC's World Service"
Facebook Twitter Follow Nevada Public Radio

Support Nevada Public Radio
KNPR's State of Nevada About SON Archives Participate Specials

Gun Control: What's Next?
Gun Control: What's Next?

AIR DATE: January 7, 2013

After the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, lawmakers in Nevada and across the country are starting to consider some restrictions to the types of guns that can be sold to the public. Even in gun-friendly Nevada, lawmakers are proposing changes. We'll talk about some of those laws, and what they might mean for Southern Nevada.
Margot Bennett, executive director, Women Against Gun Violence
William Horne, assemblyman, Nevada Legislature
Bob Irwin, owner, The Gun Store
Dave Workman, senior editor, The Second Amendment Foundation


    comments powered by Disqus
    Those who think that ordinary citizens should not have military equipment and guns are naively ignorant of history, for democide - mostly genocide and politicide, but in any case death by the hands of one's own government as that government seeks power and control over its citizens - is by far the largest killer of people, dwarfing the number killed by wars, criminals or other gun crime; estimates of just 20th century democide run to nearly 200 million murders by the police and armies of the State. Our 2nd Amendment was wisely intended allow American citizens to arm themselves against such a tyrannical government. And, like it or not, political theory - backed up by all of history - indicates that the natural progression of *all* governments is from liberty to tyranny. Bottom line, owning weapons equivalent to those used by the police and military is essential to continued liberty!
    Tom HurstJan 3, 2013 04:46:00 AM
    I love your show, and the democratic process. However I do feel that there is an inherent bias to the gun lobby, when two of your panel are professionals involved in the gun industry vs one who is against gun violence. So it'd be nice to see a little more balance in panel selection. In the creative process to find solutions naysaying just doesnt work. The pro gun lobby to be very weak in recommending any kind of solution, and they never seem to take accountability or responsibility for their part in the issue. So the person who manufactures and sells the guns/the bullets are part of the process. I wonder if they have the humility to accept their part in the responsibility of a tragic event, and would they have done anything different in the situation with hindsight? Do they have the right to refuse service, refuse to sell a gun/ammo to someone? and do they exercise that right? Can they share their concerns with the authorities?
    Ian WhiteJan 2, 2013 10:44:05 AM
    Bob While I agree that it is implausible to eliminate guns from the U.S ,please don't drag out that old tired arguement that people in countries like Australia where all gun ownership is banned ,are sitting ducks and that home invasion has gone through the roof. It's simply not true The fact is that you are 10 times less likely to be killed with a gun in Australia. Since the gun buy back scheme in Australia was put into effect the crime rate has steadily declined and the number of massacres has gone to zero. The NRA likes to claim that gun deaths in the state of Victoria jumped by 50% the year after guns were banned but the truth is that gun deaths went from 12 in 1996 to 18 in 1997 and back to 12 in 1998. That little anomaly only occurred because of a string of murders within one crime family and it was all criminals that were killed. Stop making yourself look ignorant by claiming that crime and home invasions are out of control in Australia when the facts just don't support this arguement
    Paul HurleyJan 2, 2013 10:37:08 AM
    Violent crime rates are considerably higher in Australia than in the U.S. Fact check it yourself. Not that I understand why anyone would think that comparing a country of 22.6 million to a country of 312 million is particularly valid.
    Ty DoramJan 2, 2013 12:49:46 PM
    Ty Doran 1/ Not true - the gun death rate in Australia is 1.1 per 100 ,000 vs USA 10 per 100,000 so you should check your facts. 2/ 22 million or not I was talking about 'RATE' of gun deaths not number so that makes America about 10 times more dangerous than other countries with similar cultures.
    P from AustraliaJan 10, 2013 23:24:17 PM
    I have so much to say on this subject, because I have experienced life in a country which is pretty much gun free (England), as well as living here. The sense of peace and lack of concern about getting shot, due to the lack of gun ownership is a really nice thing to experience. Here we need action, not discussion leading to nothing: 1) Competency test for gun ownership would be ideal, failing that registration of all gun sales and guns owned even by individuals would be a minimum requirement. 2) Gun storage laws, with severe penalties. If your gun is used in a crime and you havent reported it stolen, you get a life sentence. 3) Limited sales of ammunition would be ideal, registered sales would be a necessary minimum. 4) We dont let individuals buy tanks or nukes, so why would they need a clip of ammo that has more than ten bullets, they wouldnt. Limit the size of a clip. With better registration, testing of competancy, required gun storage, limited access to ammo, would all go along way to limiting access to guns, and incentivize individuals who own guns to restrict others actions to them. If we dont do this we return to the wild west mentality, and everyone carries out of fear.
    Ian WhiteJan 2, 2013 10:30:16 AM
    I am a mother, grandmother and teacher - I hate guns! However, my understanding is that our right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment has less to do with shooting squirrels and more with our right to overthrow a corrupt government. According to the Declaration of Independence..."Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." -- It would be tragic that if a far distant time ever came that required citizens to rise up against an oppressive gov't, we had given up our right to weapons. Our rights were hard won with blood and sacrifice of our ancestors - once gone they are almost impossible to regain. Although I choose not to own a gun, it gives me a sense of security knowing there are others who do have guns in the community. And I do not want to give up my right. or my grandchildren's right to buy a gun if we felt the need. Laws need to be addressed to help the mentally ill.
    Patty EllsworthJan 2, 2013 10:02:03 AM
    Broadcasted on BBC America, there were 9,000 deaths in the US in 2012. The English speaking countries less than 50 for 2012. I owen a gun. However, my gun will not shoot over 6 bullets at one time.
    Marsha HorwathJan 2, 2013 09:57:07 AM
    Great comment, Marsha. In 2012 alone, there have been 151 victims of mass shootings. We can do better.
    LisaJan 2, 2013 10:05:04 AM
    Evil exists in the world and will always find a way. We believe guns are instruments of peace and help to level the playing field, matching power with power. However, ownership is not enough....conscientious and law abiding gun owners know the incredible responsibility ownership imposes and are constantly vigilant about firearms safety and training. Taking away these citizens' rights does not make anyone safer, it cripples the nation and gives an advantage to criminals that use these tools for evil.
    Lauren BoitelJan 2, 2013 09:54:03 AM
    Hear the repeated insistence on doing NOTHING? They don't want to close the gun show loopholes, they don't want to require background checks on person-to-person sales. Isn't THAT crazy? Now, the Republicans in the NV legislature want to say no to having more professional police officers in our schools, but yes to having amatuers carry guns next to kids in schools because it COSTS MONEY TO HAVE PROFESSIONALS! Doesn't that show where their priorities are? Money over our kids. Wow.
    Jim in HendersonJan 2, 2013 09:44:57 AM
    I do not believe the majority of individuals want to ban all guns, but the undeniable fact is that assault weapons were designed to kill people (ie. war). The US population is not prepared to pay the taxes required to address mental health issues (the irony that many of the individuals happen to be the less government/no taxes individuals). The NRA's own insurance material claims to have a membership of approximately 3 million members which is about 1% of the US population, yet are driving legislation???
    MichelleJan 2, 2013 09:38:25 AM
    Typical gun nut response: DO NOTHING! Let more children die! Doesn't this guy make you sick?
    Jim in HendersonJan 2, 2013 09:20:19 AM
    The problem is that none of what is being proposed would have prevented these tragedies. What would you do to prevent the tragedies? Legislation that accomplishes nothing for the sake of feeling good is worse than doing nothing.
    Ty DoramJan 2, 2013 12:56:18 PM
    Ty If this nut didn't have access to that assault rifle he would have either have had to buy one on the black market, which seems unlikely for a coward like that to do, or he would have entered the school with hand guns. Doubtful he would have the accuracy or speed needed to kill 26 people with a handgun. Why are you gun nuts so set on avoiding any kind of control, even a little bit of control of assault weapons may help a little.
    P HJan 10, 2013 23:31:51 PM
    I feel the need to point out the hypocrisy of opposing armed guards at schools. The Obama children have armed guards at the Sidwell Friends School that they attend. What is the message here? That his children are worthy of protection but yours are not?
    Lori BlainJan 2, 2013 08:10:33 AM
    Obama's children go to a private school. Parents pay extra for that security. Nevada legislatures don't possess the gumption to require casinos and mining to contribute tax monies on par to other states. We have one of the lowest spent per student as it is, how are we going to pay for security. Please!!!!
    MichelleJan 2, 2013 09:51:27 AM
    With all due respect, Columbine had armed guards, and it did not prevent the massacre there. The only solution is making it harder for people to get their hands on assault weapons that can wreak that much havoc and carnage in so little time. Since Australia has banned assault rifles and instituted a buy-back program, mass shootings have been non-existent. They and other industrialized countries with better gun control have no fewer mentally ill or crime or violent individuals, they just have fewer guns. And guess what? They don't have anywhere near the gun violence, particularly mass shootings that we have. Do we really want to admit that we cannot solve our problems and protect our children the way other countries can?
    Lisa BaileyJan 2, 2013 09:51:43 AM
    Columbine had armed guards too. Didn't work
    JackieJan 2, 2013 20:24:17 PM
    To argue that reducing guns reduces crime is an absolute fallacy. Gun control advocates enjoy comparing the United States to the United Kingdom and Australia. But if you compare the unbiased official numbers regarding violent crime here's what you'll find. According to the British Home Office there were 747,000 reported instances of violent crime between June 2011 - June 2012. In a country of 62.5 million That's a rate of 1195.2 per 100k. Compare that to 386.3 per 100k in 2011 in the U.S. as reported by the FBI. And please stop trying to compare us to Australia. Their violent crime rate for 2007 (the latest data that I could find)was ~1022 per 100k. The numbers speak for themselves.
    Ty DoramJan 2, 2013 06:16:40 AM
    "...evidence from studies of U.S. cities, states and regions is quite consistent & where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates. Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts.
    LisaJan 2, 2013 10:02:49 AM
    You do understand the difference between gun homicides rates and violent crime, correct?
    Ty DoramJan 2, 2013 12:34:44 PM
    You understand that one doesn't need an assault rifle to protect against violent crime, right? In fact, a dog is just as good a deterrent, especially considering that when one has a gun in the home, his or her chances of being hurt by that gun (or a family member being hurt by that gun) become a far greater risk than that of an intruder.
    LisaJan 2, 2013 18:58:36 PM
    I don't own an assault rifle. If I did, it's not up to you to tell me why I do or do not need one. Rifles kill ~300 people a year according to FBI data. That's all rifles, not just assault. Assault rifles are nothing but a red herring. It's disingenuous of you to point the finger at rifles when pistols kill so many more people. Why not just admit that you want to ban all guns? And if you do admit that please see my original post.
    Ty DoramJan 2, 2013 19:26:45 PM
    Ty Violent crime is not the same as murder. Australia has a much higher rate of reporting violent crime as does the UK, being pushed by a drunk in a bar counts as violent crime. In the US the police are so overworked that violent crime often isn't documented at all. Besides we're talking about murder not assault or road rage.
    P HJan 10, 2013 23:37:59 PM
    Recent tragic events aside, legislators in Nevada and elsewhere need to understand and accept the true intent of the 2nd Amendment: it's not to protect our right to hunt, or necessarily even to allow us to defend ourselves against criminals, but was in fact intended to allow citizens to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. The Founders insisted on this because they knew the lessons of history, which is that the natural tendency of *all* government is towards tyranny and away from liberty; and that history continues everywhere - including America - to this day. So, without question, the people should have the same weapons that police and the military have, period. As Franklin famously stated, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Indeed, all the gun control laws in the world cannot stop a nut from doing harm, but taking away our liberty always diminishes our humanity.
    Tim HuntJan 1, 2013 15:51:31 PM
    William Horne will be the next governer
    James E.Dec 29, 2012 03:09:24 AM
    Web hosting facilities provided by Switch.