A little common sense and gun control?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ryche

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

So who represents gun owners then?

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

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]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

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]

Originally Posted by Mike D

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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Seems like the right place for this brewing story:

Police keep close eye on reports of disturbing 'knockout' game - CNN.com

Line those kids up in a firing squad.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by TroyF

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

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]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

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]

Originally Posted by panerd

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]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

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]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Sounds good to me, let's do it.

:+1

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Sounds good to me, let's do it.

[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]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

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]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Kodos

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]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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