Obama's gun violence measures: Would they work?
January 16th, 2013
08:41 PM ET
10 years ago

Obama's gun violence measures: Would they work?

Washington (CNN) - President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed a package of measures intended to reduce gun violence in the wake of the Newtown school massacre last month.

Some of the steps have been tried before and others are expansions of laws and policies already in place. Some face high hurdles in Congress.

Will they work? Here's a look at some of the key measures:


Filed under: Gun rights • President Obama
soundoff (22 Responses)
  1. ltnet356

    The short answer is NO. Anyone who believes they will is fooling themselves.

    January 16, 2013 08:57 pm at 8:57 pm |
  2. mb

    I'm against more gun control for the most part. But the background checks at all gun sales just makes sense. It would protect the gun dealer so he didn't have to deal with someone saying they sold a gun to a felon, or someone with mental problems. And I'm a gun owner and a parent, I keep my guns in a gun safe so my kids can't get to them, my wife and I are the only ones with the combination to get in. And if someone were to break into my house my guns are safe from the average criminal. So I think every gun owner should keep their guns in a safe to keep them secure from kids, and to make it very hard for most criminals to get to. I don't think there should be a law saying you should do this, but its just common sense to protect yourself, and if less criminals could get to your guns if they broke into your house this would take a lot of heat off the average gun owner.

    January 16, 2013 09:36 pm at 9:36 pm |
  3. Dominic K.

    Even if new gun regulations are passed criminals who want to kill will find a way. Cocaine has been illegal for how long? And how hard is it to get? We need to enforce our existing laws better.

    January 16, 2013 09:47 pm at 9:47 pm |
  4. S.B. Stein E.B. NJ

    They are better than what we have now. Something more needs to be done. The NRA doesn't understand that there needs to be some level of restraint. Not everyone should have a weapon. Not all weapons should be available to the public. Civilians don't need automatic weapons that fire 30 rounds in mere seconds.

    January 16, 2013 10:17 pm at 10:17 pm |
  5. Dan5404

    They will evenually work if made universal so that the red states don't illegally arm the other states with undocumented weapons. 40% of guns have no background checks right now. Piecemeal state-by-state patchwork doesn't control anything. Stricter regulations on types of guns, amounts of ammo and size of magazines will go a long way to start halting this disgusting self-destruction. Get some guts, Congress, do what's right instead of what is good for re-election so you can do nothing for another term.

    January 16, 2013 10:48 pm at 10:48 pm |
  6. alex zaremsky

    I do not think personally these policies are gonna work. They haven't in the past. The criminals and mentally filled people who they are trying to keep from getting guns and ammo does not care about laws so they will still get it one way or the other. And now these policies is gonna take guns away from law abiding citizens so that these robbers, murderers and such can have an easier target. I voted for Obama and trying to be positive about it but I might regret voting for him now....... take away assault weapons and large ammo clips just don't take away our handguns for personal protection.

    January 16, 2013 10:56 pm at 10:56 pm |
  7. California Ind.

    Obama's war on America continues.................................

    January 16, 2013 11:19 pm at 11:19 pm |
  8. Larry L

    Another way to look at the situation is to ask the question "if they are not implemented will anything improve"? What do we have to lose by implementing these changes? Second Amendment rights are not infringed in any way. Lives very well could be saved. So the gun lobby sells fewer high capacity magazines and fewer military-type weapons? So what? The President's executive orders don't really address these issues anyway. Let the Congress represent the people!

    January 16, 2013 11:49 pm at 11:49 pm |
  9. ThinkAgain

    You know, for a bunch of people who are so afraid of "government tyranny," why is the NRA and its supporters calling for armed guards in every public school – all of which are, by definition, an extension of the government?

    Where's the guarantee that the NRA isn't just trying to put in place their own army so they can take over our schools and communities?

    Just thought I'd throw out that bone for the conspiracy nuts to chew on ... I wouldn't put it past the NRA, though ...

    January 17, 2013 01:44 am at 1:44 am |
  10. Gurgyl

    Nothing wrong. They work. Nation is getting more educated. They work. We do need education–not guns.

    January 17, 2013 06:26 am at 6:26 am |
  11. Name lynn

    If what obama putting on the table is not going to work, then the people that is during all the talkng why dont you all tell obama what to do an say about the gun laws. Then it will work out for everyone.

    January 17, 2013 06:35 am at 6:35 am |
  12. Marie MD

    The new measures make sense. There's is nothing about taking away guns just 10 rounds per clip, universal background checks, money for mental health care, better weapons for our police force,
    Then we have the president of the nra (they need to really keep their traps closed) saying that the commercial mentioning the President and his children is NOT about his children.
    First the slobering fool on Meet the Press and now this guy. The nra and limberger are faux news should be boycotted. Don't buy the products and let the companies know why you won't.

    January 17, 2013 06:43 am at 6:43 am |
  13. Gregory M. Newbold

    Whether the topic is Gun Violence or Deficit Reduction, there are no slam dunk answers. As a leader, a President must move things in the right direction and it will be a combination of all those initiatives that SPECIAL INTERESTS say won`t work, that actually will solve these problems.

    Regulating weapons will reduce death from gun violence.

    Banning assault weapons worked in Australia.

    Limiting large ammo magazines will increase the opportunities for the shooter to be disarmed or killed.

    Waiting periods and Mandatory background checks would reduce guns being trafficked to criminals.

    Draw a line in the middle and decide whether or not something pushes things in the right or wrong direction. Enough nudges in the right direction and we will get results.

    January 17, 2013 07:17 am at 7:17 am |
  14. Frank - FL

    No. It is all about politics. Period. No serious discussion.

    January 17, 2013 07:44 am at 7:44 am |
  15. Rudy NYC

    I hope someone has the common sense to put forward the common sense stuff first, without the encumbering the legislation with hot button issues like an assault weapon ban. I doubt it.

    January 17, 2013 08:10 am at 8:10 am |
  16. Rick McDaniel


    We have done the assault rifle ban before, and gun violence actually ticked up slightly.

    None of the rest will make a difference either.

    The only way to change it, is to change the way people behave.......and I don't see anyone really trying to do that, ESPECIALLY Dem socialists!

    January 17, 2013 08:55 am at 8:55 am |
  17. GuestAgain

    Of course they will work...at making the legal purchase of firearms unnecessarily more diificult for law abiding citizens. Does it stop or even slow down criminal activity? Not even close.

    January 17, 2013 09:05 am at 9:05 am |
  18. steve

    Would they work? Probably not. But they will make the sheeple feel better!

    January 17, 2013 09:06 am at 9:06 am |
  19. Wake up People!

    My grandmother was a very smart lady and as I get older all the things she used to tell me cross my mind. She used to always say, " Nothing beats a failure but a try."

    There is a gun violence problem and we have to start somewhere.

    January 17, 2013 09:08 am at 9:08 am |
  20. GonzoinHouston

    Not really. We do need some intelligent gun control in this country, but banning assault rifles won't help much. The perps in school shootings put a lot of time and planning into their rampages. The assault rifle ban will make it more difficult, but not impossible, for them to assemble the arsenal they want.

    One problem that will be affected by a ban is the shipment of assault rifles to Mexico for the cartels. While this is good, it won't do much in this country.

    "Gun violence" is too broad of a term. There are at least 4 major areas that need specific and unrelated actions:

    School and rampage shootings
    One-on-one murders
    Suicides by firearm
    Exports to drug cartels.

    Now, how will an assault rifle ban effect each of those?

    January 17, 2013 09:09 am at 9:09 am |
  21. Canuck

    It's too late – the horse left the barn long ago, there are already millions and millions of guns out there in the US. Not the kind of society I want to live in where everybody seems scared of everybody else.

    January 17, 2013 10:02 am at 10:02 am |
  22. Bob Abbott

    Listening to CNN Live this morning about the President's use of children in his address yesterday and the NRA response. Commentators are arguing about the use of children to create drama. I believe the media needs to take responsibility here. Every program is dramatizing the news for the purposes of bolstering ratings. What has happened to accurate reporting of the facts? Media's dramatic and slanted reporting confuses the public. Let's get back to the basics of goog journalism.

    January 17, 2013 10:39 am at 10:39 am |