OH - Gun-rights advocates dominate assault weapons hearing

[FWiedner]

Gun-rights advocates dominate Columbus assault weapons hearing


Columbus police officer Mark J. Johnson, who was first on the scene in a recent shooting involving a criminal with a semi-automatic AK-47, testified Thursday at a Columbus City Council hearing that he is opposed to a ban on such firearms.

From the Columbus Dispatch:


A ban wouldn’t have prevented the incident, he said at a hearing last night on assault weapons.

Criminals will continue to get their hands on such weapons, ban opponents have said.

"An outright ban would hurt law-abiding citizens," Johnson, a 37-year-old Navy reservist, said after the hearing.
Also testifying was a member of the Ohio National Guard, who informed council members he gets nearly all of his range-training in not while on duty with the Guard, but rather with a semi-automatic version of his military rifle, which he purchased with his own money and which he practices with on his own time.

Speakers offering testimony opposing a proposed Columbus assault weapons ban out-numbered supporters at the hearing more than 5 to 1.

Dr. Jonathan Groner, the trauma medical director at Children’s Hospital, told council members that assault weapons should be banned because "their only purpose is killing people." His testimony was questioned by speakers, including one who described the target shooting competition held each year at Ohio's Camp Perry.

Groner also told council people that trauma surgeons rarely treat people with wounds from assault weapons because they are usually fatal. But the truth, of course, is that people are rarely injured with these firearms. Guns defined as "assault weapons" are used in only about 1% of violent crimes.

Rosetta Craig, a coalition member from the Cleveland suburb of Shaker Heights, said her definition of an assault weapon is simple: "Guns that carry a lot of bullets."

"Do you need an assault weapon to protect your family?" Craig asked.

In their coverage of the hearing, both the Dispatch and Columbus's 10TV noted that those advocating gun-rights were clearly in the majority among people attending the forum.

Although two other hearings had been held, few had attended. After a postcard mailing by the NRA, and email alert and website coverage by OFCC and the OFCC PAC, however, the third and final hearing was packed with more than 50 people.

The measure was tabled, but it is likely Columbus Councilman Michael C. Mentel will continue to push the issue.


http://www.ohioccw.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2886

[mjbgalt]

when will these mush minded idiots ever figure out that the point ISN'T what we NEED.

the point is that its a RIGHT we have guaranteed by the constitution. has nothing to do with NEED.

stupid idiots. or deeply corrupt sickos. either way we dont NEED them.


i usually get the "need" argument from people driving expensive cars or wearing jewelry. i ask them if they NEED their toys. they say no, and i offer to make a law to take em away.

instead of seeing the logic they usually get mad and tell me how stupid i am.

coming from them it appears that may be a compliment.

-Matt

[FWiedner]

mjbgalt;

I understand your point in the context and spirit within which it was delivered.

The needs vs. rights argument, It ain't the Bill of Needs, etc.

But, We NEED to maintain the tools to force a tyrannical government to comply with, and surrender to, the will of The People.  When the vote fails, The People will NEED arms, and when we NEED them ain't the time to be wishin' that we had them.

Thanks to the wisdom of the founders, we have our right to keep and bear those tools in arms that we'll NEED, acknowledged within the foundation of our law.

Not an argument against your point, just an attempt to discuss the fact that they may not understand their own NEEDS.