January 31st, 2013
07:35 PM ET

"Guns under fire" live blog

In a special AC360 town hall program, Anderson Cooper welcomes guests who hold strong to a variety of beliefs on guns and solutions for reducing gun violence in America. Watch "Guns under fire" at 8 and 10 p.m. ET tonight and add your voice to the conversation with a comment in the live blog or on Twitter or Google+ with #gundebate360.

Filed under: Guns • Town Hall: Guns Under Fire
soundoff (15 Responses)
  1. R Ernest

    Gun violence, let's start with the big city's like Chicago South Side. The Fed's need G Man like Ness to clean it up.
    Put GOV. money and send someone to clean it up. At the same time move on to other high crime areas and clean them up also.
    Put the gangs in their place. Spend money where it is need and take the guns out of the hands of the drug dealers, felons, and other criminals.

    February 4, 2013 at 8:16 pm |
  2. Steven Craig

    The AR-15 is a military sporter rifle for the civilian market. The difference between the AR-15 and the military M-16/M-4 series is the select fire capability of the military rifles. The AR-15 operates like any other semi-automatic rifle with each pull of the trigger firing one round.

    The AR-15 is a precision rifle with an effective range of 400-meters and a practical range of 250-meters. The basic AR-15 utilizes the .223 Remington cartridge which was a popular varmint hunting caliber before the military adopted it. It has a high muzzle velocity as do most modern rifle cartridges. The AR-15 has fairly low recoil due to the recoil buffer system intrinsic in it's design. The AR-15 is ergonomically designed for intuitive point and shoot use. It is also light weight and compact for a rifle. These features make the weapon easy to master and is well suited for smaller stature shooters including women.

    The AR-15 is a tool like any other firearm and has numerous uses. It makes a great ranch/farm gun for varmints like foxes and the like. It is a popular competition rifle that is used at shooting competitions across the country. It's attributes above also makes it ideal as a foundation weapon for self defense, by foundation I mean it is well suited for most any self defense scenario. While a handgun or shotgun may be useful for confronting a single intruder in your home. The AR-15 with a 30-round magazine is much better suited to handle a home invasion scenario with three or more armed intruders. With a 3-1 disadvantage, the AR-15 would even the playing field so to speak.

    High capacity magazines are the only feature that makes this rifle any different from other civilian hunting rifles. The AR-15 originally was sold with a twenty round magazine. With a proliferation of 30-round magazines entering the marketplace through Army surplus sources back in the early 80's, the 30-round mag has become the norm.

    The after-market has introduced ultra high capacity drum magazines with 50-100 round capacities. No serious firearms enthusiast would utilize one of these, they are cumbersome, poorly designed and notorious for malfunctions.

    February 1, 2013 at 6:22 pm |
  3. Al LaRose

    it seems as though the idea that we are obligated to do something, even if it cannot save all gun violence victims, is valid. To constantly argue 2nd amendment rights becomes a bit unreal when weapons developed for military use, and large capacity clips are part of the discussion. Our forefathers could not have forseen the developments in firearms nor the sheer numbers of U.S. residents this issue encompasses. This issue needs to be addressed in a more in depth manner than simply raising second amaendment rights. I have heard little in the way of rescinding the right to bear arms only to limit the capacity of these weapons.

    February 1, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
  4. Jerry Beck

    With only 4% of gun crimes involving rifles and the 38 special being the most common gun used to commit crimes. Why is all the attention on long guns and clips?

    February 1, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
  5. Andres G

    Will second amendment absolutists agree that the mere fact of unrestricted access to firearms by law abiding citizens is inherently risky since criminals can and will steal them from those law abiding citizens.

    January 31, 2013 at 8:27 pm |
    • Steven Craig

      Mine won't be stolen, I have a gun safe. Gun owners need to not only learn gun safety and become proficient with their use but also learn ways to secure them from unauthorized individuals.

      February 1, 2013 at 9:40 pm |
  6. ray lopez

    the gun arguments are crazy , i myself recieved a strike for a "gross neglegent dishcharge , of firearm , being a felon with the charge of duio with great bodily injury to myself , when in reality i was drunk and emotional and fired a shot into the ground as a memorial shot for my grandfather who left me the gun , well a neighbor saw me holster the gun and thought i shot at him , , so now i cannot own a gun , when every new years millions fire into the air , legal gun owners with papered legal guns , also being a machinist i cannot do my passion of gunsmithing because of this ,

    January 31, 2013 at 8:26 pm |
  7. kathy

    The trouble with relying mostly on background checks to address this problem and saying that the real problem is our mental health system is that background checks are snapshots and lives are continuums. People change, experiences and illness change people- think temporary insanity. We must disallow access to weapons that make it possible for private individuals to fire many bullets quickly.

    January 31, 2013 at 8:25 pm |
    • Steven Craig

      That would ban 99% of all modern firearms and yet the criminals that are now criminals would still have or get one. Remember drugs are illegal and yet tons of the stuff still come into this country. Ban guns and tons of them will be pouring into this country for criminal use.

      February 1, 2013 at 9:32 pm |
  8. Jan

    Raising the "economic issue" of more background checks is just plain silly – the solution is simple enough. Tax all gun sales to pay for the upgraded system a country of this wealth should already have in place. We pay gasoline taxes to finance roads, insurance companies require co-pays, etc. - user pays. Not a threat to anyone's constitutional right.

    January 31, 2013 at 8:18 pm |
    • Steven Craig

      A tax on firearms would be unconstitutional and considered an infringement. You don't have a constitutional right to gasoline!

      February 1, 2013 at 9:35 pm |
  9. Elliot

    Yea the police Chief will spend the money but can afford to keep felons in prison and off the street.
    How about building some more Prisons? Answer-- Because society does not want to spend the money.
    Severe prosecution and penalties is the answer....
    They are also way off on the support of the NRA. Do you think there is a reason the membership has grown by 250,000,000 members since Sand Hook.

    January 31, 2013 at 8:15 pm |
  10. Armir

    Gun control just hurts law abiding citizens & protects criminals because criminals DON'T FOLLOW LAWS!

    January 31, 2013 at 8:08 pm |
  11. Mary Castronuovo

    What Ms. Froman fails to point out, is that the NRA is the organization BLOCKING the studies that could show exactly who is getting guns, that shouldn't. PLEASE Anderson, ask her about the NRA's efforts to block studies, AND to cut off the ATF's authority to enforce the law!

    January 31, 2013 at 8:08 pm |
  12. Damien

    We don't need gun control..we need anti-depressants control.

    January 31, 2013 at 8:04 pm |