A little common sense and gun control?

[EagleFan]

Boy held hostage in bunker after being snatched from school bus - U.S. News (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/30/16759153-boy-held-hostage-in-bunker-after-being-snatched-from-school-bus)

One killed, two wounded at Phoenix office complex; gunman still at large - U.S. News (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/30/16774838-one-killed-two-wounded-at-phoenix-office-complex-gunman-still-at-large?lite)

Teen girl who performed at president’s inaugural events fatally shot on Chicago’s South Side. - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/teen-girl-who-performed-at-presidents-inaugural-events-fatally-shot-on-chicagos-south-side/2013/01/30/82cbffbe-6ae5-11e2-9a0b-db931670f35d_story.html)


More violence, still no answers. There needs to be a compromise on both sides but only the whackos are running the show for each side.

If I own a dog that gets loose because of my negligence and kills someone I would be in more trouble than if I owned a gun that got taken because of my negligence and used in a murder.

Again, there needs to be common sense on both sides.

[Buccaneer]

53 people in Chicago (and 31 in Philly) were killed by guns since Newtown. But I guess they don't count since none of them (I think) were by semi-automatics and automatics. I still say you have to attack the root cause of the culture of violence in the inner-cities, else any legislation will be meaningless in the number of gun deaths.

[TroyF]

Boy held hostage in bunker after being snatched from school bus - U.S. News (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/30/16759153-boy-held-hostage-in-bunker-after-being-snatched-from-school-bus)

One killed, two wounded at Phoenix office complex; gunman still at large - U.S. News (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/30/16774838-one-killed-two-wounded-at-phoenix-office-complex-gunman-still-at-large?lite)

Teen girl who performed at president’s inaugural events fatally shot on Chicago’s South Side. - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/teen-girl-who-performed-at-presidents-inaugural-events-fatally-shot-on-chicagos-south-side/2013/01/30/82cbffbe-6ae5-11e2-9a0b-db931670f35d_story.html)


More violence, still no answers. There needs to be a compromise on both sides but only the whackos are running the show for each side.

If I own a dog that gets loose because of my negligence and kills someone I would be in more trouble than if I owned a gun that got taken because of my negligence and used in a murder.

Again, there needs to be common sense on both sides.

All these things do is show how we can never prepare for these things. (before either side jumps on me here, I'm in the middle here. I don't really have a problem with the Obama gun control measures)

We have a 70 year old guy who snaps due to a petty squabble at work.
A 65 year old guy who was a nut job, storm a school bus. (ok, quick, think off all the 65 year old who are off kilter that you have known in your life. How many should have been arrested?)

Then a teen/young male firing at a group of teens getting shelter from the rain. I'm going to assume gang related, but pick your own cause.

How many of those do the compromises stop? Possibly the 65 year old nut job. The 70 year old guy who snapped? No. The kid who jumped the fence and fired into the crowd with a pistol? Not likely. One, it was a handgun, two it was a young adult/teen. So either he shouldn't have had the gun and got it through illegal means or he has no criminal history and was eligible to buy one.

And there is what is so frustrating about this debate. .. on both sides. There is no "catch all" solution here. The simple reality is we don't have the ability to figure out who is and who isn't a risk. Bath, Michigan happened in 1927. HH Holmes slaughtered many young women (and children) in the 1800's. Ed Gein was killing in the 1950's.

McDonalds in San Ysidro happened in 1984. Luby's in 1991. Pick a decade, any decade. . . you'll find this stuff. It is nothing new and it will not stop, no matter what laws we put into place.

[CraigSca]

Oh, and if this doesn't irritate the heck out of you - regarding the current gun laws on the docket that are to prevent the violent mentally ill from purchasing guns...

How the violent mentally ill can buy guns - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/health/mental-illness-guns/index.html)

[Toddzilla]

In before the lock...

o/u on number of boxings resulting from this thread is set at 2 1/2

[bhlloy]

Oh, and if this doesn't irritate the heck out of you - regarding the current gun laws on the docket that are to prevent the violent mentally ill from purchasing guns...

How the violent mentally ill can buy guns - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/health/mental-illness-guns/index.html)

I read that earlier and it absolutely infuriated me. It's time to start making people criminally responsible for this shit. If you are the head of some agency responsible for contributing to this database, and you don't do it, and that ends up in a mentally ill person you should have flagged shooting up a school, you just ended up with 10 murder charges.

[molson]

Oh, and if this doesn't irritate the heck out of you - regarding the current gun laws on the docket that are to prevent the violent mentally ill from purchasing guns...

How the violent mentally ill can buy guns - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/health/mental-illness-guns/index.html)

I was reading the other day how Massachusetts was one of the states which hadn't sent any mental health records to the federal database. So it's certainly not just "lack of political will" that keeps that from happening. It's the knee-jerk, lazy reaction to over-rely on perceived "privacy rights." It's a balance, but if society thinks there's too much violence, you have to push back on rights and freedoms. It's easy to want to push back on gun rights if you hate guns or don't have any use for them yourself (Kind of like the good point someone made in one of the bible threads about how its easiest for some Christians to go after homosexuality and abortion, instead of say, infidelity, because the latter implicates more of them personally). It's way more challenging, and takes more courage and sacrifice regarding ones own values, to push back on privacy rights, on criminal defendant's rights, on the rights of the mentally ill, etc. So not as many people are willing to take strong stances in those directions, because there's no cheering crowds for those views, at least not yet. Which kind of creates potential I think - because if we're actually making difficult decisions, there's less perception/reality that it's all just about political opportunism.

[panerd]

6 dead: Chicago shootings rise for holiday weekend - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/05/27/6-dead-Chicago-shootings-rise-for-holiday-weekend/8641369656739/)

If only Chicago had some gun control laws in place!

[Dutch]

6 dead: Chicago shootings rise for holiday weekend - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/05/27/6-dead-Chicago-shootings-rise-for-holiday-weekend/8641369656739/)

If only Chicago had some gun control laws in place!

If I understand CNN right, banning assault rifles in the gun-toting South will solve this.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

It's getting to the point where nobody even bothers making threads about these things anymore.

BBC News - Five dead in Santa Monica shooting rampage (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22823290)

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's getting to the point where nobody even bothers making threads about these things anymore.

BBC News - Five dead in Santa Monica shooting rampage (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22823290)

At this point, this one sounds like a domestic dispute, not a random incident. Those have been going on for my entire life, this one likely isn't more than a local headline if not for some rounds fired afterwards (which seem possibly to have been an attempt at suicide-by-cop).

[Desnudo]

It's getting to the point where nobody even bothers making threads about these things anymore.

BBC News - Five dead in Santa Monica shooting rampage (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22823290)

You realize homicide deaths by firearm are down by half since the 90s right?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

You realize homicide deaths by firearm are down by half since the 90s right?

Dang. My bad. So it's ok then. Nevermind.

[Julio Riddols]

53 people in Chicago (and 31 in Philly) were killed by guns since Newtown. But I guess they don't count since none of them (I think) were by semi-automatics and automatics. I still say you have to attack the root cause of the culture of violence in the inner-cities, else any legislation will be meaningless in the number of gun deaths.

I agree with this - I feel like the root cause seems to be poverty and the stress of living in todays world. More people are resorting to crazy behavior because they are being driven crazy by the symptoms that come with the slow death of the country and by the feeling that the inmates are running the asylum. Gun control won't fix it. I would actually advocate less gun control. I'm more worried about just criminals and military/police having guns than I am the rest of America. A war on guns will lead to more problems just like the war on drugs has. Both need to end.

[Pyser]

It's getting to the point where nobody even bothers making threads about these things anymore.

BBC News - Five dead in Santa Monica shooting rampage (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22823290)

this was literally outside the window to my office in santa monica (the shooting at buses and random cars part of the rampage). it was terrifying.

[bulletsponge]

I agree with this - I feel like the root cause seems to be poverty and the stress of living in todays world. More people are resorting to crazy behavior because they are being driven crazy by the symptoms that come with the slow death of the country and by the feeling that the inmates are running the asylum. Gun control won't fix it. I would actually advocate less gun control. I'm more worried about just criminals and military/police having guns than I am the rest of America. A war on guns will lead to more problems just like the war on drugs has. Both need to end.

that and the "it" thing to do now for crazy, unhinged people is to shoot it out. they used to just off themselves but now they see how much attention shooting up a school or mall gets and they go that route instead

[M GO BLUE!!!]

this was literally outside the window to my office in santa monica (the shooting at buses and random cars part of the rampage). it was terrifying.

Didn't you hear? Deaths by firearm are down by half since the 90's.

It's just a domestic dispute.

This means there was no reason to fear a guy dressed all in black with an assault weapon running around on the street shooting.

It's ok.

Sell more guns to anybody who wants them. THAT is the smartest thing we can do.

[TroyF]

M GO,

See my post fom above. I do not have a problem with the Obama measures on gun control, but the idea that it will stop this stuff is laughable.

1) guns are out there, period. The shooter in Norway went outside his country to get guns. If he had wanted to, he could have purchased them illegaly anyway.

2) these things have been happening forever. No, it doesnt make it ok, but it also does not mean you are EVER going to stop thus stuff either.

3) Gun violence is down. Does not mean it is eliminated, but it is down.

I wrote about Bath, MI above. This is not all that different from what appened there. Psycho kills people in his own home, burns it to the ground and then heads on out to kill. The guy in Bath gad set some bombs up in a. School and targeted children with hs insanity, but this type of thing will neve go away.

[Dutch]

Sell more guns to anybody who wants them. THAT is the smartest thing we can do.

How about you demand we fix the problem first? Then take away the rights of any number of the 99% that don't do illegal things with guns? Blaming the gun-toting South and the NRA is not "a first step" to solving anything.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's just a domestic dispute.

That was in reference to why this wasn't a spellbinding news item that captivated the board.

[EagleFan]

4-year-old boy accidentally kills dad in Arizona (http://news.msn.com/us/4-year-old-boy-accidentally-kills-dad-in-arizona)

[Warhammer]

How anyone can have unsecured guns in the house with kids is beyond me.

[BrianD]

How anyone can have unsecured guns in the house with kids is beyond me.

As far as kid-proofing a house goes, you'd think this would at least be on the top half of the list.

[panerd]

Not defending the homeowner because I don't just leave guns laying around but the father and son were visiting somebody else so it wasn't really the dad that left the gun out. But now not only do lunatic mass murderers cause us to want to take guns from everyone but so do irresponsible guys who leave guns laying around. Can't fix stupid, the huge myth that the gun control crowd thinks more laws will do.

The OP talks about a little common sense on both sides and links a story of a man leaving a gun laying around as an example. Doesn't sound like he understand what common sense means.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Can't fix stupid, the huge myth that the gun control crowd thinks more laws will do.


I can't speak for the entire "gun control crowd," but I personally feel the laws on the books now don't work because they are weak and ineffectual.

The owner who left a gun where a visiting child could get to it should lost the right to own firearms. He has proven himself to be irresponsible. As it is, he could go out & buy assault weapons, leave them out where others can get them. then go out & buy more. And there are a lot of people who seem to see nothing wrong with it.

The proposed measures don't seem like they would have much of an effect. Even if we run a background check and gun dealers actually follow through and abide by the law, people who really want to get a gun can get one. It's not difficult. When a nutjob has an agenda & access to guns, there's going to be some dead people. It's the world we live in. Apparently it's perfectly fine to many people.

[TroyF]

I can't speak for the entire "gun control crowd," but I personally feel the laws on the books now don't work because they are weak and ineffectual.

The owner who left a gun where a visiting child could get to it should lost the right to own firearms. He has proven himself to be irresponsible. As it is, he could go out & buy assault weapons, leave them out where others can get them. then go out & buy more. And there are a lot of people who seem to see nothing wrong with it.

The proposed measures don't seem like they would have much of an effect. Even if we run a background check and gun dealers actually follow through and abide by the law, people who really want to get a gun can get one. It's not difficult. When a nutjob has an agenda & access to guns, there's going to be some dead people. It's the world we live in. Apparently it's perfectly fine to many people.

When a nutjob wants people dead, they will be dead. It could be a plane, poison, bombs, knives, or any number of other things. Yes, the gun makes it easier, but if you truly believe that mking all firearms going away tomorrow would make you safe from a nutjob, you are more naive than i believed you to be.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

When a nutjob wants people dead, they will be dead. It could be a plane, poison, bombs, knives, or any number of other things. Yes, the gun makes it easier, but if you truly believe that mking all firearms going away tomorrow would make you safe from a nutjob, you are more naive than i believed you to be.

Completely safe? No. Remove the guns from this California guy & give him knives instead and two more people are alive. Put a knife in the 4 year old's hands instead & his day (hopefully) takes it away. People won't be throwing knives into a group of people at a bus stop because someone stepped on his shoe.

Are we going to get rid of guns? I would be naive to believe that. If we were to put in some common sense reforms though it would help.

I would have all firearms registered & ballistics test run on them. It will never happen because the NRA & gun nuts would scream about how the government is infringing on their rights, but it would clear up a lot of random gun crimes. Sure, guns in the hands of criminals wouldn't be registered or tested, but those guns get into their hands somewhere. Test new guns when they come into the country even before they hit the market. Then you can trace where those guns left the legal grid. Plug those holes & you start to remove guns from the criminal element.

No solution is perfect, but doing nothing clearly doesn't work. More guns doesn't seem like a good answer either, as when you see a fat kid you don't think "if only that kid had a triple cheeseburger."

[JonInMiddleGA]

when you see a fat kid you don't think "if only that kid had a triple cheeseburger."

The thought "some law should have prevented that fat kid from having a triple cheeseburger" never crosses my mind either.

[Dutch]

I would have all firearms registered & ballistics test run on them. It
will never happen because the NRA & gun nuts would scream about how the
government is infringing on their rights

So people that support the 2nd amendment are nuts? I think it's nuts that we allow 10,000 murders each year in this country and not prosecute the criminal with extreme prejudice. If you want to fix the crime problem, you get tough on crime, not the NRA.

[Dutch]

The thought "some law should have prevented that fat kid from having a triple cheeseburger" never crosses my mind either.

Exactly. Success at life is based on good choices, not good legislation.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

The thought "some law should have prevented that fat kid from having a triple cheeseburger" never crosses my mind either.

But then nobody ever died because someone else recklessly used one in the general proximity.

Honest questions for the people who love guns here. Why? What about a gun makes you feel good? Is it power? Is it fear that someone else has a gun and without one you'd be completely helpless? Also, did you know anybody who was murdered with a gun?

[Dutch]

But then nobody ever died because someone else recklessly used one in the general proximity.

Honest questions for the people who love guns here. Why? What about a gun makes you feel good? Is it power? Is it fear that someone else has a gun and without one you'd be completely helpless? Also, did you know anybody who was murdered with a gun?

A child isn't influenced by their parents eating unhealthy foods?

I don't love guns. I have guns though.

Why? Protection.
Does it feel good? No.
Is it power? No.
Is it fear? No.
Do you know anybody that was murdered with a gun? No.

[panerd]

Completely safe? No. Remove the guns from this California guy & give him knives instead and two more people are alive. Put a knife in the 4 year old's hands instead & his day (hopefully) takes it away. People won't be throwing knives into a group of people at a bus stop because someone stepped on his shoe.

Are we going to get rid of guns? I would be naive to believe that. If we were to put in some common sense reforms though it would help.

I would have all firearms registered & ballistics test run on them. It will never happen because the NRA & gun nuts would scream about how the government is infringing on their rights, but it would clear up a lot of random gun crimes. Sure, guns in the hands of criminals wouldn't be registered or tested, but those guns get into their hands somewhere. Test new guns when they come into the country even before they hit the market. Then you can trace where those guns left the legal grid. Plug those holes & you start to remove guns from the criminal element.

No solution is perfect, but doing nothing clearly doesn't work. More guns doesn't seem like a good answer either, as when you see a fat kid you don't think "if only that kid had a triple cheeseburger."

Are you really that influenced by this hot new media topic that you think nothing is being done about guns? There are no laws on the books, no people going to prison?

[Lathum]

I never understood the protection angle. It seems to me if you are a responsible gun owner you wouldn't have the opportunity to get to your gun by the time needed it. It's not like an intruder is going to wait.

[panerd]

I saw a liberal guy on a round table discussion show make what I thought was the best analogy for the NRA I have heard. He said it isn't the NRAs job to make a compromise, their purpose is to defend gun rights. He said its like a defense attorney. Their only job is to defend their client. The prosecutor, the judge, and the jury can decide they are wrong or come up with a compromise. You don't like what the NRA is doing? Elect politicians that won't be in their pockets, sway your politician to your point of view. But to blame the NRA is excusing the other side that doesn't do their job and really missing the point of why the NRA exists.

[Grammaticus]

I never understood the protection angle. It seems to me if you are a responsible gun owner you wouldn't have the opportunity to get to your gun by the time needed it. It's not like an intruder is going to wait.

Gunvault, GunVault Safes (http://www.gunvaultsafe.com/)

Just take a look at the quick access items here. No problem getting to your firearm quickly when needed.

[Dutch]

I never understood the protection angle. It seems to me if you are a responsible gun owner you wouldn't have the opportunity to get to your gun by the time needed it. It's not like an intruder is going to wait.

Are you talking about every scenario?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Are you really that influenced by this hot new media topic that you think nothing is being done about guns? There are no laws on the books, no people going to prison?

Like most things our government does the laws are designed to actually not do much. What is on the books has very little effect. What is proposed would also have little effect. Those who might go further don't out of fear that their opponent will be heavily funded by influential lobby groups.

I never understood the protection angle. It seems to me if you are a responsible gun owner you wouldn't have the opportunity to get to your gun by the time needed it. It's not like an intruder is going to wait.

A "conservative" loudmouth I used to work with was blabbing on about how great guns are and how he has one in case someone ever breaks in. I asked what he would do if he caught a guy that didn't have a gun, or who he got the draw on. "I'd call the police." I had him humor me & point his hand like it was a gun and hold it on me, the bad guy. Told him to do so. When he turned his head to dial the phone I slapped his hand. He got upset that I did that & was even less happy when in front of everybody I told him how if I was a real bad guy, I would have his gun now. Any "bad guy" a "good guy" pulls a gun on will likely have one advantage in that he has nothing to lose.

I would be interested in seeing statistics on how often (when an average person pulls one) they help a situation compared to simply escalating it.

Guns have their place and they should. The guns themselves don't scare me, but the idea of who may have them does. And I hope I'm never in a situation where I actually thing one would come in handy. I hope none of us are, even those who are 100% pro-gun & completely against any kind of controls.

[Dutch]

I saw a liberal guy on a round table discussion show make what I thought was the best analogy for the NRA I have heard. He said it isn't the NRAs job to make a compromise, their purpose is to defend gun rights. He said its like a defense attorney. Their only job is to defend their client. The prosecutor, the judge, and the jury can decide they are wrong or come up with a compromise. You don't like what the NRA is doing? Elect politicians that won't be in their pockets, sway your politician to your point of view. But to blame the NRA is excusing the other side that doesn't do their job and really missing the point of why the NRA exists.

But what is the NRA doing?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Honest questions for the people who love guns here. Why?

What about a gun makes you feel good?
It doesn't really matter, there's a rather explicit right to have one. The ability to exercise that option is a key. Some are also among the most aesthetically pleasing items invented.

Is it power?
I'd say it's more about having options.

Is it fear that someone else has a gun and without one you'd be completely helpless?
Again, the options thing.

Also, did you know anybody who was murdered with a gun?
Yes, unfortunately more than one as a matter of fact. And several others who were seriously injured by them, both by criminal action/intent and accidentally. And in the deaths, all were weapons possessed illegally by convicted felons.

[panerd]

But what is the NRA doing?

I meant anger that they don't want to "compromise". Why would they?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

So Jon, since it is a right, and one that shall not be infringed, is there any instance where it would be applicable to infringe upon the right or is it the right of everybody to have any Arms?

A strict reading of this could say that the government has no right to stop anybody from having any Arms whatsoever. By "people" it does not even state "citizen" or anything of legality. Technically, shouldn't an incarcerated terrorist from Pakistan be allowed to bear Arms? Shouldn't rocket launchers be legal to possess by his friends that are here?

It could also be said that requiring registration of all Arms and ballistics testing of every firearm is not in violation of the 2nd Amendment. It's not infringing.

I think there should be every option on the table in keeping weapons out of the hands of those who would use them to harm others. If the politicians really wanted to they could impose fair regulations that could help save innocent lives. Some good people might even still be alive if the holes in the system were plugged.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Technically, shouldn't an incarcerated terrorist from Pakistan be allowed to bear Arms? Shouldn't rocket launchers be legal to possess by his friends that are here?

Frankly, given only the two extreme options I'd prefer that to further restricting the rights of American to bear arms.

It's a non-negotiable item afaic, and generally speaking I'd say it's been infringed upon far too much already.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

And there is the divide that will never be able to be breached.

There is no bargaining when one side would prefer Osama Bin Laden be able to walk into Kmart & purchase an arsenal that can kill everybody than have to get a license for his gun.

It's one reason I fear this country will one day fracture in two. It would be interesting to see the resulting different societies though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

There is no bargaining when one side would prefer Osama Bin Laden be able to walk into Kmart & purchase an arsenal that can kill everybody than have to get a license for his gun.

Well, hypothetically speaking, we might actually see some rational immigration policies if that were the case. Nothing happens in a vacuum after all.

It's one reason I fear this country will one day fracture in two. It would be interesting to see the resulting different societies though.

There's another difference. What you "fear" is very very close to becoming what I "hope".

[EagleFan]

Sadly, if the house owner had a dog that he was irresponsible with and it killed the boy's father he would probably be in more trouble than he will be in for this (which is probably none).

[JPhillips]

But what is the NRA doing?

Being an effective trade group for gun/ammo manufacturers.

[Ryche]

Being an effective trade group for gun/ammo manufacturers.

Important note....NRA represents gun manufacturers, not gun owners.

[EagleFan]

Important note....NRA represents gun manufacturers, not gun owners.

Sadly the gun owners don't understand that fact. Because the "NRA is on their side!". Yeah in the same way that tobacco lobbyists are there to help the smoker...

[Dutch]

So Jon, since it is a right, and one that shall not be infringed, is there any instance where it would be applicable to infringe upon the right or is it the right of everybody to have any Arms?

A strict reading of this could say that the government has no right to stop anybody from having any Arms whatsoever. By "people" it does not even state "citizen" or anything of legality. Technically, shouldn't an incarcerated terrorist from Pakistan be allowed to bear Arms? Shouldn't rocket launchers be legal to possess by his friends that are here?

Put it within the context of the United States Constitution probably makes it more clear -- "the people" is short for "the people of the United States".

And more clearly...
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Dutch]

Important note....NRA represents gun manufacturers, not gun owners.

So who represents gun owners then?

[Surtt]

Sadly the gun owners don't understand that fact. Because the "NRA is on their side!". Yeah in the same way that tobacco lobbyists are there to help the smoker...
"Sadly the gun owners don't understand that fact."
As a gun owner, what do you mean by this?

[molson]

Sadly the gun owners don't understand that fact. Because the "NRA is on their side!". Yeah in the same way that tobacco lobbyists are there to help the smoker...

What difference does it make what the motivation is? The NRA is a tremendous indirect advocate for gun owners, or at least it is for those who don't want any additional regulation. I don't know who is "on the side" of those who want more regulation, but whoever that group is, they suck and are laughably ineffective at carrying out that policy.

[dawgfan]

Put it within the context of the United States Constitution probably makes it more clear -- "the people" is short for "the people of the United States".

And more clearly...
And more clearly yet, let's include the entire text of the 2nd Amendment, because there's a very important additional bit of context that Jon left out:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That direct context supersedes the general context of the Constitution.

[Dutch]

And more clearly yet, let's include the entire text of the 2nd Amendment, because there's a very important additional bit of context that Jon left out:



That direct context supersedes the general context of the Constitution.

I was pointing out what "people" the Constitution was discussing. I'm not sure what you are clarifying here, honestly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That direct context supersedes the general context of the Constitution.

Their (at least partial) motivation does not restrict the absolute statement that follows. It explains, it does not modify.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Would nuclear arms be fine for the general public to keep and bear? Or should that be infringed upon?

[dawgfan]

Their (at least partial) motivation does not restrict the absolute statement that follows. It explains, it does not modify.
You say that definitively, and yet rulings on this matter have fluctuated over the course of history and have been a matter of intense constitutional legal debate since very nearly the start of the country.

[molson]

You say that definitively, and yet rulings on this matter have fluctuated over the course of history and have been a matter of intense constitutional legal debate since very nearly the start of the country.

But if we really have a "living" constitution than you can stare at the constitution all you want, but all it really is is a policy debate subject to the whims of the current legislature.

[dawgfan]

But if we really have a "living" constitution than you can stare at the constitution all you want, but all it really is is a policy debate subject to the whims of the current legislature.
If you're saying that the Constitution is malleable, then I agree. It's an interesting thing - while it is the law of the land, language is subject to interpretation, and the Constitution uses a lot of language that is open to a broad range of interpretation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You say that definitively, and yet rulings on this matter have fluctuated over the course of history and have been a matter of intense constitutional legal debate since very nearly the start of the country.

It is definitive afaic ... that people who are wrong insist on debating it has no bearing on what's right.

[dawgfan]

It is definitive afaic ... that people who are wrong insist on debating it has no bearing on what's right.
Ah Jon, you never disappoint. If it were definitive, then there wouldn't have been a succession of differing interpretations of it by the Supremes over the last 200+ years.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ah Jon, you never disappoint. If it were definitive, then there wouldn't have been a succession of differing interpretations of it by the Supremes over the last 200+ years.


{shrug} We've had good Supremes and bad Supremes, both the wise and the foolish.

[molson]

It's kind of interesting to see this issue raised in the midst of the Obama phone logging stuff. Every government has to deal with that tension between security and liberty. And reasonable opinions can be all over the map because there's so many lines to be drawn in so many areas. My issue is that people just tend to be fine with giving up liberties, as long as its ones they don't actually value personally. I think to get by that bias you have to look at all the places this tension comes up collectively:

-domestic spying
-TSA
-gun control
-privacy with regard to mental health
-privacy with regard to easily available background checks
-sex offense registry
-police powers, and the state power to incarcerate people
-drone strikes with civilian collateral damage
-state-ordered mental health treatment or involuntary commitment to mental health facility.

I think you can make reasonable arguments about different places we should be on that line, but if you are all gung-ho about liberties first and foremost in all contexts except guns - you may just hate guns and aren't looking at it rationally.

[Buccaneer]

Judge Taney = bad Supreme, bad ruling.

[gstelmack]

Seems like the right place for this brewing story:

Police keep close eye on reports of disturbing 'knockout' game - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/22/justice/knockout-game-teen-assaults/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

[EagleFan]

Seems like the right place for this brewing story:

Police keep close eye on reports of disturbing 'knockout' game - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/22/justice/knockout-game-teen-assaults/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

Line those kids up in a firing squad.

[Schmidty]

When a nutjob wants people dead, they will be dead. It could be a plane, poison, bombs, knives, or any number of other things. Yes, the gun makes it easier, but if you truly believe that mking all firearms going away tomorrow would make you safe from a nutjob, you are more naive than i believed you to be.

Look, I know that most people dislike Troy (and me) I suppose, but he's correct here.

And I made another enemy....?

[Groundhog]

It won't make you "safe", but I'd rather someone get angry and come at me with a baseball bat than fire at me with a rifle, or make it a lot harder for the junkie who needs cash to get his hands on a firearm. People get stabbed and beaten all the time here and, while that's not great, it's preferable to the alternative...

[JPhillips]

I don't think anyone is arguing that getting rid of guns makes everyone safe. It's all about lowering the odds while still allowing access. Would you say nobody should lock their doors because a crazy will still find a way to break in?

[molson]

If NSA was proven to make us safer, would it still be a good thing? Or heavy-handed NYC police work? Rights v. freedom is balanced in so many contexts. If you value your electronic privacy and hate and have no use for guns going in though, then your views on where we should end up on those balancing tests is pretty predictable. People love to quote that Ben Franklin freedom/security quote - as long as it's a freedom they actually value that's being threatened. But it applies just the same to gun rights for those who value that right.

Edit: I think Obama has actually been pretty smart to not go after this too hard during his presidency. I mean, he's basically ignored the issue, and people have STILL hoarded guns and caused an economic boom in the gun industry. America is so much more heavily armed than they were pre-Obama. But it's be even more ridiculous if he was heavy-handed on this. If there's really no way to approach this without coming off as threatening a right that people value, it's probably something that can't happen without some serious creativity and outside the box thinking. Maybe the gun control side has to figure out a way to give up something, in exchange for getting something they value more. I don't know if that can happen with today's NRA, but certainly, the aggressive, trying-to-just-push-the-line-in-one-direction-without-give approach is going to be counterproductive. Even when that side tries to exploit mass shootings to push the line, which basically just makes the other side feel like they're being blamed for murders, which probably won't put them in a compromising mood, it hasn't worked.

[Lathum]

We need more guns so retirees can defend themselves when someone throws popcorn at them

Texting dad after movie shooting: 'I can't believe I got shot' - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html)

[NobodyHere]

Yet it's the fear of annoying people on cell phones that keeps me out of theaters and not the fear of insane gun carrying ex-cops.

[Suburban Rhythm]

We need more guns so retirees can defend themselves when someone throws popcorn at them

Texting dad after movie shooting: 'I can't believe I got shot' - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html)

Up until yesterday, he probably was seen as a "good guy with a gun", you know, the ones who are protecting us from the bad guys.

[flounder]

Retired cops are often exempt from gun control laws.

[molson]

So what new law would prevent a 71-year old, presumably without a criminal record, from owning a gun?

When gun control is raised in this context, what you're really advocating for is a total ban. If anyone is allowed to own a gun, this guy would. And yet when this topic is discussed seriously, few claim that that a total ban is what they want. This is why people who value gun rights don't believe that claim.

[Marc Vaughan]

So what new law would prevent a 71-year old, presumably without a criminal record, from owning a gun?
Purely out of interest do they re-test over a certain age for gun permits in the same way you do for driving licences?

(I'd have thought it'd make sense myself)

[cartman]

Purely out of interest do they re-test over a certain age for gun permits in the same way you do for driving licences?

(I'd have thought it'd make sense myself)

In Texas you used to have to re-certify every 5 years, but they did away with that requirement last legislative session.

[DaddyTorgo]

Purely out of interest do they re-test over a certain age for gun permits in the same way you do for driving licences?

(I'd have thought it'd make sense myself)

Knowing what you know about things that would "make sense" to you Europeans, what do you think? ;)

[panerd]

This is not really a hot button issue for me but as with every crazy sounding story circling the Internet there often is more to the story than we are first told. Don't get me wrong if this guy turns out to be a complete sociopath like George Zimmerman I have zero sympathy but I plan on giving it a few days before believing that a dispute over texting and a thrown popcorn led to a murder. Though if it is true it adds to my list of things that I tell to my wife when she gets pissed off at somebody in traffic. Why risk your son's mother's life because a guy cut in front of you in traffic?

[PilotMan]

Though if it is true it adds to my list of things that I tell to my wife when she gets pissed off at somebody in traffic. Why risk your son's mother's life because a guy cut in front of you in traffic?

This was actually my new years resolution this year. I needed to calm down and get less emotional behind the wheel. So far so good.

[sterlingice]

This was actually my new years resolution this year. I needed to calm down and get less emotional behind the wheel. So far so good.

Yeah, no reckless piloting or someone might get hurt... or you could end up in Branson

SI

[molson]

Purely out of interest do they re-test over a certain age for gun permits in the same way you do for driving licences?

(I'd have thought it'd make sense myself)

Concealed weapon permits expire and have to be renewed, but I'm not aware of any jurisdictions that require a re-taking of the safety courses.

But if there's an age component to weapon permit eligibility, making it harder for older people would be backwards, people statistically commit fewer crimes as they get older, and the most dangerous demographic of people by far is young men. If there was a "common sense" order-of-priority crackdown on gun ownership generally, 71-year old guy without a criminal record would pretty close to the end of the list. So if we're going after him, we're pretty much going after a total gun ban, despite the claimed rhetoric to the contrary.

[Butter]

So if we're going after him, we're pretty much going after a total gun ban, despite the claimed rhetoric to the contrary.

Sounds good to me, let's do it.

[Galaril]

Sounds good to me, let's do it.

:+1

[Galaril]

Sounds good to me, let's do it.

:+1:

[molson]

But remember, the NRA and others that value gun rights are paranoid crazies when they think people want to take their gun rights away, and when they respond accordingly in protection of those rights.

Edit: And when the continue to dominate the gun control debate and continue to defeat new gun control legislation decide growing public support for it. I think that we can all agree that whatever the strategy of the gun control advocates is - as best as I can tell it's some combination of being dishonest about their goals and talking down to huge portions of the country that they consider inferior to them - it's a strategy that pretty much sucks and needs to be revisited.

[molson]

And I haven't even really seen any proposed gun control legislation that's I'd actually oppose. I just really don't like the way this debate is forged, it makes me sympathetic to the other side. A 71-year old guy shoots someone and that's an argument that these rights should be taken away from everyone? Is it also an argument that every building should have armed security and mandatory frisks? Or that the NSA should keep a closer eye on this guy's communications and maybe detain him if he seems too angry?

It's theis kind of simplistic, limited thinking that can erode rights, and not just gun rights. When someone wants people to have fewer rights, this is the way they go about it. This is how things like the Patriot Act, and the NSA, and aggressive stop-and-frisk police policies are justified. The title of the thread calls for "a little common sense" in the gun control debate, that never seems to actually happen when the debate starts. It's just "look, a shooting, let's repeal rights."

[Butter]

You know who has awesome PR strategy? The NRA.

[molson]

You know who's PR strategy is awesome? The NRA's.

It depends what the goal is. If the goal is to have broad popularity and acceptance among the public, they're not doing too well. If their goal is to galvanize gun control opposition for the benefit of gun manufactures, and stop meaningful gun control legislation, they're very effective. On the gun control advocate side, the goals are more muddled. To the extent they're trying to promote gun control legislation, obviously they suck at that. To the extent they're trying to start and fight a culture war between rural/urban, gun owners/non-gun owners, an us v. them thing on message boards and newspaper article comments sections, I guess they're making some headway.

Edit: And the gun control side has lost so much effectiveness, relatively recently, with the approach they've taken. There was a time, really not too long ago, when it was possible to pass gun control legislation in this country. Of course, it also helped a lot of that legislation was passed in a time where crime wasn't plummeting to 50-year lows, like has been the case recently. That's why it's really more of a culture war than a practical debate. The target isn't so much crime, it's just dislike for guns and the people that own them and value gun rights.

[Butter]

Yes, it is the gun control advocates who are trying to start and fight a culture war via message boards and newspaper article comment sections. You nailed it. I'll let them know that they can stop on the Youtube comments also, they've been found out.

[gstelmack]

Yes, it is the gun control advocates who are trying to start and fight a culture war via message boards and newspaper article comment sections. You nailed it. I'll let them know that they can stop on the Youtube comments also, they've been found out.

Umm, yes? I watch the comments section on some of the local new sites. Believe me, as with most things, both sides have their wackos.

[Kodos]

So Molson, what would be your strategy for lowering the number of guns out there, if you were in charge and wanted to achieve that goal?

I think many gun-control advocates like me would honestly be happy to do away with most if not all guns owned by private citizens (I'd be fine keeping hunting rifles out there, but then you get on a slippery slope of "you allow hunting rifles, why not gun X?"). But clearly that option is not on the table. If there were a magic wand to wave to make them disappear from existence? I would wave it, yes.

But since we're in the real world, there is no magic wand, and there is no way we are getting rid of most of the guns that are out there. So your next best option seems to be coming up with strategies to minimize any further damage since the horse is out of the barn and down the street and you're never going to catch it. Limit the types of guns that can be sold and who they can be sold to (no ex-cons, for instance). Offer attractive incentive programs for people to turn in guns. Make those incentives really attractive for the most dangerous guns (those with large capacity ammo clips, semi-automatic or automatic firing, armor-piercing bullets, etc.).

I don't think being practical is being disingenuous. Most gun control advocates realize that getting rid of guns entirely is not an actual option. Saying "we don't want to take your guns" = letting gun rights advocates know that we realize that guns aren't going away and we aren't going to seize what you already have. Instead, we are trying to focus on goals that can be achieved in the real world.

[gstelmack]

I would rather work on trying to reduce the impetus behind people committing violent crimes, rather than attempting to reduce access to all the tools they use to do so.

[Kodos]

The target isn't so much crime, it's just dislike for guns and the people that own them and value gun rights.

What I dislike is seeing kids in schools get shot up. Or in theaters. Or innocent people you never read about. I could give a crap about hunters. I understand that they actually provide a useful service in some scenarios. I have no fight with them.

[Kodos]

I would rather work on trying to reduce the impetus behind people committing violent crimes, rather than attempting to reduce access to all the tools they use to do so.

I'd like to at least see criminals have less effective tools for mass murders.

[gstelmack]

What I dislike is seeing kids in schools get shot up. Or in theaters. Or innocent people you never read about.

I hate reading about people getting stabbed. Or cars driven into crowds. Or people setting buildings on fire. Or people getting drunk / high and thinking they can drive. Or people chatting on cell phones instead of paying attention to the roads.

[Kodos]

I hate reading about people getting stabbed. Or cars driven into crowds. Or people setting buildings on fire. Or people getting drunk / high and thinking they can drive. Or people chatting on cell phones instead of paying attention to the roads.

I hate those too. But when is the last time someone killed a bunch of kids with a knife?

I've reported numerous drunk drivers/texting drivers over the years. So I'm doing my part!

As a side note, my sister-in-law was actually one of the people who got hit by a car being driven into a crowd 5 years back.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/AS2JwUqZSHI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[molson]

So Molson, what would be your strategy for lowering the number of guns out there, if you were in charge and wanted to achieve that goal?

I think many gun-control advocates like me would honestly be happy to do away with most if not all guns owned by private citizens (I'd be fine keeping hunting rifles out there, but then you get on a slippery slope of "you allow hunting rifles, why not gun X?"). But clearly that option is not on the table. If there were a magic wand to wave to make them disappear from existence? I would wave it, yes.

But since we're in the real world, there is no magic wand, and there is no way we are getting rid of most of the guns that are out there. So your next best option seems to be coming up with strategies to minimize any further damage since the horse is out of the barn and down the street and you're never going to catch it. Limit the types of guns that can be sold and who they can be sold to (no ex-cons, for instance). Offer attractive incentive programs for people to turn in guns. Make those incentives really attractive for the most dangerous guns (those with large capacity ammo clips, semi-automatic or automatic firing, armor-piercing bullets, etc.).

I don't think being practical is being disingenuous. Most gun control advocates realize that getting rid of guns entirely is not an actual option. Saying "we don't want to take your guns" = letting gun rights advocates know that we realize that guns aren't going away and we aren't going to seize what you already have. Instead, we are trying to focus on goals that can be achieved in the real world.

I'd start by doing what the gun control advocates did in the 90s, find common ground instead of just attacking peoples' values and lifestyles as being less valid than theirs. I live in a state with tons of guns (and very little crime, FWIW), and have lived and worked around the law enforcement community and the legislature. As a group, people who are conservative, and who value gun rights, also tend to really dislike crime. Make crime and criminals the enemy, not gun owners. Start it at the state level (some states already have). There are enough conservatives who really love to come down hard on crime and criminals to find common ground here. Super-harsh sentences for gun crimes and illegal gun ownership. Take away gun rights from a broader class of criminals. Longer probation terms and more money for probation officers to conduct home searches for illegal weapons. Tie gun control legislation to hiring of police officers and building of more modern prisons (with more of am emphasis on rehabilitation and mental health), and creating broader authority to detain the dangerously mentally ill before they commit crimes. That's how the assault weapon ban got passed, which of course, was not called, "The Assault Weapon Ban Act" (which never would have passed) but the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act." Democrats knew how to get shit done back then. There might have to be some actual compromises, especially considering the drastically reduced crime rate in this country. Maybe reduce taxes on guns and ammo. Expand gun rights in some other contexts where there is less danger.

That's not going keep the 71-year old without a criminal record from owning a gun, but I wouldn't support such a thing anyway, even after one shoots somebody in a movie theater. Just like how I don't think the police should be allowed to search my house without a warrant even if someone else was keeping people captive in their house. Someone else causing a harm doesn't justify taking away my rights.

[Kodos]

Elderly man hits 27 people in Connecticut, including my sister-in-law - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=51042&highlight=sailfest)

Just to follow up on the people driving cars into crowds thing.

[cartman]

The title of the thread calls for "a little common sense" in the gun control debate, that never seems to actually happen when the debate starts. It's just "look, a shooting, let's repeal rights."

How about the case of the editor for Guns and Ammo, who was fired for trying to start a common sense debate? If someone who hosted numerous hunting and shooting TV shows, and had been an editor of a gun magazine for over 20 years can't start a common sense debate, who can?

[molson]

What I dislike is seeing kids in schools get shot up. Or in theaters. Or innocent people you never read about. I could give a crap about hunters. I understand that they actually provide a useful service in some scenarios. I have no fight with them.

And those are sincere and real concerns. It just doesn't seem to me like they're shared by enough people in power on this side of things. The Dems were trying to pass a massive gun and ammo tax hike earlier this year. What does that accomplish other than expressing spite towards gun owners? Is there anyone who ever committed a gun crime that would have been stopped because of a tax increase on the gun (assuming they bought it legally?)

[molson]

How about the case of the editor for Guns and Ammo, who was fired for trying to start a common sense debate? If someone who hosted numerous hunting and shooting TV shows, and had been an editor of a gun magazine for over 20 years can't start a common sense debate, who can?

I'm not going to disagree with the fact that "the other side does it too." That's kind of my point. The whole debate here is really about groups disliking each other. When you have that kind of stalemate, the the side that wants to change things loses. It is in the gun proponents' interest to have a stalemate and an us v. them culture war, because that keeps the status quo. It is NOT in the gun control advocates' interest to do the same thing. To make progress, the gun control advocates have to somehow convince some number of people on the other side to be willing to compromise. But it seems like there's zero interest in doing that.

[cartman]

I'm not going to disagree with the fact that "the other side does it too." That's kind of my point. The whole debate here is really about groups disliking each other. When you have that kind of stalemate, the the side that wants to change things loses. It is in the gun proponents' interest to have a stalemate and an us v. them culture war, because that keeps the status quo. It is NOT in the control advocates' interest to do the same thing.

But how to break the stalemate? If someone with bona fides like Dick Metcalf can't start the discussion without getting shouted down, who can?

[JPhillips]

And those are sincere and real concerns. It just doesn't seem to me like they're shared by enough people in power on this side of things. The Dems were trying to pass a massive gun and ammo tax hike earlier this year. What does that accomplish other than expressing spite towards gun owners? Is there anyone who ever committed a gun crime that would have been stopped because of a tax increase on the gun (assuming they bought it legally?)

It wasn't "the Dems." It was two representatives writing a bill that never had any chance of passing. I remember a time when you used to get upset at painting a whole group by the actions of its most extreme members.

[gstelmack]

I hate those too. But when is the last time someone killed a bunch of kids with a knife?

An interesting comparison for me would be:

- Number of incidents where, say, 5+ people were killed in one incident
- Number of serial killers

The only difference is the time factor. I'd bet we'd find similar numbers.

In fact:

List of serial killers in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_in_the_United_States)
Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/)

Yup, similar lists, although some of the serial killers seem to be iffy (killed only 3 in one example, not sure that compares to a mass shooting as opposed to something like this particular movie theater shooting with only 1 or 2 victims).

Some interesting facts in that Washington Post article on both sides - pointing out things like states with harsher gun control laws do have less gun violence, while also pointing out that violent crime and gun ownership are both declining.

[gstelmack]

But how to break the stalemate? If someone with bona fides like Dick Metcalf can't start the discussion without getting shouted down, who can?

In this day and age, good luck on anything. The media is too in love with the extremists on both sides of every issue for any moderate voice to get heard...

[molson]

It wasn't "the Dems." It was two representatives writing a bill that never had any chance of passing. I remember a time when you used to get upset at painting a whole group by the actions of its most extreme members.

OK, well then would you (or other gun control advocates posting here) support a tax increase on guns and ammo?

Edit: I was wrong about that that bill having legislative support. But I'd love to know the % of Democrats, and % of those who identify themselves as gun control advocates that support higher taxes on guns and ammo. I suspect the numbers would be pretty high, but I haven't found a survey yet.

[Kodos]

But how to break the stalemate? If someone with bona fides like Dick Metcalf can't start the discussion without getting shouted down, who can?

Charlton Heston?

[Butter]

I don't think being practical is being disingenuous. Most gun control advocates realize that getting rid of guns entirely is not an actual option. Saying "we don't want to take your guns" = letting gun rights advocates know that we realize that guns aren't going away and we aren't going to seize what you already have. Instead, we are trying to focus on goals that can be achieved in the real world.

This. Just because some pay more attention to the crazies that are good at yelling doesn't mean there aren't people who want honest solutions that involve some amount of compromise.

[cartman]

For those interested, here is the editorial that got Metcalf fired.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Lets-Talk-Limits-by-Dick-Metcalf-of-Guns-Ammo-December-2013.pdf

[molson]

This. Just because some pay more attention to the crazies that are good at yelling doesn't mean there aren't people who want honest solutions that involve some amount of compromise.

But this came up here again today because a 71-year old shot somebody. That incident was used to support the pro-gun control position. But how is that incident relevant to meaningful gun control debate? What "honest solution that would involve some amount of compromise" would have prevented that? I know you weren't the one that tried to make the connection between that incident and gun control, but that's the thing I was responding to, I don't have a problem with your or anyone's actual sincere opinions about the issue.

Edit: And like I said, I wasn't a fan of the logic employed - this guy abused a right so we should take it away from everybody. In any other context of law enforcement or national security the same logic is skewered. When it comes to guns, ya, more people on board, just because they don't like guns and the people that own them.

[Kodos]

An interesting comparison for me would be:

- Number of incidents where, say, 5+ people were killed in one incident
- Number of serial killers

The only difference is the time factor. I'd bet we'd find similar numbers.

In fact:

List of serial killers in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_in_the_United_States)
Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/)

Yup, similar lists, although some of the serial killers seem to be iffy (killed only 3 in one example, not sure that compares to a mass shooting as opposed to something like this particular movie theater shooting with only 1 or 2 victims).

Some interesting facts in that Washington Post article on both sides - pointing out things like states with harsher gun control laws do have less gun violence, while also pointing out that violent crime and gun ownership are both declining.

Interesting. But I don't think it works with regard to people who decide to go on a killing rampage. A guy with a knife probably gets a lot fewer kills before law enforcement takes him down. Guns amplify the body count when crazy people snap. Lower availability of guns would lower the body count in many instances.

[CU Tiger]

I guess I am just lost on this one. I am sure it is largely cultural, as I have been around firearms my entire life and consider them no different than any other possession.

Lots of people die every year in car accidents, and occasionally someone murders someone with a car. Occasionally (albeit much less frequently) someone kills multiple people with their car. Yet we have no debate about whether all cars should be banned...or maybe only big heavy trucks should be banned and small priuses (prii?) should be ok? I mean we havent even started the debate about emissions and smog and air quality...

Why is taking guns away the answer?

Why not stop the criminals? Why not punish the actions?

Again, I dont want to be obtuse on this and would like to have a substantive and productive discussion. I just dont see where banning guns is even an option.

Frankly given the choice Id rather ban cars than guns, though to be fair I probably spend more time with guns than with a car.

[Kodos]

But this came up here again today because a 71-year old shot somebody. That incident was used to support the pro-gun control position. But how is that incident relevant to meaningful gun control debate? What "honest solution that would involve some amount of compromise" would have prevented that? I know you weren't the one that tried to make the connection between that incident and gun control, but that's the thing I was responding to, I don't have a problem with your or anyone's actual sincere opinions about the issue.

If he only had a knife, there is a good chance the guy would still be alive.

[molson]

If he only had a knife, there is a good chance the guy would still be alive.

Definitely. But what legislation could we pass that would have created a scenario where the 71-year old didn't have a gun, but only a knife? The only thing I could think of is a total gun ban, applied retroactively to existing guns (assuming this guy didn't buy his first gun recently). That's why I find the whole point disingenuous. And it's a kind of thinking that I suspect you really don't like if we apply it to any other context except guns. If there was a federal law that required anyone to go through a TSA scanner before entering any private building, there is a good chance that guy would still be alive. So why not do it? Because we value a right to privacy, even when it makes us less safe. The gun control advocates have to understand that many, many Americans also value a right to gun ownership. And that is a validly held value, because it's an actual recognized constitutional right.

[CU Tiger]

If he only had a knife, there is a good chance the guy would still be alive.

But how many others might be dead if they didnt have a gun at a certain time?

[Kodos]

Lots of people die every year in car accidents, and occasionally someone murders someone with a car. Occasionally (albeit much less frequently) someone kills multiple people with their car. Yet we have no debate about whether all cars should be banned...or maybe only big heavy trucks should be banned and small priuses (prii?) should be ok? I mean we havent even started the debate about emissions and smog and air quality...


FWIW, I did advocate for mandatory driving tests for older drivers, although I probably picked too young an age to start (65).

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=51042&highlight=sailfest

[cartman]

But how many others might be dead if they didnt have a gun at a certain time?

It is extremely rare that a CHL holder has prevented a mass shooting. The vast majority of cases where a shooter was taken down were LEO, either on or off duty.

[Kodos]

But how many others might be dead if they didnt have a gun at a certain time?

So you're comparing a real person who is now really dead with a hypothetical person who may have been saved by this same gun at some earlier point in time?

[Kodos]

Definitely. But what legislation could we pass that would have created a scenario where the 71-year old didn't have a gun, but only a knife? The only thing I could think of is a total gun ban, applied retroactively to existing guns (assuming this guy didn't buy his first gun recently). That's why I find the whole point disingenuous. And it's a kind of thinking that I suspect you really don't like if we apply it to any other context except guns. If there was a federal law that required anyone to go through a TSA scanner before entering any private building, there is a good chance that guy would still be alive. So why not do it? Because we value a right to privacy, even when it makes us less safe. The gun control advocates have to understand that many, many Americans also value a right to gun ownership. And that is a validly held value, because it's an actual recognized constitutional right.

I'm just pointing out the obvious thing that having fewer instantly lethal weapons available would lead to fewer innocent deaths. And that is why I support as much gun control as we can get passed.

The fact that everyone and their mother has guns leads directly to more innocent people dying. In a fight with someone wielding a knife, you stand a good chance of surviving. In a fight with someone wielding a gun, you stand a good chance of being mortally wounded before you even realize the fight has escalated. Therefore I advocate fewer people having guns.

[molson]

It is extremely rare that a CHL holder has prevented a mass shooting. The vast majority of cases where a shooter was taken down were LEO, either on or off duty.

Mass shootings are extremely rare themselves. But if they're still frequent enough to take away a specific and recognized constitutional right from everyone in the entire country, then why shouldn't other constitutional rights, like the 4th amendment, be similarly limited to prevent broader classes of crimes that occur far more frequently than mass murder?

[Kodos]

Passing a new amendment that bans private gun ownership would be a start.

[molson]

I'm just pointing out the obvious thing that having fewer instantly lethal weapons available would lead to fewer innocent deaths. And that is why I support as much gun control as we can get passed.

The fact that everyone and their mother has guns leads directly to more innocent people dying. In a fight with someone wielding a knife, you stand a good chance of surviving. In a fight with someone wielding a gun, you stand a good chance of being mortally wounded before you even realize the fight has escalated. Therefore I advocate fewer people having guns.

I think that correlation is overrated. I don't think any legislation short of a total retroactive ban will make guns so scare that people who want them just can't find them. America has a TON of guns obviously, but the number is kind of skewed - we have a shitload of guns in this country because we have a ton of people in rural parts of the country that have a ton of guns. But those people really aren't the problem. Those people aren't generally committing crimes. I think the gun control efforts need to be smarter and more targeted.

[molson]

Passing a new amendment that bans private gun ownership would be a start.

Yes, I completely agree that would be the correct avenue for repealing a right. As opposed to a government taking advantage of hysteria caused by events. Which you know, they do sometimes.

[cartman]

Mass shootings are extremely rare themselves. But if they're still frequent enough to take away a specific and recognized constitutional right from everyone in the entire country, then why shouldn't other constitutional rights, like the 4th amendment, be similarly limited to prevent broader classes of crimes that occur far more frequently than mass murder?

I think the big sticking point is that there seems to be ZERO push to have any kind of advancement of responsible gun ownership. That somehow is being equated with banning and taking away guns. The NRA used to be all about pushing for firearms training and education, but now seem to be partnering more with the manufacturers to simply sell firearms. Used to be the fundraiser mailings were talking about training and certification classes. Now they are mainly asking for funds to lobby Congress. That's one of the big reasons I dropped my membership.

[molson]

. That somehow is being equated with banning and taking away guns.

I think we have about 3 posters in here on record today as wanting to ban all guns. I don't know how representative that is of the general population, but it seems like there's at least some significant support for it.

[cartman]

I think we have about 3 posters in here on record today as wanting to ban all guns. I don't know how representative that is of the general population, but it seems like there's at least some significant support for it.

I said that promoting responsible gun ownership was being equated with taking away guns.

[molson]

I said that promoting responsible gun ownership was being equated with taking away guns.

I don't think the NRA, and certainly gun owners generally, are against the concept of responsible gun ownership. They just don't believe that that's the true and final goal of gun control advocates.

[cartman]

I don't think the NRA, and certainly gun owners generally, are against the concept of responsible gun ownership. They just don't believe that that's the true and final goal of gun control advocates.

Then explain the backlash against Dick Metcalf's editorial.

[Kodos]

I think we have about 3 posters in here on record today as wanting to ban all guns. I don't know how representative that is of the general population, but it seems like there's at least some significant support for it.

I also stated that I know that would never happen, and that we can't get rid of what's out there.

[molson]

Then explain the backlash against Dick Metcalf's editorial.

I don't know who Dick Metcalf is, but I already explained the backlash generally. Because of the culture war on this, much of the gun lobby will perceive any push-back on their positions as first steps towards more expansive gun control, and ultimately a ban. They're in the business of selling guns. And people have a legit constitutional right to own guns.

And let's back up. All you want is more "responsible gun ownership." What does that entail? More required classes, safety training? None of those things will negatively impact gun sales, so there's no real logical reason for anyone to oppose them so fiercely - unless they're concerned that it will lead to other, stricter regulation and bans.

[panerd]

So let's assume that at midnight the Congress passes a law that all guns are illegal and all guns need to be turned over and melted.

What is the result of this hypothetical situation that is being proposed by some members of this board?

Most rational, law abiding citizens will probably comply.

How about movie theater 71 year old? He shot a man over text messenging and throwing popcorn at him. Is he turning over his gun under the new law?

Is Mrs. Lanza? Are the street thugs who already have illegal ones?

It may sound like I am being dismissive but I really want to know how this ban will happen in reality.

(Like Molson has stated not everyone in this thread wants the ban so this is directed at those who do want the ban. Please explain how this ban will work in reality. This isn't Japan and it isn't Europe. What would happen in the United States on January 15, 2014?)

[gstelmack]

I'm just pointing out the obvious thing that having fewer instantly lethal weapons available

I think you need to do more research on gun wounds before calling them "instantly lethal weapons". For example, in the theater incident, the wife was not killed, and in the New Mexico shooting yesterday, neither kid was killed (I know one was in critical condition, I don't want to make an assumption that this won't end up with a death, but you also said "instantly lethal"). That's just quick, you can dig up a ton more data on gunshot wounds vs deaths to see how wrong this statement is.

[cartman]

I don't know who Dick Metcalf is, but I already explained the backlash generally. Because of the culture war on this, much of the gun lobby will perceive any push-back on their positions as first steps towards more expansive gun control, and ultimately a ban. They're in the business of selling guns. And people have a legit constitutional right to own guns.

And let's back up. All you want is more "responsible gun ownership." What does that entail? More required classes, safety training? None of those things will negatively impact gun sales, so there's no real logical reason for anyone to oppose them so fiercely - unless they're concerned that it will lead to other, stricter regulation and bans.

People also have a legit constitutional right to a well regulated militia.

Dick Metcalf, until recently, was an editor for Guns and Ammo. So he's on the side of the gun lobby.

[gstelmack]

And at some point do I get to bring up the Boston Marathon bombings?

[molson]

People also have a legit constitutional right to a well regulated militia.



AND private gun ownership. I know it doesn't specifically say that in the constitution, but it's been recognized through the courts for many years. Just like the right to privacy. That isn't specifically in the constitution either. But it's now a legit right, in many contexts, as recognized by the Supreme Court.

What I can't get past is, what makes one legit constitutional right more valid than another? I try to look at it neutrally. If it's a right, it's a right. It doesn't matter whether it's one I value or not. Until the constitution is amended, or there's a drastic shift in how the rights are interpreted, the government doesn't get to ignore those rights.

[cartman]

AND private gun ownership. I know it doesn't specifically say that in the constitution, but it's been recognized through the courts for many years. Just like the right to privacy. That isn't specifically in the constitution either. But it's now a legit right, in many contexts, as recognized by the Supreme Court.

What I can't get past is, what makes one legit constitutional right more valid than another? I try to look at it neutrally. If it's a right, it's a right. It doesn't matter whether it's one I value or not. Until the constitution is amended, or there's a drastic shift in how the rights are interpreted, the government doesn't get to ignore those rights.

So, correct me if I am wrong, but your position is there is absolutely nothing that can or should be done in regards to gun violence, because of the Constitution.

[AENeuman]

"It happened so fast! I did not have time to identify the buttery, salty, corn like object coming at me in the movie theater.... So I shot the guy."

[molson]

So, correct me if I am wrong, but your position is there is absolutely nothing that can or should be done in regards to gun violence, because of the Constitution.

I just made a long post on the last page about the types of approaches gun control advocates have used in the past to successfully bring about gun control legislation. And I've criticized their current approach as being far less successful.

The constitution obviously doesn't prohibit all gun control regulations. That's well established. But the right to own guns is very real, and established, and even though you don't question that, I believe many others, including several posters in this thread, do. So there's different sentiments being responded to, it can get a little muddled. And tying in with your other point, when a gun proponent is talking to someone, or responding to someone, they haven't necessarily clearly identified that they're talking to a cartman, or the posters here who want to ban all guns. Another layer of confusion. (I mean, how many times on this board have people argued that the 2nd amendment protects militias and not individuals? That is a thing. That's what I was responding to. I know it's not your position, but it is a commonly-held one).

[Kodos]

I think you need to do more research on gun wounds before calling them "instantly lethal weapons". For example, in the theater incident, the wife was not killed, and in the New Mexico shooting yesterday, neither kid was killed (I know one was in critical condition, I don't want to make an assumption that this won't end up with a death, but you also said "instantly lethal"). That's just quick, you can dig up a ton more data on gunshot wounds vs deaths to see how wrong this statement is.

So you don't agree that guns are more effective killing tools than knives, especially when applied to mass killings?

In your example, the man didn't intend to shoot the wife. Her hand got in the way. The person he intended to kill died.

[cartman]

I just made a long post on the last page about the types of approaches gun control advocates have used in the past to successfully bring about gun control legislation. And I've criticized their current approach as being far less successful.

The constitution obviously doesn't prohibit all gun control regulations. That's well established. But the right to own guns is very real, and established, and even though you don't question that, I believe many others, including several posters in this thread, do. So there's different sentiments being responded to, it can get a little muddled. And when a gun proponent is talking to someone, or responding to someone, they haven't necessarily clearly identified that they're talking to a cartman, or the posters here who want to ban all guns. Another layer of confusion.

And that is EXACTLY why I brought up the case of the Guns & Ammo editor. Like I said, if he can't start a common sense discussion, with a long history of being a strong guns rights supporter, there isn't much hope at all of anything gaining traction no matter where the idea originates.

[molson]

And that is EXACTLY why I brought up the case of the Guns & Ammo editor. Like I said, if he can't start a common sense discussion, with a long history of being a strong guns rights supporter, there isn't much hope at all of anything gaining traction no matter where the idea originates.

And I think that's at least in part due to the culture war that too many gun control advocates have chosen to wage. They've helped create that paranoia. The NRA and crazy Republicans existed in the 90s too. And they exist in states where gun control measures are passed more recently. Obviously federal congress is a mess now on this and every other issue. But per that long post I made, I believe there is common ground, but the gun control advocates have to make real sacrifices. You have to give up something to move a stalemate. Something you really don't want to give up, like agreeing to new prisons, tax cuts, more police officers, more harsh penalties for criminals, more police power, more access to wacky high-caliber weapons which are potentially scary but REALLY aren't used to commit that many crimes. They have to think outside the box like they did in the 90s, not just try to charge ahead with no plan. I think too many are more wrapped up with just being right and looking down on people than they are effectuating change. A hostile response to one editorial doesn't mean that no agreements with broader entities beyond that one response is ever possible. And even if that was the case, how does the current approach aim to solve that?

[Kodos]

You have to give up something to move a stalemate. Something you really don't want to give up, like agreeing to new prisons, tax cuts, more police officers, more harsh penalties for criminals, more police power, more access to wacky high-caliber weapons which are potentially scary but REALLY aren't used to commit that many crimes.

I'm all for new prisons, more police officers, harsher penalties, and more police power. Heck, I would make any murder a capital offense.

[molson]

So, correct me if I am wrong, but your position is there is absolutely nothing that can or should be done in regards to gun violence, because of the Constitution.

And get back to this, correct me if I'm wrong, but your position there is absolutely nothing that can be done in regard to gun violence, because of the NRA, and the gun lobby as a whole? Have you just given up then? Or what would your plan be to defeat that resistance, if you were in a position to be calling those kinds of shots?

[molson]

I'm all for new prisons, more police officers, harsher penalties, and more police power. Heck, I would make any murder a capital offense.

There was also AEDPA in the 90s, which made it just about impossible for a convicted defendant to get federal review of his state criminal conviction. That wasn't officially tied to the assault weapon ban, but I think that ban was only possible in an environment where a Democratic president was willing to support and sign something like AEDPA. If guns are truly the most important issue when it comes to crime, then you have to be willing to give on this other stuff in the criminal realm.

[cartman]

And get back to this, correct me if I'm wrong, but your position there is absolutely nothing that can be done in regard to gun violence, because of the NRA, and the gun lobby as a whole? Have you just given up then? Or what would your plan be to defeat that resistance, if you were in a position to be calling those kinds of shots?

I'd say that it is damn near impossible to have any kind of discussion, because as I mentioned, the line of thinking that any kind of movement from the status quo == taking away guns. Until that can be dealt with, I don't see a way forward.

[Lathum]

I guess I am just lost on this one. I am sure it is largely cultural, as I have been around firearms my entire life and consider them no different than any other possession.

Lots of people die every year in car accidents, and occasionally someone murders someone with a car. Occasionally (albeit much less frequently) someone kills multiple people with their car. Yet we have no debate about whether all cars should be banned...or maybe only big heavy trucks should be banned and small priuses (prii?) should be ok? I mean we havent even started the debate about emissions and smog and air quality...

Why is taking guns away the answer?

Why not stop the criminals? Why not punish the actions?

Again, I dont want to be obtuse on this and would like to have a substantive and productive discussion. I just dont see where banning guns is even an option.

Frankly given the choice Id rather ban cars than guns, though to be fair I probably spend more time with guns than with a car.

Swamped at work but I wanted to address this real quick.

Your argument IMO is very flawed. Cars serve the purpose of getting us from point A to point B, accidents happen.

The purpose of a gun is to kill people, it is what its designed to do. To often, IMO, it does its job when it shouldn't and I don't see why the average Joe needs one.

[molson]

I'd say that it is damn near impossible to have any kind of discussion, because as I mentioned, the line of thinking that any kind of movement from the status quo == taking away guns. Until that can be dealt with, I don't see a way forward.

I think you may be giving to much credence to what may have just been an editorial decision. Gun nuts don't want to read about that kind of stuff in their gun magazines, and they responded accordingly. I'm not denying the sentiment exists, but I don't see why it makes any contrary view just impossible to pursue. Seems a little defeatist. You don't need to win them all over, you just need to come up with enough common ground with some of them.

[cartman]

I think you may be giving to much credence to what may have just been an editorial decision. Gun nuts don't want to read about that kind of stuff in their gun magazines, and they responded accordingly. I'm not denying the sentiment exists, but I don't see why it makes any contrary view just impossible to pursue. Seems a little defeatist. You don't need to win them all over, you just need to come up with enough common ground with some of them.

He was also booted from his TV shows and several upcoming NRA appearances. So it was more than just some angry magazine subscribers.

Log In - The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-for-questioning-the-gospel-of-guns.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1388926846-LLOgJSMfXf5OLZthDTcKBQ&_r=0)

[JonInMiddleGA]

What would happen in the United States on January 15, 2014?

You'd end up with a number of very dead people who tried to enforce it.
You'd end up with a more robust illegal arms market.

[flere-imsaho]

And I think that's at least in part due to the culture war that too many gun control advocates have chosen to wage. They've helped create that paranoia. The NRA and crazy Republicans existed in the 90s too. And they exist in states where gun control measures are passed more recently. Obviously federal congress is a mess now on this and every other issue. But per that long post I made, I believe there is common ground, but the gun control advocates have to make real sacrifices. You have to give up something to move a stalemate. Something you really don't want to give up, like agreeing to new prisons, tax cuts, more police officers, more harsh penalties for criminals, more police power, more access to wacky high-caliber weapons which are potentially scary but REALLY aren't used to commit that many crimes. They have to think outside the box like they did in the 90s, not just try to charge ahead with no plan. I think too many are more wrapped up with just being right and looking down on people than they are effectuating change. A hostile response to one editorial doesn't mean that no agreements with broader entities beyond that one response is ever possible. And even if that was the case, how does the current approach aim to solve that?

Uh, both sides need to make compromises. The problem is that these days the act of compromise is immediately interpreted as admitting that the other side has a point, which in our zero-sum politics means that your side is weakened, and thus your opponent can drive his advantage home.

Thus the example of the editor of Guns & Ammo getting shouted down by his own readership. Thus Charlton Heston's "when you can pry it from my cold, dead hands" speech. Thus pretty much Sarah Palin's entire approach to politics.

Yes, there's a certain inflexibility to some of the gun control advocates, but inflexibility is the religion of the NRA-supported, pro-gun crowd.

[JonInMiddleGA]

When in the history of the U.S. has a slippery slope not been, well, slippery?

[molson]

Uh, both sides need to make compromises.

But in a practical sense, the side that wants to change things has to compromise more than the side that wants things to stay the way they are.

[cuervo72]

I'm all for new prisons, more police officers, harsher penalties, and more police power. Heck, I would make any murder a capital offense.

Not always a good thing. (http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/keith-vidal-death-update-authorities-investigating-officers-shooting-of-teen-in-north-carolina)

[molson]

He was also booted from his TV shows and several upcoming NRA appearances. So it was more than just some angry magazine subscribers.

Log In - The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-for-questioning-the-gospel-of-guns.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1388926846-LLOgJSMfXf5OLZthDTcKBQ&_r=0)

I still don't get it - because there's a lot of influential gun nuts then it's just impossible to effectuate changes in gun control laws? Even though such changes have happened many times in history, including recently at the state and local level?

The gun nuts and the NRA can be influential, but that's exactly why the 90s approach of involving and promoting other conservative interests is the way to go. If the real concern here is crime, and not just a hatred of people who own guns and that rural way of life, then there's common ground, because plenty of people are anti-crime. That factor can be isolated out. It's happened before.

And again, it's harder because this debate continues to heat up while crime rates have declined - which is another reason I suspect that there's a lot more to this than crime. That other stuff is the source of the hostile reactions and stalemates. You didn't have the same thing in the 90s when people were more collectively freaked out by rising crime rates and willing to support legislation that attacked the problems from a number of different angles.

Edit: If the gun control advocates are really just powerless at the moment though no matter what they do for whatever reason, then i suppose the "best approach" is the one Obama used - ignore the issue. Can you imagine what would have happened if Obama made gun control a priority? The gun boom that happened during his administration would have been 10X more significant. The more you attack gun owners head on as the problem, the more defensive they'll be and the more guns they'll buy. You have to focus on crime, if that is the real concern (or something else that has broad support). The gun control measures can happen and can get thrown into big attacks on crime, like took place during the 90s.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not always a good thing. (http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/keith-vidal-death-update-authorities-investigating-officers-shooting-of-teen-in-north-carolina)

Or perhaps it's a perfectly justifiable, if unfortunate, situation.

Police group: Detective who shot N.C. teen acted justly - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/08/justice/north-carolina-teen-killed/)

[molson]

If law enforcement officers were banned from carrying guns, that never would have happened. Also, if we locked up all schizophrenics, that never would have happened. It's pretty easy to use that logic to take away all kinds of rights, depending on your biases going in, and depending on how much you value a right, and how much you dislike people that value a certain right.

Edit: To clarify (because I know this gets confusing with the varied degree of views on this) I hate that logic, I don't hate gun control, or think gun control is unconstitutional. I would love to see a Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement-type Act that contained sensible modifications to gun control laws, combined with about a million things I'd change about the criminal justice system generally.

[Buccaneer]

and how much you value the rights of others.

[nol]

If law enforcement officers were banned from carrying guns, that never would have happened. Also, if we locked up all schizophrenics, that never would have happened. It's pretty easy to use that logic to take away all kinds of rights, depending on your biases going in, and depending on how much you value a right, and how much you dislike people that value a certain right.

Edit: To clarify (because I know this gets confusing with the varied degree of views on this) I hate that logic, I don't hate gun control, or think gun control is unconstitutional. I would love to see a Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement-type Act that contained sensible modifications to gun control laws, combined with about a million things I'd change about the criminal justice system generally.

If law enforcement officers were banned from carrying guns, that never would have happened. Also, if we locked up all schizophrenics, that never would have happened. It's pretty easy to use that logic to take away all kinds of rights, depending on your biases going in, and depending on how much you value a right, and how much you dislike people that value a certain right.

Isn't that kind of indicative of how much the status quo likes people that value gun rights? They clearly prefer gun owners to car owners, since there are all sort of hoops people have to jump through to be able to drive a car legally. Gun owners are also preferred to people who drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes when you compare the relative tax on each of the products. There are many more places in America where you can go to fire a gun than where you can gamble. You can argue the relative societal costs/benefits for each of these, but that's the point; the rules and regulations placed on these other things were a result of people saying, "Hmm. (THING) can be useful at times to society, but (BAD THING) is a consequence of letting it go unchecked. We need to discourage people from (BAD THING)." Guns seem to be getting more and more exempt from that conversation.

The definition of what constitutes moderation and common ground is shifted so much that essentially asking, "Hey, what makes gun ownership completely unassailable from this cost/benefit analysis?" is viewed as taking an extreme gun control stance.

[TroyF]

There are many times I get up and am fed up with the slippery slope debate. Just stop it already I think, people just want gun control, they don't want to ban them entirely.

Then I snap back to reality and look at what the anti gun crowd does. The post that started this talked about getting killed with a gun at a movie theater for texting. A 71 year old ex cop who would not be a part of ANY reasonable gun control debate was the shooter. The only logic is that people want guns gone. Someone made the point I did and multiple people said "yeah, I agree, lets get rid of them, I'm signing up"

I respect that second group of people. At least I know where they stand. I have a real problem with the person who states they are for gun "control" and cite an example like the theater. No form of gun control prevents the random psycho.

So how can I be mad at gun owners who scream to the hills about the "slippery slope" when many gun control advocates would not want to stop at clip sizes or types of guns or gun shows or anything else. They view it as the starting grid. I was in CO when the medical dope shops were set up. The 50 year olds who said it was a slippery slope were laughed out of town. They were right.

I don't necessarily agree with their opinion by the way, I don't care who smokes weed. My point is as long as people ARE trying to take away all guns and don't even bother hiding the fact, gun owners WILL fight back with everything they have to block any regulation. I think they have every right to do so.

[cartman]

Another instance to look at is the recent news item about the guy from Florida with the CHL who got pulled over in Maryland. The policeman asked him if he brought his gun, and he said he left it at home and didn't bring it with him. So the policeman asked the wife if her husband brought the gun, and she said, "I don't know. I don't think so. But it might be in the glove compartment or console." Because their answers didn't jive, that put doubt in the policeman's mind.

There is a huge outcry to have the officer fired, because he was acting unfairly to a legal gun owner. Take the gun out of the equation, if it had been any other inanimate object that the officer asked about and got differing answers from the occupants of the car, there would be no debate about a further search at all.

[cuervo72]

Or perhaps it's a perfectly justifiable, if unfortunate, situation.

Police group: Detective who shot N.C. teen acted justly - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/08/justice/north-carolina-teen-killed/)

The default is pretty much always going to be for cops to stand behind other cops. They were probably also "justified" in suffocating the kid with Downs (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/syndrome-man-movies-ends-morgue/story?id=20046376). Or fatally shooting the already downed dog in Missouri (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylI4_62Ofyc).

I don't trust all cops to be patient enough or intelligent enough (http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836) to always handle situations properly. Or just flat out not be an asshole with anger issues (like the retired cop in the movie theater).

(ETA: which really is to say, I'm not sure if the solution is to take power out of the hands of the people and to consolidate it in the hands of the police.)

[gstelmack]

Read the story John linked. There is a long history with this kid, including relatives who had called the cops on him. He was a violent schizophrenic who probably should have been institutionalized, except that we don't have proper mental health. Even if you disagree with the specific shooting incident, something bad was going to happen with this kid sooner or later.

[cuervo72]

Sure - that speaks to the need for a better method of dealing with mental illness. I agree that the kid should have been institutionalized. I don't think all cops are really equipped to be able to deal with situations like this; it's not really the same as dealing with a criminal situation. But either way, cops aren't infallible. Nor are they all beyond moral reproach - I wouldn't doubt that the cop might not have just said "fuck it - I'm putting an end to this problem."

[Groundhog]

must...resist...urge...to...read...US...gun...debate...threads...

[CU Tiger]

Swamped at work but I wanted to address this real quick.

Your argument IMO is very flawed. Cars serve the purpose of getting us from point A to point B, accidents happen.

The purpose of a gun is to kill people, it is what its designed to do. To often, IMO, it does its job when it shouldn't and I don't see why the average Joe needs one.

This is where we break down. You only see your life. You need a car to get from point a to pont b. why not love into a city where you can walk?

I walk my fence line every morning. (I actually jog it for exercise) its not uncommon to see coyotes on my jog...that's why I jog with a pistol. It has absolutely saved lives of folks that many people don't think about. The challenge is you can't regulate that country folks can have guns and city folks can't have guns...just like you can't regulate cars just because folks in NYC or Boston dont need them.

To start this conversation I think you first must accept that not everyone has the same life, needs and experiences.

When you printout that guns save lives you get responses about how many mass killings are stopped by gun owners....how many times an individual defended himself from a single assailant who had a knife, club, bat, etc...

I'm sorry...guns are a very real and very integral part of my life. I can accept that certain weapons may not need to be in the hands of certain people, and gun ownership is both a eight and a privilege...but I can not understand a conversation that begins with banishing firearms.

It's as illogical as banning computers, or video game consoles, or shoes to me.

[DaddyTorgo]

This is where we break down. You only see your life. You need a car to get from point a to pont b. why not love into a city where you can walk?

I walk my fence line every morning. (I actually jog it for exercise) its not uncommon to see coyotes on my jog...that's why I jog with a pistol. It has absolutely saved lives of folks that many people don't think about. The challenge is you can't regulate that country folks can have guns and city folks can't have guns...just like you can't regulate cars just because folks in NYC or Boston dont need them.

To start this conversation I think you first must accept that not everyone has the same life, needs and experiences.

When you printout that guns save lives you get responses about how many mass killings are stopped by gun owners....how many times an individual defended himself from a single assailant who had a knife, club, bat, etc...

I'm sorry...guns are a very real and very integral part of my life. I can accept that certain weapons may not need to be in the hands of certain people, and gun ownership is both a eight and a privilege...but I can not understand a conversation that begins with banishing firearms.

It's as illogical as banning computers, or video game consoles, or shoes to me.

Or we could you know...kill all they coyotes (j/k - trying to bring some humor into this).

[Dutch]

There are many times I get up and am fed up with the slippery slope debate. Just stop it already I think, people just want gun control, they don't want to ban them entirely.

Then I snap back to reality and look at what the anti gun crowd does. The post that started this talked about getting killed with a gun at a movie theater for texting. A 71 year old ex cop who would not be a part of ANY reasonable gun control debate was the shooter. The only logic is that people want guns gone. Someone made the point I did and multiple people said "yeah, I agree, lets get rid of them, I'm signing up"

I respect that second group of people. At least I know where they stand. I have a real problem with the person who states they are for gun "control" and cite an example like the theater. No form of gun control prevents the random psycho.

So how can I be mad at gun owners who scream to the hills about the "slippery slope" when many gun control advocates would not want to stop at clip sizes or types of guns or gun shows or anything else. They view it as the starting grid. I was in CO when the medical dope shops were set up. The 50 year olds who said it was a slippery slope were laughed out of town. They were right.

I don't necessarily agree with their opinion by the way, I don't care who smokes weed. My point is as long as people ARE trying to take away all guns and don't even bother hiding the fact, gun owners WILL fight back with everything they have to block any regulation. I think they have every right to do so.

Agreed. The moderate majority will lose after one extreme or the other finally wins this three-sided debate...

[Marc Vaughan]

I walk my fence line every morning. (I actually jog it for exercise) its not uncommon to see coyotes on my jog...that's why I jog with a pistol. It has absolutely saved lives of folks that many people don't think about. The challenge is you can't regulate that country folks can have guns and city folks can't have guns...just like you can't regulate cars just because folks in NYC or Boston dont need them.

Are Coyotes really that dangerous? - looking into it a little there seem very few actual incidents/attacks involving them and they're generally within urban settings where they've learnt not to be scared of humans ...

Coyote attacks on humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_attacks_on_humans)

(now bears etc. I can understand being concerned about and requiring a weapon for)

Part of the reason I'm wondering is I used to jog around my neighborhood in Florida and part of it was a 'wildlife reserve' type area - I regularly used to come across wild cats the size of small/medium size dogs while running, but was never bothered about them (apart from admiring them for their beauty) because I figured if I didn't mess with them they wouldn't mess with me ... and so it turned out ... frankly I was more scared of the snakes, still am ;)

[nol]

Are Coyotes really that dangerous? - looking into it a little there seem very few actual incidents/attacks involving them and they're generally within urban settings where they've learnt not to be scared of humans ...

Coyote attacks on humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_attacks_on_humans)


That's because coyotes are only dangerous in urban areas like Chicago and Washington DC where the fascist gun laws don't allow citizens to protect themselves from this ever-present threat ;)

[Julio Riddols]

I think gun shows (aside from curio/relic types) should be regulated, if not banned. Resale of guns should be prohibited completely except when sold back to licensed (and heavily supervised) dealers.. If keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is the goal, the key is figuring out how to limit the availability of guns by regulating the amount of guns manufactured/imported/sold in the US. Don't restrict the buyers, restrict the amount of guns that can be bought and how they can be bought. I'd be willing to bet that gun shows are a huge source of firearms for those who cannot obtain them legally.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Are Coyotes really that dangerous? - looking into it a little there seem very few actual incidents/attacks involving them and they're generally within urban settings where they've learnt not to be scared of humans ...

Talk to the people who frequently lose pets (or in some areas livestock) to them.

[molson]

Talk to the people who frequently lose pets (or in some areas livestock) to them.

Ya, my eyes were really opened up to the livestock thing out there. It's unbelievable what a big deal that is and how firearms are just an ordinary part of life that's necessary to deal with that. Especially since they introduced wolves into the state. There's been a few incidents of wolf packs just tearing apart livestock herds.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Talk to the people who frequently lose pets (or in some areas livestock) to them.

Maybe if the pets/livestock were packing...

[flere-imsaho]

Bear in mind also that while an individual predator may not pose a threat to a human (like something the size of a coyote or small cat), they can also contract rabies, at which point they do pose a threat to a human (although rabies is considerably less worrisome than it used to be).

[Marc Vaughan]

Bear in mind also that while an individual predator may not pose a threat to a human (like something the size of a coyote or small cat), they can also contract rabies, at which point they do pose a threat to a human (although rabies is considerably less worrisome than it used to be).

Thats a fair point and something I hadn't considered (Rabies is 'extinct' in England so its not something I naturally think about naturally because I didn't grow up with it).

[JonInMiddleGA]

(Rabies is 'extinct' in England

Welp, it took until 5pm but we've now covered my "learn something new everyday" requirement :)

[flere-imsaho]

As I recall, the potential threat of rabies from the Continent was one of the more interesting objections to the Channel Tunnel. :D

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

bump

[lungs]

Talk to the people who frequently lose pets (or in some areas livestock) to them.

My dog has one eye and I'm $2500 poorer because of those dirty bastards but they haven't gotten into any of my livestock.

Of course coyotes are tougher than hell to hunt down. Step outside at night and they are all over the place surrounding my house but damned if they get near humans. I know some good hunters are big into coyote hunting which is basically turning their dogs loose to hunt down the coyotes and rip them to shreds.

[cartman]

My dog has one eye and I'm $2500 poorer because of those dirty bastards but they haven't gotten into any of my livestock.

Of course coyotes are tougher than hell to hunt down. Step outside at night and they are all over the place surrounding my house but damned if they get near humans. I know some good hunters are big into coyote hunting which is basically turning their dogs loose to hunt down the coyotes and rip them to shreds.

Yeah, I hear them all of them time at night around here, but have only caught a glimpse of one.

[Galaril]

Interesting study though as usual sides will spin it to there opinion.

Guns Don't Deter Crime, Study Finds - Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/guns-dont-deter-crime-study-finds-180710261.html)

[EagleFan]

Opens up a which came first debate.

[dawgfan]

Interesting study though as usual sides will spin it to there opinion.

Guns Don't Deter Crime, Study Finds - Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/guns-dont-deter-crime-study-finds-180710261.html)
That study - as the others before it - leaves very little spinning available. Not that it will stop folks that are opposed to gun control...

[RainMaker]

Reminder that handguns were illegal in Chicago up until a few years ago. It didn't really do anything to stop murders.

[EagleFan]

That study - as the others before it - leaves very little spinning available. Not that it will stop folks that are opposed to gun control...

It certainly does leave questions. What grew first, the crime rate or the number of legal gun owners?

[dawgfan]

It certainly does leave questions. What grew first, the crime rate or the number of legal gun owners?
From the article:

"Though they still couldn't prove causation, they did find that higher gun ownership levels preceded crime increases, not the other way around."

[dawgfan]

Reminder that handguns were illegal in Chicago up until a few years ago. It didn't really do anything to stop murders.
Didn't you post this in another thread?

"Chicago's biggest problem is that the laws don't matter. If you have a gun illegally (which is most of the criminals), there is almost not punishment for it. It's a catch and release. Heck, you have to rack up a few armed robberies before you see any real prison time."

[RainMaker]

Didn't you post this in another thread?

"Chicago's biggest problem is that the laws don't matter. If you have a gun illegally (which is most of the criminals), there is almost not punishment for it. It's a catch and release. Heck, you have to rack up a few armed robberies before you see any real prison time."

Yes? Illegal guns are easy to come by and there is little to no punishment for carrying one. So the push for more gun control doesn't really seem like it'd fix this problem.

[cartman]

Reminder that handguns were illegal in Chicago up until a few years ago. It didn't really do anything to stop murders.

Yes? Illegal guns are easy to come by and there is little to no punishment for carrying one. So the push for more gun control doesn't really seem like it'd fix this problem.

But wouldn't some gun control measures in theory make it more difficult to acquire illegal weapons? You can't ignore the the fact most neighboring locations did not have any similar bans that Chicago enacted. It would be the same as declaring that a dry county's laws failed to limit alcohol consumption when there are liquor stores 2 inches outside their jurisdiction in every direction.

[RainMaker]

But wouldn't some gun control measures in theory make it more difficult to acquire illegal weapons? You can't ignore the the fact most neighboring locations did not have any similar bans that Chicago enacted. It would be the same as declaring that a dry county's laws failed to limit alcohol consumption when there are liquor stores 2 inches outside their jurisdiction in every direction.

That's my point though. People who want to acquire guns illegally will find a way. We can ban them in the country, but that's not going to stop people from smuggling up through the Mexican border to people who want them.

We've made many drugs illegal and they not only make it into this country, they're incredibly easy to come by. Why would guns be any different?

[cartman]

That's my point though. People who want to acquire guns illegally will find a way. We can ban them in the country, but that's not going to stop people from smuggling up through the Mexican border to people who want them.

We've made many drugs illegal and they not only make it into this country, they're incredibly easy to come by. Why would guns be any different?

A lot of drugs, and many more guns, are made in this country. If you notice, I didn't say make impossible, I said make more difficult.

[cartman]

Dola,

There is a lot more money to be made smuggling in a kilo of cocaine than there is a gun weighing a kilo.

[molson]

A lot of drugs, and many more guns, are made in this country.

America will always produce a ton of guns unless you're hypothesizing a total gun ban, which isn't realistic. (And which most gun control advocates usually claim isn't the real goal).

[cartman]

America will always produce a ton of guns unless you're hypothesizing a total gun ban, which isn't realistic. (And which most gun control advocates usually claim isn't the real goal).

It was more to his point about them being smuggled in, when a large percentage of the civilian firearms manufactured are done so right here in the US.

[EagleFan]

From the article:

"Though they still couldn't prove causation, they did find that higher gun ownership levels preceded crime increases, not the other way around."

Sorry, scanned the thread and replied, didn't read it well apparently.

[RainMaker]

A lot of drugs, and many more guns, are made in this country. If you notice, I didn't say make impossible, I said make more difficult.

How are you going to make it more difficult? We haven't been able to figure that out when it comes to drugs.

[molson]

In the last few years, there's been more rhetoric around gun control. Much of the discussion antagonizes those who value their gun rights, much of it characterizes gun owners as backwards and racist villains. Here's what that approach has done for the gun industry, and for the bottom line number of guns in this country. Perhaps those who favor stricter gun control should attempt a different approach. (Edit: Assuming the goal really is crime and gun reduction and not just moral and cultural attacks against disfavored groups)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fnfdp_AWSDs/UwvzGEb21NI/AAAAAAAACMM/OMTZtAcJyHU/s1600/Gun+sales+by+year.png

[RainMaker]

Dola,

There is a lot more money to be made smuggling in a kilo of cocaine than there is a gun weighing a kilo.

Guns don't smell and can be shipped/smuggled in parts.

And now with 3d printers, we're pretty close to just being able to print them out ourselves. How do you stop that?

[RainMaker]

In the last few years, there's been more rhetoric around gun control. Much of the discussion antagonizes those who value their gun rights, much of it characterizes gun owners as backwards and racist villains. Here's what that approach has done for the gun industry, and for the bottom line number of guns in this country. Perhaps those who favor gun control should attempt a different approach.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fnfdp_AWSDs/UwvzGEb21NI/AAAAAAAACMM/OMTZtAcJyHU/s1600/Gun+sales+by+year.png

I wonder if gun manufacturers thought about funding Obama's campaign. Seems the best thing that can happen to the gun industry is a Democratic President. Makes marketing much easier.

[cartman]

How are you going to make it more difficult? We haven't been able to figure that out when it comes to drugs.

Why are you trying to say firearms and drugs are the same thing? A kilo of cocaine is smuggled in, then it is diluted and divvied up into hundreds of small packets for sale. If a gun is smuggled in, it stays whole. Why do you continue to push the strawman of the problem of drugs and guns being similar?

One initial step to take, which has been brought up before, is to close the gun show/private sale loophole. There obviously isn't a simple magic wand to wave, but to just throw your hands up and say it is impossible isn't to me a valid option.

[molson]

How about harsher penalties for those who commit gun crimes AND for those who possess firearms and ammunition illegally? More gun crime-focused policing (serve more search warrants when you have probable cause that a convicted felon has a gun or ammunition in their house, etc, and put those people away, and confiscate those weapons. Make this more of a priority than using Terry stops to catch drug users.) Focus on the criminals and not the regular people. And there are a LOT of people in this country who aren't allowed to possess weapons because of prior felony convictions, or because they're on probation. You lose your gun rights even for a misdemeanor domestic battery conviction. Yes, we overuse the prisons in this country, but we can also make the best of these mistakes by going after these guns and these criminals who possess them after they're released.

IMO, there's zero you can do gun-control wise to combat the random law-abiding guy who goes nuts and shoots up a movie theater. Gun control laws could get stricter, they have in some cities and states, but we'll never have a environment in the U.S. where an individual without a criminal history is prevented from acquiring guns. That would essentially be a total gun ban, and that ain't happening.

As I'm sure I said earlier in the thread, the only way to pass stricter gun control nationally is through compromise, like Bill Clinton did. Along with gun control laws, hire more police officers, limit habeas relief, build more prisons, harsher federal criminal laws, etc. (Get over the idea that "compromise" means getting half of what you want instead of giving up things.) Of course, Congress isn't much into compromising these days, and I doubt there's much of an appetite for those kinds of compromises involving police and such in an era where crime has dropped drastically.

[RainMaker]

Why are you trying to say firearms and drugs are the same thing? A kilo of cocaine is smuggled in, then it is diluted and divvied up into hundreds of small packets for sale. If a gun is smuggled in, it stays whole. Why do you continue to push the strawman of the problem of drugs and guns being similar?

Because the people who sell drugs are some of the same people who would like to possess guns. And guns don't need to stay whole. You can ship them in parts and assemble them here.

Plus guns aren't consumed like drugs. One gun can be used over and over by people.

One initial step to take, which has been brought up before, is to close the gun show/private sale loophole. There obviously isn't a simple magic wand to wave, but to just throw your hands up and say it is impossible isn't to me a valid option.

I'd be fine with that change, although it's worth pointing out that under 2% of people in prison bought their gun in that manner.

I'm not throwing up my hands and saying it's impossible. I'm saying that most of the rhetoric around "gun control" is empty. There are no real ideas. Just people complaining about guns. Sometimes we come up with a feel good plan that would do nothing, but that's it. People never seem to want to mention that the people who are doing most of the killing in this country don't care about the laws regarding legal ownership. They don't care about a background check or the required training course. They probably are not going to thumb through a pamphlet about "responsible gun ownership" either.

[RainMaker]

As for a real solution, I suggest locking up people who illegally possess a firearm for a long time. If you are a felon and are caught with a gun, you go to jail for 10 years. Double that if your previous felony was for a crime committed with a gun.

Problem with that is the people who want gun control the most are also the people who don't like prisons all that much and don't want people going there for a long time.

[JPhillips]

How about harsher penalties for those who commit gun crimes AND for those who possess firearms and ammunition illegally? More gun crime-focused policing (serve more search warrants when you have probable cause that a convicted felon has a gun or ammunition in their house, etc, and put those people away, and confiscate those weapons. Make this more of a priority than using Terry stops to catch drug users.) Focus on the criminals and not the regular people. And there are a LOT of people in this country who aren't allowed to possess weapons because of prior felony convictions, or because they're on probation. You lose your gun rights even for a misdemeanor domestic battery conviction. Yes, we overuse the prisons in this country, but we can also make the best of these mistakes by going after these guns and these criminals who possess them after they're released.

IMO, there's zero you can do gun-control wise to combat the random law-abiding guy who goes nuts and shoots up a movie theater. Gun control laws could get stricter, they have in some cities and states, but we'll never have a environment in the U.S. where an individual without a criminal history is prevented from acquiring guns. That would essentially be a total gun ban, and that ain't happening.

As I'm sure I said earlier in the thread, the only way to pass stricter gun control nationally is through compromise, like Bill Clinton did. Along with gun control laws, hire more police officers, limit habeas relief, build more prisons, harsher federal criminal laws, etc. (Get over the idea that "compromise" means getting half of what you want instead of giving up things.) Of course, Congress isn't much into compromising these days, and I doubt there's much of an appetite for those kinds of compromises involving police and such in an era where crime has dropped drastically.

I agree with a lot of this, but I want to focus on the last paragraph. Congress isn't the issue, the GOP is the issue. Obama offered compromise, but the NRA won't give an inch and they have enough backers, mostly GOP, that they can block anything.

Look at what was in Obama's proposal, it's a mix of gun control measures and tough on crime proposals:


Requires background checks for all gun sales and strengthens the background check system. This would include removing barriers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act so that states may more freely share information about mental health issues involving potential gun purchasers.
Provides states with monetary incentives—$20 million in fiscal year FY 2013 and a proposed $50 million in FY 2014—to share information so that records on criminal history and people prohibited from gun ownership due to mental health reasons are more available.
Bans military-style assault weapons and limits magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds.
Provides additional tools to law enforcement. The plan proposes a crackdown on gun trafficking by asking Congress to pass legislation that closes “loopholes” in gun trafficking laws and establishes strict penalties for “straw purchasers” who pass a background check and then pass guns on to prohibited people.
Urges Congress to pass the administration’s $4 billion proposal to keep 15,000 state and local police officers on the street to help deter gun crime.
Maximizes efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. The president calls upon the attorney general to work with U.S. attorneys across the country to determine gaps occurring in this area and where supplemental resources are appropriate.
Provides training for “active shooter” situations to 14,000 law enforcement, first responders and school officials.
Directs the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a statement to health care providers that they are not prohibited by federal law from reporting threats of violence to the proper authorities.
Launches a national gun safety campaign to encourage responsible gun ownership and authorizes the Consumer Product Safety Commission to examine issues relating to gun safety locks.
Helps schools invest in safety. The president’s plan calls for more school resource officers and counselors in all schools through the Community Oriented Policing Services hiring program. The plan also calls for the federal government to assist schools in developing emergency management plans.
Improves mental health awareness through enhanced teacher training and referrals for treatment. The plan calls for the training of 5,000 additional mental health professionals nationwide. The plan also calls for coverage of mental health treatment under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.


edit: I also agree with tougher gun crime penalties, but that won't work without a comprehensive look at prison populations. There are going to have to be a lot of non-violent drug crime offenders let out to make room for gun criminals.

[dawgfan]

Yes? Illegal guns are easy to come by and there is little to no punishment for carrying one. So the push for more gun control doesn't really seem like it'd fix this problem.
See, that's the issue I'm getting at. It's not that gun control doesn't help, it's that enforcement and punishment don't line up with the gun control efforts (not to mention the widely varied gun control laws in Illinois, including places just outside the city that are much less restrictive). I agree that there's not much point to stricter gun control unless everyone - police, prosecutors and judges - are on board with actually making enforcement of these laws and prosecution of breaking these laws a priority. Having more uniform gun control measures across the state would also help.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Bans military-style assault weapons and limits magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds.

Welp, that renders the rest of it moot.

Drop that & there might be a point or two for discussion.

Then again, "shall not be infringed" is rather definitive.

[Schmidty]

Then again, "shall not be infringed" is rather definitive.

Amen.

[cartman]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is pretty clear as well. But there must be a reason the NRA left the first part of the sentence off of the mural in the lobby of their HQ.

[molson]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is pretty clear as well

I love how strict gun control advocates are suddenly strict constitutionalists when it comes to this one issue. Gay marriage isn't in the constitution, abortion isn't either. But the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution as granting all three rights.

I also love how so many people, again in this one and only context, believe that security trumps rights. I'm sure you don't feel that way in terms of the 4th Amendment, or the NSA, or internet surveillance.

Again, as long as they're rights you personally value, they're worth protecting. If you don't personally value them, then other people shouldn't have them.

[cartman]

I love how strict gun control advocates are suddenly strict constitutionalists when it comes to this one issue. Gay marriage isn't in the constitution, abortion isn't either. But the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution as granting all three rights.

I also love how so many people, again in this one and only context, believe that security trumps rights. I'm sure you don't feel that way in terms of the 4th Amendment, or the NSA, or internet surveillance.

Again, as long as they're rights you personally value, they're worth protecting. If you don't personally value them, then other people shouldn't have them.

Where do you get that I'm a strict gun control advocate? Because I don't buy into the NRA's half interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? The entire sentence should be taken into account, not just the part that fits best into a certain viewpoint.

[BillJasper]

I love how strict gun control advocates are suddenly strict constitutionalists when it comes to this one issue. Gay marriage isn't in the constitution, abortion isn't either. But the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution as granting all three rights.

I also love how so many people, again in this one and only context, believe that security trumps rights. I'm sure you don't feel that way in terms of the 4th Amendment, or the NSA, or internet surveillance.

Again, as long as they're rights you personally value, they're worth protecting. If you don't personally value them, then other people shouldn't have them.

I don't have a problem with people owning guns, except in the case of military style assault weapons. It's great the founding fathers said we should be free to own guns, but I doubt any of them had the foresight to see what guns would evolve into.

I simply don't see a reason for civilians to own assault weapons.

[JPhillips]

Again, as long as they're rights you personally value, they're worth protecting. If you don't personally value them, then other people shouldn't have them.

I wouldn't say that at all. I think anyone that argues that the 2nd amendment is clear, is foolish. There's no way you can read the whole thing and say that it's application to modern laws is obvious. The courts are going to decide where the line is, because the amendment is opaque.

[molson]

In the history of the United States, I wonder, how many recognized individual constitutional rights have been "taken back." The 1st and 4th and 5th Amendments have all been interpreted as providing broader and stronger rights as we go.

[BillJasper]

I love how strict gun control advocates are suddenly strict constitutionalists when it comes to this one issue. Gay marriage isn't in the constitution, abortion isn't either. But the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution as granting all three rights.



Is it that they say the Constitution grants all three rights or that the Constitution doesn't forbid people from doing those things? Or that those things fall under the protection of the Constitution?

[molson]

I wouldn't say that at all. I think anyone that argues that the 2nd amendment is clear, is foolish. There's no way you can read the whole thing and say that it's application to modern laws is obvious. The courts are going to decide where the line is, because the amendment is opaque.

Cartman was the one who said it was clear, or at least the part he quoted. I agree that it's not. The 2nd Amendment is anything but clear. But it has been definitively interpreted as providing some individual right to bear arms. After that, yes, there's plenty of reasonable disagreement on where the line of constitutionality is. I don't know where that line is, but I think it's not necessarily exactly the same as where it should be drawn in terms of safety and other policy concerns. Because it's a right, which has to trump policy at least to some degree.

Edit: I could make all kinds of arguments about what we could do police-wise to make us safer if the 4th Amendment was weaker. Same with the 1st Amendment. But those are rights, and not automatically trumped by policy arguments or statistics regarding whether guns deter crime, etc.

[molson]

It's great the founding fathers said we should be free to own guns, but I doubt any of them had the foresight to see what guns would evolve into.



I doubt they intended gay marriage and abortion rights either.

[cartman]

I'd argue that the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant individual rights, it refers to group rights. The terms used are Militia and 'the people'. If you look at the other places in the Constitution where 'militia' is mentioned, in Article One, Section 8 it describes the powers that Congress has over militias, and Article Two, Section 2 describes the powers the President has over militias. While the term 'well-regulated' doesn't appear elsewhere in the Constitution, it does appear in the Articles of Confederation, which was the supreme law of the US before the adoption of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court did rule an individual right to keep guns in DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, but it didn't say there was an unrestricted right.

[BillJasper]

I doubt they intended gay marriage and abortion rights either.

Or free black people?

But I believe that is the reason you have the Supreme Court. To help bridge the gap between what they knew then and what society now is.

[molson]

Where do you get that I'm a strict gun control advocate?


I'd argue that the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant individual rights, it refers to group rights.

I'd say that's a pretty strict interpretation, and one contrary to well-established appellate court precedent.

Are you saying that people don't have the individual constitution RIGHT to bear arms, but you're OK with the state and federal government not banning full ownership as a legislative choice? What restrictions on gun ownership would you want to pass if there were no individual gun rights at all?

[cartman]

I'd say that's a pretty strict interpretation, and one contrary to well-established appellate court precedent.

Are you saying that people don't have the individual constitution RIGHT to bear arms, but you're OK with the state and federal government not banning full ownership as a legislative choice? What restrictions on gun ownership would you want to pass if there were no individual gun rights at all?

There are already restrictions on gun ownership by felons and people with mental issues. Which fits in with what I'm saying, as the amendment says "the people", not "a person".

[molson]

Or free black people?

But I believe that is the reason you have the Supreme Court. To help bridge the gap between what they knew then and what society now is.

Sure, which is why it amuses me when people who are all on board with constitutional rights of gay marriage and abortion are all suddenly all about the precise language of the constitution and original intention of the drafters when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

[BillJasper]

Sure, which is why it amuses me when people who are all on board with constitutional rights of gay marriage and abortion are all suddenly all about the precise language of the constitution and original intention of the drafters when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

I guess the difference being, I don't want to tear down the court because it makes some decisions I disagree with. That's life. You win some, you lose some. I don't think people should have military grade assault weapons, the court disagrees with me.

[molson]

There are already restrictions on gun ownership by felons and people with mental issues. Which fits in with what I'm saying, as the amendment says "the people", not "a person".

So you don't think the constitution protects individual gun ownership. That necessarily means that you think a total government ban on individual gun ownership would be constitutional.

But, I think you're saying that even though the constitution doesn't give them the right, you would still oppose a total ban, but would just want some more restrictions. Is that right? What would those additional restrictions be?

[molson]

I don't think people should have military grade assault weapons, the court disagrees with me.

The Federal Assault Weapon ban was upheld in the courts. We don't have it today because it expired and the legislature didn't renew it. Several states still do ban assault weapons and those bans have survived constitutional scrutiny as well. The Supreme Court did reject Chicago's handgun ban, but I don't think that's been successfully extended by anyone to reject any states' assault weapon bans, but I don't follow this stuff that closely.

[cartman]

So you don't think the constitution protects individual gun ownership. That necessarily means that you think a total government ban on individual gun ownership would be constitutional.

But, I think you're saying that even though the constitution doesn't give them the right, you would still oppose a total ban, but would just want some more restrictions. Is that right? What would those additional restrictions be?

The language of the 2nd Amendment would not allow a total ban. Like I said, my interpretation is that it is a group right. Congress and the President are allowed by powers vested to them in the Constitution to regulate the Militia, which the first part of the sentence of the 2nd Amendment describes. But they are not allowed to invoke a blanket ban on firearms to everyone, which is what the second part of the sentence of the 2nd Amendment spells out.

[molson]

So you don't think the constitution protects individual gun ownership. That necessarily means that you think a total government <b>ban on individual gun ownership<b> would be constitutional.

The language of the 2nd Amendment would not allow a total ban. Like I said, my interpretation is that it is a group right. Congress and the President are allowed by powers vested to them in the Constitution to regulate the Militia, which the first part of the sentence of the 2nd Amendment describes. But they are not allowed to invoke a blanket ban on firearms to everyone, which is what the second part of the sentence of the 2nd Amendment spells out.

I said a ban on "individual gun ownership."

[cartman]

I said a ban on "individual gun ownership."

Which would, by default be a ban on "the people", if by that you mean no one would be allowed to own guns.

[molson]

Which would, by default be a ban on "the people", if by that you mean no one would be allowed to own guns.

No, one could think that individuals can't own or purchase guns, but could be members of organized militias who could be collectively armed. That's what I always assumed people who really push the "militia" language think.

I'm not sure how that would work in practice, and the courts have never had to sort out whether a couple of friends on a hunting trip could be a "militia".

But if that's not what you mean I have no idea what you mean. I don't get your distinction between individual and group rights if you think that individuals can exercise group rights on their own.

[cartman]

It isn't that difficult:

There has been a concerted effort by the NRA to try and change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to say that an individual has the sacrosanct right to have any means and amount of firearms they want, and it would be unconstitutional for any law to try and say otherwise.

My take is that there is plenty of language in the Constitution, as well as Supreme Court precedent that squashes the NRA's interpretation. If the NRA's interpretation was accepted, then the laws such as the ones limiting felons and mentally ill from owning firearms would be ruled unconstitutional. Since there is case law showing that the rights of individuals to own firearms can be limited, that shows it is not an absolute individual right.

[Peregrine]

As for a real solution, I suggest locking up people who illegally possess a firearm for a long time. If you are a felon and are caught with a gun, you go to jail for 10 years. Double that if your previous felony was for a crime committed with a gun.

Problem with that is the people who want gun control the most are also the people who don't like prisons all that much and don't want people going there for a long time.

I'm big time in support of this. I'm pretty liberal on most things, but I support gun ownership - have all you want as long as you're not hurting people or committing crimes. However the illegal weapons and illegal ownership by felons, etc are really what drives crime and drive the crackdowns on guns - so seems to me that the NRA would be all in favor of increasing sentences for illegal gun ownership.

[molson]

It isn't that difficult:

There has been a concerted effort by the NRA to try and change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to say that an individual has the sacrosanct right to have any means and amount of firearms they want, and it would be unconstitutional for any law to try and say otherwise.

My take is that there is plenty of language in the Constitution, as well as Supreme Court precedent that squashes the NRA's interpretation. If the NRA's interpretation was accepted, then the laws such as the ones limiting felons and mentally ill from owning firearms would be ruled unconstitutional. Since there is case law showing that the rights of individuals to own firearms can be limited, that shows it is not an absolute individual right.

I agree that there's no ABSOLUTE individual gun right, but you're saying that the constitution provides ZERO individual gun rights, and that it's only a "group right". Under your interpretation, the government could ban individual gun ownership, but not "group ownership". The courts would have to figure out the difference between the two.

Edit: Or, you're saying that the "group right" gives me the individual right to buy and possess guns, subject to restrictions if I'm a felon or whatever. But this is after you insist that the 2nd Amendment isn't an individual right. If the 2nd Amendment isn't an individual right, it isn't an individual right. But I think it is, and the courts have clearly held that it is. Like every other right, it isn't absolute.

[EagleFan]

I agree that there's no ABSOLUTE individual gun right, but you're saying that the constitution provides ZERO individual gun rights, and that it's only a "group right". Under your interpretation, the government could ban individual gun ownership, but not "group ownership". The courts would have to figure out the difference between the two.

Edit: Or, you're saying that the "group right" gives me the individual right to buy and possess guns, subject to restrictions if I'm a felon or whatever. But this is after you insist that the 2nd Amendment isn't an individual right. If the 2nd Amendment isn't an individual right, it isn't an individual right. But I think it is, and the courts have clearly held that it is. Like every other right, it isn't absolute.

Isn't he saying that there is no guarantee of individual gun ownership; meaning that if you are not deemed to be mentally fit enough to have that responsibility you won't be owning a gun? That is a completely reasonable assumption.

[molson]

Isn't he saying that there is no guarantee of individual gun ownership; meaning that if you are not deemed to be mentally fit enough to have that responsibility you won't be owning a gun? That is a completely reasonable assumption.

Ya, I guess that's it, it's just semantics of the meaning of an individual right.

Individual rights aren't necessarily absolute. But when people start focusing on the militia language I assume they're arguing for a shrinking of the individual right that the Supreme Court has clearly interpreted the 2nd Amendment as providing. The Court went on and one in Heller about the individual nature of the right v. it being some collective, militia-based right.

You either have a constitutional right to an activity or you don't. If you have the right, it's not absolute. If you don't have the right, the government or individual states can ban the activity if it chooses to.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Again, as long as they're rights you personally value, they're worth protecting. If you don't personally value them, then other people shouldn't have them.

You won't see me argue this point at all.

Hell, I've commented somewhat regularly in recent years that "rights" are an entirely artificial construct that mean no more or no less than what the people in charges of the biggest & best tanks say they mean.

The Constitution is, afaic, a tool. A means to an end.