So you think you know the 2nd Amendment [Archive]

Alan

12-19-12, 9:38pm

Why depend on a modern-day opinion of what the amendment means when we have the founders and their contemporaries thoughts on the subject? Here are a few for consideration:

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])

bae

12-19-12, 10:03pm

Why depend on a modern-day opinion of what the amendment means when we have the founders and their contemporaries thoughts on the subject?

You could also take a look at the analysis contained in the recent US Supreme Court discussion of the matter.

Me, frankly, I don't care about the Second Amendment. I think I have a fundamental right as a human being to defend myself from harm. And I don't think anyone has a moral right to use force to prevent me from using effective tools, as long as I am offering no harm to others.

Xmac

12-20-12, 1:54am

From the article:

"...the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon."

The writer of the article makes the point that the Supreme Court et al frequently bend to the prevailing winds of politics, which is supposedly what happened in the seventies. I don't dispute that. The absurdity of the above quote makes the case most convincingly since it, was what was decided by the Court.

The Bill of Rights of the constitution was ratified in order to restrict or restrain the power of those in the Federal government because it was, and is, subservient to the states i.e. the sovereign nations which formed it (see Cooperative Federalism pdf). The Bill of Rights, if you notice the language, cannot confer rights, they acknowledge pre-existing rights and restrict those with whom some authority was not conferred, but delegated.

As I understand it, the constitution was drafted in the context of a largely self-reliant citizenry. They grew their own food, built houses, made clothes and protected their property; with deadly force if necessary. They did that against the British by forming militias. People = militias.
Isn't that very clear? Does it take a legal scholar to see this?

Local groups of responsible firearms owners acting in mutual cooperation were the fundemental front line against tyranny. Today the context has changed and Americans are frequently petrified at the sight of a gun, however the principle hasn't changed.

Interesting to note that even Gandhi opposed gun control.

puglogic

12-20-12, 2:11am

And I'm sure Gandhi would also approve of hundred-round magazines, armor-piercing bullets, and fully automatic weapons whose only purpose is to kill other human beings.

It may be surprising to note that many Americans are not opposed to citizens owning a weapon for the procurement of food or for their own reasonable protection. I am a gun owner, responsible and educated, and a damned good shot to boot. It's the bastardization of this "right" that has created the insane gun-worship we live in currently, and creates the climate of fear we live in. Have a gun - protect your family if you feel you are threatened -- kill your food. This is our heritage. But those who collect numerous lethal weapons, who take time to research every gun-supporting quote on the internet, who lobby for the right to have more and more weapons, all they might desire, no matter their killing capacity, no matter the fact that they already have more than enough firepower in the closet to kill a hundred invaders?

These people are mentally ill, and it's time decent intelligent people called them out as such.

Xmas, you're a smart person. Rather that parroting the "gandhi opposed gun control" squawking so prevalent among the lovers of these devices that kill other human beings, you might want to dig deeper than just kneejerk protectionist propaganda to what he really said, and the historical context in which he said it. The quote gun-lovers go all a-tingle over actually refers to his objection to the British disarmament of the Indian Army. Gandhi never advocated the individual right to bear arms, let alone the NRA's obsession with legalizing any and all arms, as many as possible, and as lethal as possible. Nor did the Dalai Lama, another gross untruth the gun lobby loves to quote.

Does it take a historical scholar to see this?

bae

12-20-12, 2:40am

These people are mentally ill, and it's time decent intelligent people called them out as such.

No, they aren't ill. They are just different from you. Fun to label and dehumanize people though, isn't it?

Mrs-M

12-20-12, 5:16am

Quote from article.

Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the homeAnd this is exactly where handguns should start, and end, in the home, not strapped to the belt-sides of every US citizen (while out in public).

At any rate, just heard via the news (radio), that Joe Biden, has been appointed by President Obama, to lead a gun-control task force to implement new gun-control measures. About time!

Adding, the National Rifle Association, finally broke its silence on the school shootings Tuesday, with a statement that said, "it is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."

Empty and meaningless words, from an empty and meaningless organization.

Alan

12-20-12, 8:52am

Alan

12-20-12, 9:24am

At any rate, just heard via the news (radio), that Joe Biden, has been appointed by President Obama, to lead a gun-control task force to implement new gun-control measures. About time!

I wonder if his views have changed since 2008?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XcyLeOm6yGc

puglogic

12-20-12, 11:37am

No, they aren't ill. They are just different from you. Fun to label and dehumanize people though, isn't it?

Oh, not dehumanizing at all....they're very human, just a breed of human I find icky.

I knew a man who collected instruments of torture. He found them fascinating. I know another person who was arrested for the most alarming collection of child pornography imaginable. A family member loves to salivate over the bloodiest battles in history, as though the only thing that happened on those fields was brilliant strategy. These people share a common trait with gun fanatics: they are able to completely see past the immense human suffering caused by the object of their love and affection, as though it simply doesn't exist. That breed of human is simply scary to me {shrug}

It's my personal belief that the majority of politically active gun lovers -- as opposed to people who happen to own a gun -- have a fearful, dangerous and rather scary worldview, and I'm sick of being asked to see it as normal behavior in a civilized society. It isn't.

We can't stuff this genie back in the bottle, but we can call a spade a spade. Stop pretending the adoration and collection of lethal weapons is something to be respected. It's really just strange and sad.

Yossarian

12-20-12, 11:54am

That breed of human is simply scary to me

Baloney. The people I see at my gub club are some of the most caring and respectful people I have ever met.

Rogar

12-20-12, 11:56am

It's my personal belief that the majority of politically active gun lovers -- as opposed to people who happen to own a gun -- have a fearful, dangerous and rather scary worldview, and I'm sick of being asked to see it as normal behavior in a civilized society. It isn't.

With the exception of Bae and a probable small handful of others, I think the obsession probably stems from an unjustified paranoia fueled by the media and peer groups.

I believe in psychology that there is the concept that we create a self image and then construct a reality that is designed to protect our self image. Such as might be the case with a conservative political self image, and then a constructed reality that global warming is not real or man caused that would then conform to the self image concept. I think radical gun advocates suffer a similar self delusion.

iris lily

12-20-12, 12:07pm

With the exception of Bae and a probable small handful of others, I think the obsession probably stems from an unjustified paranoia fueled by the media and peer groups.

These gun control conversations almost always come down to this: bae & others on this forum, a very small number, are reasonable humans but those out there in gun totin' land are crazed jerks.

I don't buy it.

Alan

12-20-12, 12:07pm

I believe in psychology that there is the concept that we create a self image and then construct a reality that is designed to protect our self image. And anyone who doesn't adhere to that constructed reality is simply delusional?

Rogar

12-20-12, 12:25pm

And anyone who doesn't adhere to that constructed reality is simply delusional?

I guess it depends on whether the reality is based on fact and rational thought, or whether it is bent to conform to the image of self.

Alan

12-20-12, 12:26pm

I guess it depends on whether the reality is based on fact and rational thought, or whether it is bent to conform to the image of self.
So which basis are you using to declare so many groups of people delusional?

Rogar

12-20-12, 12:56pm

So which basis are you using to declare so many groups of people delusional?

I have tried to swear off any gun debates after the last futile 26+ page debate. I would like to bow out of this one and will only add this.

Cold hearted orb
That rules the night
Removes the colours
From our sight
Red is gray and
Yellow white
But we decide
Which is right
And
Which is an Illusion

creaker

12-20-12, 1:20pm

No, they aren't ill. They are just different from you. Fun to label and dehumanize people though, isn't it?

This is where posturing breaks down any possibility of discussion. Of course not all people who own guns are mentally ill. But of course not all who own guns are not mentally ill.

ApatheticNoMore

12-20-12, 1:31pm

I don't need to be told that crazed jerks exists, when rage outbroke in my home growing up you took cover or you ran, no guns whatsoever, but random objects would hit the air .... I believe enough in the human *capacity* for crazy thank you very much (though I'll never even emotionally understand premeditated murder). I just think the odds of seeing any at the movie theater or church or a school is absurd and yes that paranoia is driving the conversation all over (why should I think that media whipped hysteria should only influence one side, riddle me that). I definitely think it does drive some of gun culture. I also think it's the exact same thing that drives the belief that we need armed guards everywhere now. It drives mass incarceration and law and order legistlation. It drives the fear of terrorism, the TSA, a decades plus worth of unnecessary war (ok um it is very far from the *only* thing that drives that, economics drives that, it's just what got the masses buy out on it).

I knew a man who collected instruments of torture. He found them fascinating

I see a bright career in government somewhere for him, with room for advancement, he's rationally economical, probably one of the few jobs left with a pension!

I have tried to swear off any gun debates after the last futile 26+ page debate. I would like to bow out of this one and will only add this.

oh you've been infinitely calm and reasonable, you always are in these political debates. Just ha, way above this crazed fray.

redfox

12-20-12, 3:26pm

One of the things I most like about these fora is the wide range of differences in thinking & philosophy. I am a radical feminist & pacifist, who once owned & used a gun. I'm a progressive who loves those who choose to serve in government - I considered a run once myself - with an appreciative streak for libertarians. I'm an anti-capitalist with a serious talent for sales.

I value each & everyone's contributions, even if I shriek "are you KIDDING?!?" out loud when I read it. It's a big country. All of our voices are needed in this national convo. Please keep it up!

PS - a useful tool for thinking:
http://www.systems-thinking.org/loi/loi.htm

peggy

12-20-12, 3:36pm

These gun control conversations almost always come down to this: bae & others on this forum, a very small number, are reasonable humans but those out there in gun totin' land are crazed jerks.

I don't buy it.

I don't either. The ones here are a bit out there as well, but we are trying to play nice..;)

lucas

12-20-12, 3:44pm

I love the fact that so many american really seem to believe gun ownership 'protects them from the government'... that's hilarious... :~)

bae

12-20-12, 3:45pm

I don't either. The ones here are a bit out there as well, but we are trying to play nice..;)

I just sent the NRA $20,000 for you, Peggy. I hope it brings you many happy returns.

ApatheticNoMore

12-20-12, 4:09pm

I love the fact that so many american really seem to believe gun ownership 'protects them from the government'... that's hilarious...

I am an American, yea I really and truly am, a real American, even have the birth certificate ;), and I believe no such thing, nor do many of us. I find the idea ridiculous. The government is just too well armed, and with more than just guns, it is the single largest armed force the world has ever known (and people wonder why we are always at war, maybe that's the inevitability of that ... of just having that kind of massive armed force :( ) I can't imagine any arsenal competing, and it grows better armed all the time (we just keep being so eager to finance that afterall). Anyone who worries about having to overthrow the government should at least be consistent and want to gut the defense department (um just basic sense here, you don't empower that which you might want to overthrow).

Ok but thinking through the idea ... guns protecting you from government ... hypotheticals. Suppose the government is a SWAT team unjustly breaking into your house (you haven't done anything but they think you are dealing drugs or something) and opening fire or something (these types of raids have happened, mostly to minorities). Well you might have a chance against that but you are still probably outgunned (and they are well dressed for just such an encounter) and what will you gain for that self-defense anyway, probably lifetime imprisonment! Authority protects itself, the courts mostly protect authority. But that's one SWAT team, the whole government being overthrown is absurd, thats tanks, and missles and drones (though non-government can build those) and nuclear weapons (um you don't want non-government building those!) ....

But we do need a revolution in this country, the utter and complete corruption of the political process is just something I see no way out of at this point (money out of politics might help some, but I see no way to even get that). But a violent revolution is unlikely to work like I said (short of a military coup maybe and I'm not sure that's an improvement). And the country is too divided politicaly to even make mass non-violent resistence work, people wouldn't even agree on the problems (at least yet). So I guess for now we will be ruled by utterly corrupt plutocratic oligarchs who care nothing about our lives (they really don't, they'd happily watch us die, in fact they often happily kill, riches are all that matter), life as such, or even the future of the planet.

bunnys

12-20-12, 4:28pm

These people are mentally ill, and it's time decent intelligent people called them out as such.

No, they're not mentally ill but those who feel it's necessary to build their own personal arsenal to prepare to fight the US Government are not committed to the public good.

The public good requires that we buy into the compact we have made with our government to participate in it and give those running the country the benefit of the doubt when making decisions about how to govern. Those committed to the 235+ year old US democratic government participate in it and when they don't agree with how it's operating, work within its established parameters to change what they don't like. They don't establish an armed camp, ready to engage in warfare with the government. Those people who don't buy into this compact should actually not live in this country. They should go to some desert island somewhere and establish a government based on what they believe. For our government to work, the citizenry has to buy into the idea that it will work and if it currently isn't, it's been designed that it can be fixed without resorting to civil war.

Additionally, those who are establishing their own armed compounds are utterly deluding themselves if they think for one minute they can keep the US military out. It's preposterous thinking but it's not mentally ill.

Bae: Mentally ill people are not less than human. They're ill.

Gregg

12-20-12, 4:54pm

But those who collect numerous lethal weapons, who take time to research every gun-supporting quote on the internet, who lobby for the right to have more and more weapons, all they might desire, no matter their killing capacity, no matter the fact that they already have more than enough firepower in the closet to kill a hundred invaders?

These people are mentally ill, and it's time decent intelligent people called them out as such.

Does it take a historical scholar to see this?

For some perspective... I once knew (of) a group of educated, articulate men. Natural leaders who were admired and respected. Between them they directed their flocks to design and build enough firepower to destroy the world 20 times over. Amassing the capability to murder 140 billion people when we only have seven billion living on the planet should probably cause sanity to be questioned.

I probably have enough food in my house to last my family a year with very few stops at the grocery store. I see possible disruptions to the food supply chain from natural disasters, peak oil, labor strikes, terrorist activity, economic collapse (the country's or my own), etc. I think all those and more are possible, but none are likely. It makes me feel like I will be able to provide for my family even in the face of some pretty extreme events. Am I compensating for some other shortcoming? Probably, but you'd have to ask a shrink to know for sure. Am I mentally ill because I want to be prepared for something that in all likelihood will never happen? I don't think I am. Is anybody else harmed by me having a large collection of canned goods?

We live in Nebraska where tornadoes are fairly common. We have a storm shelter even though the chance of our house actually being directly hit by a tornado is only a little better than my chance of winning the Power Ball jackpot. Am I mentally ill or prudent because I'm prepared even if it never happens? When a violent storm is baring down on us do you think my neighbor, who has no shelter, will simply sit in her kitchen and watch her house be destroyed or will she run next door and take shelter? When she comes running to my house do you suppose she will tell me how crazy I was for spending extra money to build our shelter or will she think it was a pretty good idea? Is anyone harmed by it's presence even if we never use that shelter?

I knew a man who collected instruments of torture. He found them fascinating. I know another person who was arrested for the most alarming collection of child pornography imaginable. A family member loves to salivate over the bloodiest battles in history, as though the only thing that happened on those fields was brilliant strategy. These people share a common trait with gun fanatics: they are able to completely see past the immense human suffering caused by the object of their love and affection, as though it simply doesn't exist. That breed of human is simply scary to me {shrug}

To be honest pug what scares me is the personification of these objects. The "immense human suffering" was caused by other humans. Unless it just happens to randomly fall on your head, no object has, by itself, ever caused suffering. ANY object has the potential to cause suffering if used to that end by someone with that intent, but none can do it on their own.

The comparison between child pornographers and gun owners is offensive. We all have our filters and mine tells me anyone who would use children in this way is a monster, but to apply that to someone even if they are "fanatic" about guns is wrong. The others in your example may be a bit macabre, but do they hurt anyone? Should we have the right to stop someone in their (perfectly legal) pursuit of happiness just because we find what they're doing icky? Is a guy with 1,000 guns in his closet a monster even if he has never and will never use one against anyone? What about a guy with 1,000 hammers? Or 1,000 books? The monsters are people that will harm others without cause or remorse. They are no more significantly represented among gun owners than they are among any other group you would care to name.

Alan

12-20-12, 5:08pm

I love the fact that so many american really seem to believe gun ownership 'protects them from the government'... that's hilarious... :~)
I agree that the idea of protection from government is an out-dated concept, although reminding the government that the people have a right to self protection and self determination, rights that the government itself used to acknowledge, is a very good thing.

Gregg

12-20-12, 5:34pm

I love the fact that so many american really seem to believe gun ownership 'protects them from the government'... that's hilarious... :~)

I agree with Alan regarding the practicality of citizens standing up against the government (think about it), but if the government doesn't see some kind of merit in that notion why is there so much emphasis put on tracking citizen's ownership of guns? Who owns what is no predictor of impending crime and once a crime has been committed does it really matter where a gun came from? Is there really any significant chance that will be determined in most cases?

bae

12-20-12, 5:44pm

... They don't establish an armed camp, ready to engage in warfare with the government. ....

The nutball militia/sovereign citizen movement - what percentage of American gunowners belong, and have armed camps? (Hint, it's about 0%. I rounded down from 0.038%, and I didn't sift for the "have armed camp" requirement) And of those, how many of them are capable of any effective action? Let's round down to 0% again, especially since the data indicates that about 20% of their membership are FBI folks keeping an eye on things...

Is it reasonable to develop public policy that restricts and punishes the actions of 99.nn% of polite, law-abiding, contributing citizens in order to attempt to influence the actions of a miniscule minority? A minority that won't bother obeying any of these sorts of laws anyways? A minority that could simply produce what they want in their own workshops trivially?

I mean, heck, I have a machine shop here, and I could make just about anything I want in an afternoon or two. If I dropped ~$5k on some nice 3D printing technology, I could sit back and let my iPad do all the work even. If I were ambitious, I could build the 3D printer myself for a few hundred dollars. But that's overkill, you can make an AR-15 receiver out of a block of decent hardwood or plywood. Or an AK-47 receiver out of an old shovel, using only simple hand tools. Good thing I'm a happy member of society, eh?

And if I weren't, given my extensive engineering background, I wouldn't worry too much about me using a gun... You better start registering people with engineering and science degrees.

bae

12-20-12, 5:49pm

I agree with Alan regarding the practicality of citizens standing up against the government (think about it),

While I agree with you that small groups of citizens foolish enough to engage US government forces in set-piece battles would be wiped out in short order (and good riddance to them...), think about this:

Afghanistan is about the size of Texas, and it has taken much of the might of our nation to just barely keep the lid on over there.

If large numbers of the citizens of the United States decided violent resistance was called for, there are not enough police and military in this county to keep things under control. Those rebels would be living among us, with easy access to the family members and friends of government, police, and military forces - they wouldn't be safely overseas. You couldn't bomb their cities. They probably wouldn't be so nice as to secede as a group of states, and invite Civil War 2.0.

Look at the trouble a single lame sniper team did to the DC area a few years back:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

Multiply that by...a lot.

Then consider that some of the rebels probably would be clever enough not to use guns...

It would be horrid, who wants that? Why even go there?

bunnys

12-20-12, 6:06pm

ApatheticNoMore

12-20-12, 6:15pm

Oh I think the government would fight a heck of a lot harder here than they ever did in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.. See I don't think entirely subduing rebellion is crucial to the goals of those wars, I think they may be quite happy to subdue them enough so they can be manageable and not interfere with whatever the real objective is (I dont' even know anymore, Al Queda, oil, putting in U.S. friendly governments, whatever it is today, but I really don't think it's to make those regions peaceful, sorry). A citizenry in full on rebellion against the government here would face a government and all the interest that government serves (that's a lot of big money there!) fighting for it's survival, no, it would be much worse.

creaker

12-20-12, 6:49pm

Is it reasonable to develop public policy that restricts and punishes the actions of 99.nn% of polite, law-abiding, contributing citizens in order to attempt to influence the actions of a miniscule minority?

That sounds like the TSA.

bae

12-20-12, 7:00pm

That sounds like the TSA.

Indeed. Security Theater.

peggy

12-20-12, 10:24pm

I just sent the NRA $20,000 for you, Peggy. I hope it brings you many happy returns.

And I just sent the ATF a donation in your name...or did I just send them your name...

bae

12-20-12, 10:34pm

And I just sent the ATF a donation in your name...or did I just send them your name...

Given that I have multiple Title II/NFA items registered with the BATF, and a Class III license pending, participate in sanctioned CMP events and own many "assault weapons" purchased directly from the US Government for this purpose, and participate in a winery business, I'm pretty sure they already know where to find me. I talk with them every few weeks. Nice guys really.

I don't smoke or grow tobacco though, maybe you could drop them a dime about that.

But thanks!

freein05

12-20-12, 11:15pm

Bae: I don't know where you're getting your numbers from but let's go with your 99%+ of polite, law-abiding types. Why do you think they all (or even most) would consider limiting gun access a punishment? I consider it a privilege to live in a country where I don't have to carry an assault weapon to protect myself. I do consider it a privilege to live in a country where I can count on my government to protect me from unrest. I'm grateful I live where I know I can trust my government and based on it's long history of pretty good, trustworthy actions [not flawless, but good] I believe my trust has been earned.

+ 1. Remember the Civil War and that will give you an idea how hard the government will fight to keep the union together.

Edited to add: I am 67 years old and in all that time I have never felt I need for a firearm for protection. I grew up in a not so good part of Los Angeles. If there was a potential bad situation I would get out of it using my brain. If any private citizen thinks they can take on the government good luck.

Gregg

12-20-12, 11:34pm

While I agree with you that small groups of citizens foolish enough to engage US government forces in set-piece battles would be wiped out in short order (and good riddance to them...), think about this:

Afghanistan is about the size of Texas, and it has taken much of the might of our nation to just barely keep the lid on over there.

If large numbers of the citizens of the United States decided violent resistance was called for, there are not enough police and military in this county to keep things under control. Those rebels would be living among us, with easy access to the family members and friends of government, police, and military forces - they wouldn't be safely overseas. You couldn't bomb their cities. They probably wouldn't be so nice as to secede as a group of states, and invite Civil War 2.0.

Look at the trouble a single lame sniper team did to the DC area a few years back:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

Multiply that by...a lot.

Then consider that some of the rebels probably would be clever enough not to use guns...

It would be horrid, who wants that? Why even go there?

Don't get me wrong, I hope we never have the need for violent/armed resistance. I do think the powers that be are kept in check to a certain degree because such resistance is a possibility and because they realize it would be impossible to squelch. To attempt to do so would be akin to scratching poison ivy, the itch would spread AND become more acute. That may just be one of our greatest strengths. God bless the USA.

freein05

12-20-12, 11:52pm

The Constitution basically says the military is to be under civilian control. This is very important to keep us from becoming a banana republic. Our military is actually the big threat to our country.

ApatheticNoMore

12-21-12, 12:21am

Don't get me wrong, I hope we never have the need for violent/armed resistance. I do think the powers that be are kept in check to a certain degree because such resistance is a possibility and because they realize it would be impossible to squelch

Quite impossible to prove, quite impossible to prove the powers that be are kept in check either (I mean if "in check" doesn't stop things like the NDAA, torture, presidential murder, crackdowns on dissent, drones over U.S. cities, cops killing innocent people ...) then it's not exactly particularly effective. But it could be worse? Well things could *always* be worse... So how would one know things are kept in check or not?

There's an alternate argument that the powers that be become more militarized themselves in a heavily armed society, they put on the full riot gear and Mayberry orders a tank, a type of arms race (although to some extent this is more widespread than just in the U.S.)

Never mind that it seems impossible to get a critical mass to keep anything in check just via normal civics stuff (voting in a meaningful way - not lesser evilism!!!, protest, etc.). So people too indifferent to even bother but they want armed revolution, well if that's the case, it's really messed up. I would like to have seen everyone who wants to keep things in check via guns to form mass protests to the NDAA. Yea, nada (excuse my anagram).

freein05

12-21-12, 12:28am

ApatheticNoMore

12-21-12, 12:38am

Are people forgetting we vote in our leaders and they represent us. That is why we are a democracy and not a banana republic. Our form of government has lasted for over 2 hundred years. We don't want a few hot heads or disgruntled losers to destroy our country. I have not cared for a lot of our leaders and at the next election I would do what I could to get them defeated at the polls. That is the why a democracy works.

It's a pretty rigged game, for instance congress has ratings that are consistently through the floor, less than 20% approval and so on, and I agree with that assessment, they *are* that bad! But then nearly all incumbants get reelected, mostly because the congressional districts are so badly jerrymandered they are often completely controlled by one party. Then there's the whole lesser of two evils game, the electorial college, etc.. The end result is I doubt the legistlation we get is what almost anyone supports! Social security cuts? Are we getting those because "the people demanded it!". Doubtful.

Still I have very little patience for anyone who doesn't even want to try to change things by non-violent (which does not always mean risk free!) means and just wants to talk about a violent revolution (and it is just talk! it isn't even like we have a violent revolution, not that it would be so great ....)

freein05

12-21-12, 1:37am

I finally got a Democrat congressmen because California a few years ago passed a law that puts in place some type of impartial redistricting method. This method was used after the last census. Before the new method was used my district looked like a jigsaw puzzle.

gimmethesimplelife

12-21-12, 2:31am

Oh, not dehumanizing at all....they're very human, just a breed of human I find icky.

I knew a man who collected instruments of torture. He found them fascinating. I know another person who was arrested for the most alarming collection of child pornography imaginable. A family member loves to salivate over the bloodiest battles in history, as though the only thing that happened on those fields was brilliant strategy. These people share a common trait with gun fanatics: they are able to completely see past the immense human suffering caused by the object of their love and affection, as though it simply doesn't exist. That breed of human is simply scary to me {shrug}

It's my personal belief that the majority of politically active gun lovers -- as opposed to people who happen to own a gun -- have a fearful, dangerous and rather scary worldview, and I'm sick of being asked to see it as normal behavior in a civilized society. It isn't.

We can't stuff this genie back in the bottle, but we can call a spade a spade. Stop pretending the adoration and collection of lethal weapons is something to be respected. It's really just strange and sad.Puglogic, Thank You for posting your take on this. I have always been afraid of guns since my father pulled a gun on my mother back in 1977 as I posted on the Connecticut shootings thread. I have never really thought much about the kind of person who collects guns - and I have known of a few over my years, and yes they seem to me to have the qualities you speak of. That scary worldview and the obliviousness to any human suffering weapons can and do cause. I couldn't agree with you more on this. I do however think this does not describe 100% of gun owners by any means. OTOH it doesn't take but a few less than stable people to create seering national tragedies, either. Rob

Zoebird

12-21-12, 2:45am

I know collectors of all kinds. They are all a little bit odd in my book, becuase they collect things and I find that odd.

But, of these collectors, I know several who collect guns.

One collects handguns. He likes to shoot targets with them at a range. He keeps all of his guns locked up in his home, and he keeps a locker at the range with the ammunition that he prefers. He does this just so that there won't be any accidents in the home -- even though he lives alone. All of the guns are kept nice and safe.

Another collects hunting rifles. He hunts deer, duck, goose, and elk. Apparently these require different kinds of guns, and/or he likes figuring out which guns are best for which kind of hunting scenario -- since all are different. He also teaches gun/hunting safety classes for families who are into hunting or getting into hunting (particularly this second group), which he markets as a "$10 donation" class through the local hunting stores. He uses his own guns to train a lot of people how to handle guns safely, how to shoot (they start with targets of course), and then later how to hunt.

Another collects antique military weapons -- pretty much anything WWII or prior. He's able to shoot all of them -- as he likes that process. I don't know how many weapons he has.

None of them have a 'scary worldview and obliviousness to any human suffering weapons can and do cause." If anything, they are *far more* clear on the issue than people who just out-and-out fear guns. It's the fear of them that makes you dangerous -- around guns, to yourself and others.

It's partly why I consider myself dangerous around guns. I know that my grandfathers -- who had guns, but nto really "collections" i would say -- taught me how to shoot, how to handle weapons. But, that was back when I was 12, I had a few days with them and the guns, and nothing "stuck." So, I consider myself a big risk around a gun.

Most of the people whom I know who own guns are just normal people who like sports. Seriously. They like to shoot at targets or go hunting. They aren't interested in hurting people, and they are just as shocked and hurt by these occurrences as the rest of us. And then, they get "beat up" for being gun owners after the fact -- being called "icky" or mentally unstable if they don't have the individuals "right/approved" number and kinds of guns. So, they get considered "part of the problem" of these situations and "oblivious" to the suffering -- none of which is true. That's got to be really annoying.

puglogic

12-21-12, 6:53am

Sorry, but I'm just not going to drink the Kool-Aid any more.

The sole purpose of guns is to kill things. I have a gun because it can kills things. Whether it's the legitimate killing of food, or the fantasy killing of other human beings (been to a range?), these objects exist to kill things -- to make them bleed and die at my whim. Those who are obsessed with them -- the "Pry my gun from my cold dead fingers" crowd, politically active, "I should be able to have fully automatic weapons if I want one" -- are not obsessed because they're pretty little pieces of gleaming metal sculpture. They're obsessed because of guns' power to make things bleed and die if I want them to bleed and die.

Killing power. Cover it up with as many layers of pretty, and sport, and "my right" that you want. It's all about the thrill of owning killing power. Shooting an AR-17 at a paper target that looks like a person is about killing power. Gun shows are about killing power. Call of Duty is about killing power. The fantasy of killing is powerful in our society, in our kids -- because no one bats an eyelash at it any more. It's "normal".

Future generations, if there are any, may look back on our acceptance of this trend in our species -- our treating this delight in killing power (real and fantasy) as an innocent, normal, fun human activity -- and wonder, "What were they, stupid? Why did they possibly think that was okay? What did they THINK was going to happen?"

I too know lots of folks who have guns, very decent, lovely people. Some of them hang around this forum. I myself am a normal person with a gun. I like mine, I have it for what I think are the right reasons, and I would not want it to be taken away. But I don't pretend it's anything but what it is: a machine that allows me to take the lives of things if I decide I want/need to do so. The thought of devoting my time, money, voice, energy to making sure that anyone anywhere can have any sort of killing device they want? (the NRA) I don't think that's good for us as a species, on any level, and I'm not supporting it no matter what shape the 2nd Amendment gets twisted into.

I know, I'm fringe. Twenty-six body bags later, people who were no more human to the shooter than the baddies on the screen in Halo, and I'm officially off the deep end. No more glorifying killing power for me - in reality or in fantasy.

goldensmom

12-21-12, 7:20am

The sole purpose of guns is to kill things. I have a gun because it can kills things. Whether it's the legitimate killing of food, or the fantasy killing of other human beings (been to a range?), these objects exist to kill things -- to make them bleed and die at my whim.

Are you using the word 'guns' in referring to all weaponry or differentiating between handguns and shot guns/rifles? I respectively disagree unless you consider hitting an inanimate tin can or clay target a ‘thing to be killed’ with either a hand gun or shot gun/rifle. No blood shed, no life lost there.

puglogic

12-21-12, 7:45am

Gregg

12-21-12, 9:12am

Guns (with few exceptions) are manufactured to kill things. That's what they do: they fire a projectile so you can kill something from a distance without having to grapple hand-to-hand with it. That most folks (like me) only use them to shoot tin cans is a wonderful thing. But nobody's lobbying Congress for the right to shoot clay pigeons with a Bushmaster, or have a concealed carry permit so they can peg a few Coke bottles in an emergency.

I agree with what you say in this post pug, guns are a tool invented specifically to make killing more efficient. Other uses have been developed and are now common in our society, but you are correct about the original purpose. However, one key element that can not be discounted is intent. Accidents aside, no gun will kill unless the person using it does so with the intent to kill. I just can not get by the notion that it makes more sense to address the person than the tool even if I realize how much more difficult that is. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree here to keep the discussion moving.

What I'm not really clear on is, specifically, what you're proposing re: new gun control legislation. Do you have specifics in mind or are we still in the broad brush stroke stage?

Yossarian

12-21-12, 9:29am

I know, I'm fringe. Twenty-six body bags later, people who were no more human to the shooter than the baddies on the screen in Halo, and I'm officially off the deep end. No more glorifying killing power for me - in reality or in fantasy.

In what video game do you shoot your mother 4 times in the head while she is sleeping?

I'm not seeing the people who engage in shooting sports committing any of these crimes. The common thread seems to be mentally ill young males, not sportsmen or even self-defense (translate that to killing if you want) oriented gun owners.

peggy

12-21-12, 9:50am

Given that I have multiple Title II/NFA items registered with the BATF, and a Class III license pending, participate in sanctioned CMP events and own many "assault weapons" purchased directly from the US Government for this purpose, and participate in a winery business, I'm pretty sure they already know where to find me. I talk with them every few weeks. Nice guys really.

I don't smoke or grow tobacco though, maybe you could drop them a dime about that.

But thanks!

Well, just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not watching you!;)

Mrs-M

12-21-12, 9:56am

Originally posted by Yossarian.
In what video game do you shoot your mother 4 times in the head while she is sleeping?And if such a game doesn't exist, does it matter? Your statement suggests we reside in a world/society where all is tickety-boo.

peggy

12-21-12, 10:06am

Don't get me wrong, I hope we never have the need for violent/armed resistance. I do think the powers that be are kept in check to a certain degree because such resistance is a possibility and because they realize it would be impossible to squelch. To attempt to do so would be akin to scratching poison ivy, the itch would spread AND become more acute. That may just be one of our greatest strengths. God bless the USA.

Why do you all think the government, our government is just itching to enslave us all? That without the gun toting tea baggers at rallies to 'remind' our officials that we are armed is the only thing standing between us and total subjugation? Isn't that kind of...well, paranoid? This whole us against them meme is what's tearing the country apart, and why we can't get anything done. When when we start giving voice to the tin foil hat crowd, pretending that 'they got something there', then we are doomed to civil war at some point.
My husband works for the government (VA). Is he evil? So does my daughter. Is she evil? How about the firemen and police men in your town? What about the lady at city hall who issues building permits? Is she poised to invade your home at gun point? This is the government! The ARE the government. And those in Washington? They are just building permit issuers on a grander scale. And each and everyone of them, save the Supremes, can be voted out of office.

Let me ask you this. When a tea bagger wears a side arm to a town hall meeting with the political leaders, which one is trying to subjugate? Which one is trying to intimidate and bully by the threat of violence? Which one is trying to get their way at the point of a gun? Here's a hint. It isn't the political government guy up on stage.

Gregg

12-21-12, 10:16am

Why do you all think the government, our government is just itching to enslave us all?

We don't. Because they can't. Can't speak for everyone, but I would just like to keep it that way.

when we start giving voice to the tin foil hat crowd...

Unless the First Amendment is now also up for grabs they automatically get a voice. So do the Nazis, Muslim fundamentalists, communists, Christians...

Yossarian

12-21-12, 10:35am

And if such a game doesn't exist, does it matter? Your statement suggests we reside in a world/society where all is tickety-boo.

Au contraire.

Spartana

12-21-12, 4:37pm

Lainey

12-21-12, 4:53pm

Color-coded map of U.S. states and their respective laws on assault rifles:

http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/assaultweapons1.jpg

freein05

12-21-12, 5:03pm

Alan

12-21-12, 5:10pm

NRA has the answer to these mass murders. Arm the teachers and everyone else in schools. They say Everyone in the country should be packing heat to prevent mass murders. i just can not understand what makes them think the way they do. What a bunch of idiotsActually, what they said was to put a police officer or security guard in every school, which is already done in virtually every inner city school.

But, even if your version was correct, what effect would the possibility of an armed teacher or school administrator have on a potential mass murderer of schoolchildren?

bae

12-21-12, 5:11pm

Well, just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not watching you!;)

I do love how above you implicitly threatened me with actual violence in the real world though (through your BATF comment), that was pretty classy of you. And quite telling of your desire to use force to impose your will on others who are doing you no harm. Wouldn't it have been funny if you'd actually made such a call, reported something inflammatory, and they'd taken the bait, and showed up here in the dark of morning with a full raid? Laughs all around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting

Pretty loathsome of you.

bae

12-21-12, 5:22pm

NRA has the answer to these mass murders. Arm the teachers and everyone else in schools. They say Everyone in the country should be packing heat to prevent mass murders. i just can not understand what makes them think the way they do. What a bunch of idiots

It seems to have worked for Israel.

We arm airline pilots. We arm police officers. We have armed guards following around our political leaders. We arm poultry inspectors, for goodness sake.

So what is "idiotic" about having armed, trained individuals on-site guarding our children, the most precious thing we all have?

freein05

12-21-12, 5:46pm

Actually, what they said was to put a police officer or security guard in every school, which is already done in virtually every inner city school.

But, even if your version was correct, what effect would the possibility of an armed teacher or school administrator have on a potential mass murderer of schoolchildren?

In most cases none!!!! Another mass murder today. "(Reuters) - Four people died on a Pennsylvania highway on Friday when a gunman shot dead three people and later was killed in a shootout with police, authorities said.
Three state troopers were injured in the incident in Frankstown Township, about 100 miles east of Pittsburgh."

But that is just your everyday mass murder in America. This seems to happen every day. Think how many more we would have if 300 million people were armed like the NRA wants. The NRA does not even want to have a discussion on ways to limit gun violence. Their position continues to be just arm everyone and gun violence will go away.

The NRA and their position on guns is partly responsible for the death of 20 beautiful children. This comes from a former NRA member.

freein05

12-21-12, 6:09pm

It seems to have worked for Israel.

We arm airline pilots. We arm police officers. We have armed guards following around our political leaders. We arm poultry inspectors, for goodness sake.

So what is "idiotic" about having armed, trained individuals on-site guarding our children, the most precious thing we all have?

First you of all people must realize that most schools are very spread and it would take more than one armed individual to protect many schools. A policemen who responded to the Sand Hook shooting stated the shooter was so heavily armed that he felt he could have not stopped him. So we are talking probably tens of thousands of guards. Will the tea party pay for them. Then there are malls and thousands of other soft targets. So if you eliminate one soft target the shooter will go after another. To guard all of the soft targets you are talking hundreds of thousands of armed guards.

Now I see why the NRA wants to arm everyone.

Israel is a totally different. it has a population that is far less than the US and almost everyone is fully trained and part of the army reserve. They even keep their military weapons at home. Their weapons training is continuing and each individual is in the reserves and is overseen by a regular army NCO or officer. With all of these type of protection they still have had mass killings.

Rogar

12-21-12, 6:44pm

I wonder if the armed guards would be issued semi auto assault weapons with extended magazines and body armour so they wouldn't be out gunned by the shooters.

Mrs-M

12-21-12, 6:49pm

I wonder if the armed guards would be issued semi auto assault weapons with extended magazines and body armour so they wouldn't be out gunned by the shooters.Great idea, but IMO, just another fancy tablecloth solution to cover-up that ugly old table...

Can't refinish or fix it, cover it up. Same goes for the rampant gun-culture, but unlike the table that has no fix, take a problem that actually has a fix, and instead of acting upon it, cry "no solutions", then move to cover it up.

Yossarian

12-21-12, 7:11pm

First you of all people must realize that most schools are very spread and it would take more than one armed individual to protect many schools.

Which is just another example of why the governement doesn't actually protect you from anything. They just clean up after the damage is done. Self defence is a more effecive solution.

http://silverunderground.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/SC-gun-stat.jpg

Mrs-M

12-21-12, 7:14pm

The NRA, needs you, Yossarian.

bunnys

12-21-12, 7:26pm

Yossarian

12-21-12, 7:33pm

Or maybe it's that self defense has a MUCH QUICKER response time than calling 911 and waiting for the police to arrive. It makes no sense that untrained citizens would be better capable of disarming a mass shooter than professional police. That's an absurd comparison.

Uh, the comparison is that, well - self defense has a MUCH QUICKER response time than calling 911 and waiting for the police to arrive.

Alan

12-21-12, 7:40pm

It makes no sense that untrained citizens would be better capable of disarming a mass shooter than professional police. That's an absurd comparison.Whether you think it makes sense or not, they proved quite capable during the Portland Mall shooting, at the school shooting in Pearl MS and at the Appalachian School of Law in 2002 as well as several others I'd have to look up (if it weren't a sign of mental illness of course).

In each of those cases, the shooter was stopped by armed civilians well before police could respond.

bunnys

12-21-12, 7:47pm

(if it weren't a sign of mental illness of course).

In each of those cases, the shooter was stopped by armed civilians well before police could respond.

You're arguing a different point than I made.

I don't understand that you're referring to regarding having a mental illness.

Alan

12-21-12, 7:49pm

I don't understand that you're referring to regarding having a mental illness.
Sorry, it's a reference to something much earlier in this discussion.

Yossarian

12-21-12, 7:51pm

You're arguing a different point than I made.

It's all the same point The point at issue is that armed cilvilians who are there at the time of an assault are more effective responders than police who take longer to get there.

bunnys

12-21-12, 8:04pm

It's all the same point

No, it's not. Trained is not a synonym for quick. In fact, it's almost an antonym.

Why do you believe that all these heavily armed citizens would know what the hell they were doing when said mass shooting went down, anyway?

If no one had assault weapons and 160 round clips or drums whatever they are called, no one in the general public would need to be armed so as to be ready to take down mass shooters. Further, if shooters had to stop to reload after say, 5 rounds, unarmed citizens could jump the shooter while he stopped to reload before the shooting became a mass shooting.

So, if we could just outlaw all assault weapons and semi and fully automatic weapons and their ammunition and make those who had them turn them in to the government or risk imprisonment if caught with said weapons, we would nearly completely eliminate all attempts at mass shootings.

Man, that would be great!

Alan

12-21-12, 8:44pm

Why do you believe that all these heavily armed citizens would know what the hell they were doing when said mass shooting went down, anyway?

It seems that in each of the examples I cited, armed citizens knew exactly what they were doing. In each case they stopped an active shooter without firing a shot simply by showing armed resistance.

freein05

12-21-12, 11:53pm

There have been 100 shooting deaths in the US since Sandy Hook. I think that is only one week. Welcome to the US gun capital of the world. When will we learn guns kill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/us-shooting-deaths-sandy-hook_n_2348466.html

Yossarian

12-22-12, 12:17am

No, it's not. Trained is not a synonym for quick. In fact, it's almost an antonym.

It's not an antonym, people train all the time so their response times are quicker, but don't try and obfuscate the point- response times by police, however well trained they may be, allow way too much time for really bad things to happen. Only people who are prepared to deal with the issue on the scene are in a position to make much difference.

There have been 100 shooting deaths in the US since Sandy Hook.

My guess is "assault rifles" aren't the culprit in most of those. How do we fix the social issues that lead to these shootings? You are never going to get a total ban like Japan. The bad guys will always be up to no good. What are the good guys to do?

bae

12-22-12, 12:52am

It's not an antonym, people train all the time so their response times are quicker, but don't try and obfuscate the point- response times by police, however well trained they may be, allow way too much time for really bad things to happen. Only people who are prepared to deal with the issue on the scene are in a position to make much difference.

People interested in data could track down the recentish FBI reports on active shooter scenarios, which have informed modern training curriculas. Yossarian is spot on - emergency response times from off-site are simply too long to make much, if any, difference in how most of these events play out.

bunnys

12-22-12, 8:23am

but don't try and obfuscate the point-

I'm not trying to obfuscate my own point. You have read the point I made and decided to instead purposefully ignore my point to make your own unrelated point.

There is nothing in the original advertisement you posted that even hints that the reason armed citizens are presumed to be better at taking down mass shooters is because of response times. Instead, the ad implies that both armed citizens and police are equal options for stopping the violence but that the police are just woefully inept even with their bigger guns.

The fact is that if would-be mass shooters didn't have access to assault weapons and their attendant ammo, it wouldn't matter if the citizenry was armed because there would be very few, if any mass-shooting attempts anyway. But I already said that.

This discussion is so much bickering.

Spartana

12-22-12, 1:42pm

I'm not trying to obfuscate my own point. You have read the point I made and decided to instead purposefully ignore my point to make your own unrelated point.

There is nothing in the original advertisement you posted that even hints that the reason armed citizens are presumed to be better at taking down mass shooters is because of response times. Instead, the ad implies that both armed citizens and police are equal options for stopping the violence but that the police are just woefully inept even with their bigger guns.

The fact is that if would-be mass shooters didn't have access to assault weapons and their attendant ammo, it wouldn't matter if the citizenry was armed because there would be very few, if any mass-shooting attempts anyway. But I already said that.

This discussion is so much bickering.

I understand what you are saying Bunnys but so-called assault-style rifles aren't full auto military style rifles (which are banned). They are semi-auto just like most pistols are. And as I pointed out in several other posts, those pistols, as well as a standard 6 shot revolver, can be easily fired continuously and for hundreds of rounds if a shooter just changes out clips (magazines) on a pistol, or uses speed loaders in the case of a revolver. A person can carry as many pre-loaded magazines or speed loaders on their person as they want since they are so small. They can also carry several loaded handguns on them (like Adam Lanza did - just like all mass shooters have) and just grab a new one (or 2 or 3 or...) once they are out of ammo. Same with a .12 gauge shotgun (holds 9 rounds of ammo that can kill several people in one shot if close) or a standard hunting rifle that can hold 15 rounds. Both can be fired repeatedly very fast even though they are not semi-automatics (although there are a lot of semi-automatic hunting rifles and shotguns out there that will not be included in this ban). Both can be made much smaller and easily concealable. And while they are not easily reloadable like a pistol or revolver is, a mass shooter can carry several of them at once - as most if not all mass shooters have done. So banning one type of firearm or type of magazine won't eliminate mass shootings because most - all - can be done just as easily with firearms and magazines that won't be part of the ban. So unless you completely ban all firearms including hunting rifles and shotguns- really anything that can fire more than one round before needing to be re-loaded by hand - a ban a one firearm won't matter or make a difference. That is why addressing the intial cause of these kinds of shootings is so much more important then spending all that time and effort to get one type of firearm banned. That does nothing to address the problem or the cause.

As far as the response time issue - well if it takes less than a minute or two to gun down several people and it takes the police 5 or 10 minutes to respond after they get the first call, then waiting for the police to arrive on scene may mean many many more could die.

Yossarian

12-22-12, 2:07pm

There is nothing in the original advertisement you posted that even hints that the reason armed citizens are presumed to be better at taking down mass shooters is because of response times. Instead, the ad implies that both armed citizens and police are equal options for stopping the violence but that the police are just woefully inept even with their bigger guns.

I don't know anyone making that claim, so congrats on shooting down your own strawman. 99.9% of the people discussing this point focus on the relative response times, not that some lady with a .38 in her purse should replace the county SWAT team.

Mrs-M

12-22-12, 2:19pm

Whether you think it makes sense or not, they proved quite capable during the Portland Mall shooting, at the school shooting in Pearl MS and at the Appalachian School of Law in 2002 as well as several others I'd have to look up (if it weren't a sign of mental illness of course).

In each of those cases, the shooter was stopped by armed civilians well before police could respond.ROTFLMAO!!!

Alrighty then, while we're on the topic of story-telling, let's NOT forget to add the EMPIRE STATE SHOOTING, where NINE INNOCENT BYSTANDERS/PEDESTRIANS WERE INJURED. http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/smileys/gun-toot-smiley.gif?1292867611

freein05

12-22-12, 2:25pm

I am probably the only person on the boards that has had a 9mm pistol held to his head during a robbery. To this day i feel no need to walk around carrying a concealed weapon. The robbery happened about 10 years ago. I also feel we need much stronger gun controls. I don't read gun magazines. These type of magazines and the NRA are marketing tools for firearms manufactures. Capitalism at it's best.

I have also went from being a gun nut to the person I am today. At one time when I was a gun nut I had a Ruger 22 single six, a colt 45 auto pistol, a S & W 44 mag, a Remington auto loadin rifle 30-06 cal, a M1 carbine 30 cal ( it was fun to shoot), a Winchester model 101 12 gauge shotgun, a Remington 12 gauge shotgun with a 20 inch and 28 inch barrel, and a 22 rifle. The only firearms I have today are the Remington shotgun and the 22 rifle that my parents gave when I was 16. I plan on taking the shotgun to a gun shop and getting rid of it soon I will keeping the 22.

Yossarian

12-22-12, 2:35pm

ROTFLMAO!!!

Alrighty then, while we're on the topic of story-telling, let's NOT forget to add the EMPIRE STATE SHOOTING, where NINE INNOCENT BYSTANDERS/PEDESTRIANS WERE INJURED. http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/smileys/gun-toot-smiley.gif?1292867611

By the police.

Mrs-M

12-22-12, 2:51pm

By the police.Your point being?

I was simply sharing an additional story (with everyone), so as to back-up the feeble argument, "those who have guns and use them (job related) are highly trained and know how to use them".

So... if those who are so highly trained (screw up), then I can ONLY imagine the rate of screw-ups that would occur with some trail-blazing hero in the crowd, looking to get his mug on the front cover of the NRA quarterly.

Alan

12-22-12, 3:04pm

bae

12-22-12, 3:08pm

I was simply sharing an additional story (with everyone), so as to back-up the feeble argument, "those who have guns and use them (job related) are highly trained and know how to use them".

So... if those who are so highly trained (screw up), then I can ONLY imagine the rate of screw-ups that would occur with some trail-blazing hero in the crowd, looking to get his mug on the front cover of the NRA quarterly.

The actual real-world data shows that your concern simply isn't supported.

But you don't care about facts, you care about the culture war, as is evident by your words.

Yossarian

12-22-12, 3:11pm

Your point being?

That unless you are advocating the disarmament of the NYC police force your story is at best irrelevant and more likely misleading when you posted it as a response to the list of incidents involving civilians. But far be it from you to try and mislead anyone so glad we have that cleared up.

Mrs-M

12-22-12, 3:19pm

Originally posted by Yossarian.
you are advocating the disarmament of the NYC police forceIn a perfect world, YES, but because we're dealing with a less than perfect world, I'll have to settle with a simple, no, this time around, but if I were a US citizen, the last thing I'd be looking at doing is turning more everyday common citizens into- save-the-day cowboys.

freein05

12-22-12, 3:20pm

Your point being?

I was simply sharing an additional story (with everyone), so as to back-up the feeble argument, "those who have guns and use them (job related) are highly trained and know how to use them".

So... if those who are so highly trained (screw up), then I can ONLY imagine the rate of screw-ups that would occur with some trail-blazing hero in the crowd, looking to get his mug on the front cover of the NRA quarterly.

+ 1 these stories are just more NRA and Fox News fairy tails.

Yossarian

12-22-12, 3:27pm

the last thing I'd be looking at doing is turning more everyday common citizens into- save-the-day cowboys.

No, you seem fine with them just being defenseless victims. But if that really is your issue, the least you could do is focus your contributions on statistics showing how big a problem that is instead of half-truths about police incidents.

And for the record, most of the support behind self defense is focussed on loved ones, not hero scenarios.

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/4313/mailattachmenti.jpg

Mrs-M

12-22-12, 3:33pm

+ 1 these stories are just more NRA and Fox News fairy tails.http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/smileys/laugh3-smiley.gif?1292867631 Couldn't agree more!

peggy

12-22-12, 4:55pm

I do love how above you implicitly threatened me with actual violence in the real world though (through your BATF comment), that was pretty classy of you. And quite telling of your desire to use force to impose your will on others who are doing you no harm. Wouldn't it have been funny if you'd actually made such a call, reported something inflammatory, and they'd taken the bait, and showed up here in the dark of morning with a full raid? Laughs all around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting

Pretty loathsome of you.

And your threat with the 'many happy returns with the NRA' was just peachy? You know what, I may have said before that you were an exception, but I change my mind. You are paranoid, as well as delusional, sitting at breakfast with a loaded gun in your holster, every ready to spring to the defense of your helpless neighbors. I'm sure they get a laugh from that one, behind your back of course. You need to turn off the late night TV and join the reality based world.
Maybe you don't know this, so I'll clue you in. You are not a cop. You are not military, or special forces, or defender of everything free and good and apple pie on your secluded little island. You are not The Great Gatsby playing superman in a Micky Spillane novel.
You are George Zimmerman. With a tony address.

And I'm pretty sure you find the truth loathsome. Tough.

JaneV2.0

12-22-12, 4:56pm

peggy

12-22-12, 5:21pm

There are approximately 31,000 gun deaths a year in the US. That's like a 747 carrying around 500 people, crashing about every 6 days, all year long. Every 6 days a huge plane crash!
Now, if that were happening, what would we do? Would we ban 747's? I think we probably would, after about the 7th or 8th crash, maybe sooner. We certainly wouldn't give credence from the planes maker calling a press conference to announce the solution is to fly more 747's.
A 747, crashing every 6 days, all year long.

Woodhaven

12-22-12, 6:10pm

Most of the 30,000-ish deaths by firearms are drug-related or suicide in nature. Feel free to look it up. Of course, I'll not argue that this is acceptable. Would these disappear if the guns did? Not likely. W

Gun homicide rate appears to be about 10k per year. Again, far too many. Wonder what the decriminalization of drugs would do to that number? Right. Much easier to talk about limiting magazine capacities. Anyone with any experience at all knows that mags can be changed in a second or so with some practice. If it would save one life, should we not proceed with it? That is a slippery slope, for sure:

You might be interested to know that over 100,000 of us die every year from bedsores in medical care facilities. Intentional? Probably not. Preventable? Yes. Worth more than a snippet on the evening news? Not when you can rile up emotions on both sides of the gun control debate and sell "product" to the audience, spreading a couple dozen funerals over a week's worth of evening news. It's obscene, out of scale, sensational. Tragic, no feeling person can deny.

Deaths by motor vehicle travel are also much higher at nearly 100 citizens a day (never mind the huge contribution alcohol makes to this statistic). Where is the outcry for regulation here? Shall we ask or allow our all knowing, all caring government to help us out of this jam by perhaps limiting vehicle power, weight, top speed, acceleration? Does anyone really need a sports car with over 600 horsepower capable of three times the speed limit? Why is this allowed to continue? Some people even collect these killing machines. Jay Leno should probably be institutionalized. Speed kills. It is obvious to most of us. What kind of an icky person wants the capability to go that fast where it is generally not possible or legal?

I can envision an Approved Travel regulation being promulgated that would help save our precious humanity from these killing machines whose sole purpose is to go faster than legally permitted and encourage our vulnerable citizenry to commit dangerous acts on the roadways we all must use to get to our next very important destination (Starbucks, Walmart, and such). Unnecessary travel (government should define and enforce) is a big contributor, here. How many trips do our citizens make that they could perhaps consolidate or do without? Perhaps walk or bike and go GREEN while saving a life. I don't own a fast car, don't feel like I need one, and I don't trust people who seem to have a fetish for them. Oh, and why such large capacity tanks on vehicles? Does anyone really need 18, 22, 30 gallons of low flashpoint, highly volatile flammable liquid strapped to the undercarriage of their conveyance. Government limit should be three gallons in the interest of fuel efficiency and traffic reduction. Inspections can be fortified to address owners who get a black market expanded fuel tank for their own convenience (which obviously increases the risk to all of us). I'd go on but I've lost interest. I'm off to dedicate my efforts to avoiding a hospital stay and the sixth largest leading cause of death: medical treatment screw-ups.

Yossarian

12-22-12, 6:11pm

There were two armed "good guys" on the scene when the Tacoma Mall shootings occurred. I believe one of them is still paralyzed, but at least he survived. Neither were able to stop the shooter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Mall_shooting

Did you read why? According to the link (and contrary to what some people say here) one guy didn't shoot because of bystanders. The other guy actually had the draw on the shooter but resorted to verbal tactics to try and difuse the situation. Not cowboys. My guess is today people would be less likely to risk giving the shooter a chance to choose to shoot it out.

Woodhaven

12-22-12, 6:25pm

One of the first rules of responsible shooting: make certain of your target and what is beyond it. I trust myself to make that call despite a lack of law enforcement training. It would be sort of a subconscious risk assessment to know when and where to fire. Not easy. Not a situation I'd like to be in. I'd also not like to be the one who could do nothing while other defenseless people die before my eyes. Not likely to ever see that despite what this culture of fear promotes. Given the choice, I'd be happy to take this person down if I could do it safely. Heaven help me if I hit him as he was turning to flee and am prosecuted for murder.

Yossarian

12-22-12, 6:30pm

There are approximately 31,000 gun deaths a year in the US.

There are about 8,500 gun homicides a year, and that number has been going DOWN as gun ownership has gone UP recently.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

What percent of those 8,500 deaths are gang related and what percent is justifiable self defense?

Is there a correlation between shootings and restrictive carry rules? Hint, check Chicago and DC for starters

JaneV2.0

12-22-12, 6:34pm

I haven't been able to find any reports of an armed citizen stopping the Clackamas Town Center shooting, either.
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

JaneV2.0

12-22-12, 6:36pm

Did you read why? According to the link (and contrary to what some people say here) one guy didn't shoot because of bystanders. The other guy actually had the draw on the shooter but resorted to verbal tactics to try and difuse the situation. Not cowboys. My guess is today people would be less likely to risk giving the shooter a chance to choose to shoot it out.

Not cowboys at all. The point is--as is obvious when even trained law enforcers get into trouble--that it isn't likely that armed citizens can save the day. Same as in the Gabby Giffords shooting.

Alan

12-22-12, 6:41pm

I haven't been able to find any reports of an armed citizen stopping the Clackamas Town Center shooting, either.
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
Since you posted this in two different threads, I'll respond to it here as well.

According to several reports, the shooter in that case saw the subject of your story pointing his weapon at him and decided to end his own life at that point.

In the other cases I cited earlier, armed citizens confronted the shooter with their weapons and were able to stop and hold them without resorting to firing. There is no doubt that the mere presence of weapons has an effect on criminals.

Yossarian

12-22-12, 6:45pm

According to several reports, the shooter in that case saw the subject of your story pointing his weapon at him and decided to end his own life at that point.

Another case of someone holding fire to protect bystanders, and yet no lives were lost (other than the criminal shooter) after intervention by an armed civilian.

freein05

12-22-12, 6:47pm

Yet another sencless shooting. She should have been packing heat. But this was a church and she probably felt safe in this a house of The Lord and left her firearm with her babysitter.

GEESEYTOWN, Pa. -- Authorities say one of a gunman's three victims was a woman fatally shot while decorating for a children's Christmas party at a central Pennsylvania church.

Woodhaven

12-22-12, 6:52pm

In case anyone has any misplaced confidence in the shooting capabilities of your local law enforcement officers, I am here to tell you that though they must "qualify" with their sidearms (state requirement), the level of competency required is not high. One of the local gun range owners recently told me that if I am ever in town and things go wrong necessitating the local cops discharging their weapons, my best move is to grab the nearest manhole cover, duck behind it and pray to the god of my choosing. As an environmental engineer, I once had an assignment to test airborne lead levels in indoor shooting ranges. In the course of so doing, I was offered the opportunity to shoot alongside the officers who were qualifying on that day. I generally finished in either the 2nd or 3rd position score-wise. This is by no means a reflection of my competency with a semi-auto pistol. I only wish that was the case.

JaneV2.0

12-22-12, 6:58pm

Since you posted this in two different threads, I'll respond to it here as well. ... .

I should have my keyboard license revoked. I keep posting in the wrong thread and confusing everyone, especially myself. Apologies.

Yossarian

12-22-12, 6:59pm

Linky re Clackamas: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/121712-637367-sandy-hook-tragedy-prevented-at-clackamas.htm#ixzz2FMSeoUUl

Alan

12-22-12, 7:01pm

I should have my keyboard license revoked. I keep posting in the wrong thread and confusing everyone, especially myself. Apologies.No worries, when we have two identical threads, differing only in titles and the forums in which they reside, it can get confusing.

I got confused as well after reading the post in this thread. I was sure I'd already responded to it but at first didn't realize I was in an entirely different thread.

Spartana

12-22-12, 7:31pm

And your threat with the 'many happy returns with the NRA' was just peachy? You know what, I may have said before that you were an exception, but I change my mind. You are paranoid, as well as delusional, sitting at breakfast with a loaded gun in your holster, every ready to spring to the defense of your helpless neighbors. I'm sure they get a laugh from that one, behind your back of course. You need to turn off the late night TV and join the reality based world.
Maybe you don't know this, so I'll clue you in. You are not a cop. You are not military, or special forces, or defender of everything free and good and apple pie on your secluded little island. You are not The Great Gatsby playing superman in a Micky Spillane novel.
You are George Zimmerman. With a tony address.

And I'm pretty sure you find the truth loathsome. Tough.

I love ya Peggy but that was kind of mean. I think Bae - as well as other's here like Free and Alan (and I'll include myself as well having both military and tactical law enforcement training) - seems to be one of the most experienced, trained and knowledgeable people on this issue. Certainly not a George Zimmerman in my book. He also seems to be a calm levelheaded person who wouldn't make rash choices. And the dude also wears a kilt - which goes a long way for me :-)! So while I get that you think that we (not counting Free here) and all people like us are all a bunch of wacko, paranoid, shoot-em-up cowboys, I like to think that we can all have a rational friendly discussion about this topic and present our side of it (the "darkside" if you will :-)!) without fear of getting called names. It is one of the most important topics of our generation - ending gun violence - and I like to hear everyone's opinion whether I agree withit or not. So now I will return to my bunker, put on my tin foil hat, and drink some more rum toddies -and join Jane in being confused at just which thread I'm in :-)!

creaker

12-22-12, 8:36pm

I love ya Peggy but that was kind of mean. I think Bae - as well as other's here like Free and Alan (and I'll include myself as well having both military and tactical law enforcement training) - seems to be one of the most experienced, trained and knowledgeable people on this issue. Certainly not a George Zimmerman in my book. He also seems to be a calm levelheaded person who wouldn't make rash choices. And the dude also wears a kilt - which goes a long way for me :-)! So while I get that you think that we (not counting Free here) and all people like us are all a bunch of wacko, paranoid, shoot-em-up cowboys, I like to think that we can all have a rational friendly discussion about this topic and present our side of it (the "darkside" if you will :-)!) without fear of getting called names. It is one of the most important topics of our generation - ending gun violence - and I like to hear everyone's opinion whether I agree withit or not. So now I will return to my bunker, put on my tin foil hat, and drink some more rum toddies -and join Jane in being confused at just which thread I'm in :-)!

I didn't know about the kilt :-) I think the character would be Lazarus Long. ("Methuselah's Children" or "Time Enough for Love", among other titles, if anyone is interested)

Competent, practiced gun owners for whom guns are one of many life skills worry me much less than those obsessed exclusively with guns, or those who buy a weapon "for defense" and have it sit like an unused kitchen appliance impulse purchase until they feel compelled to use it for something (usually not good) - or their kids find it.

It's not the life style I would choose - I couldn't keep up the level required to maintain it.

freein05

12-22-12, 10:50pm

mira

12-22-12, 10:54pm

freein05

12-22-12, 11:09pm

Mrs-M

12-22-12, 11:21pm

THERE ARE TOO MANY GUN OWNERS IN THE US! http://www.brambletonian.net/forums/style_emoticons/default/applause.gifMy sentiment to a T!

Yossarian

12-22-12, 11:28pm

Here are some statistics from 2011 for those who like to see how many people were killed in the gun capital of the world.

In 2011, guns were used to murder 8,583 people living in the U.S., according to the most recent FBI data available. Among those murdered by guns, there were 565 young people under the age of 18, and 119 children ages 12 or younger -- the latter number nearly equivalent to six Newtown mass shootings. And these figures include only homicides.

Thanks for the HuffPo stuff. No doubt we should try to minimize those, but really, and be honest, how many of those would be affected by an "assault weapons" law?

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf)

Yossarian

12-22-12, 11:31pm

My sentiment to a T!

Fab, you can vote for that whenever you want. Oh wait...:doh:

freein05

12-23-12, 12:14am

Thanks for the HuffPo stuff. No doubt we should try to minimize those, but really, and be honest, how many of those would be affected by an "assault weapons" law?

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf)

I guess you did not see the source of the data that was printed by Huffington post. IT WAS THE FBI!

Yossarian

12-23-12, 12:27am

I guess you did not see the source of the data that was printed by Huffington post. IT WAS THE FBI!

Free, no one is disputing the numbers, but it is at least courteous to source your cut and paste contributions. But that's just format. As for substance, how many of the deaths are attributable to "assault weapons" in a way that would not have occurred by other means (such as still legal pistols or rifles) if those "assault weapons" were not available?

Yossarian

12-23-12, 12:32am

The Storyteller

12-23-12, 12:34am

I'm not going to read through this whole thread, so forgive me if I touch on stuff already discussed in length.

I know a bit about weaponry, although admittedly not nearly as much I used to. In the 1970s, I rose in the ranks to the position of Infantry Weapons Platoon Sergeant. I was in charge of training troops in the use of M-16s, M60 machine guns, and mortars. When it came time, it was my job to assign gun and mortar teams out to infantry platoons in our company, lay out fields of fire, make sure weapons were clean and operational, etc. When my 4 years in the Marine Corps was up, I never touched another gun until recently when I bought a farm, after discovering the need to protect my livestock and protection dogs from predators.

In the Corps, I showed an aptitude for weaponry, firing high expert with the 45, M-16, M-14, and the M-60, all. I apparently retain some of that ability, given my success with predators.

I remember in the Marines dropping by a gun store to humor a friend and was surprised to see an AR-15. It looked exactly like an M-16. I broke it down and the only difference I could find was the ability to switch back and forth to automatic fire, although this was very superficial. I could see that a simple modification could easily remedy that difference. I was shocked to learn guns like this were available to civilians. I believed then and believe now there is no good or rational reason for this. People just don't need guns like this. These are guns of war, not toys or home protection devices. Nobody here or elsewhere will convince me otherwise.

I am encouraged that there are signs the gun lobby is losing its grip, both on the electorate and on reality. Wayne Lapiere used to be gun control's worst enemy. After his moronic, tone deaf comments the other day, he is turning into its greatest asset. The more these people talk, the dumber they sound.

Yossarian

12-23-12, 12:41am

At the risk of incurring IL's wrath, I have to say I don't understand why some people get away with ad hominem attacks just because they are couched in shrill and incoherent rants.

Mrs-M

12-23-12, 12:44am

Originally posted by The Storyteller.
I am encouraged that there are signs the gun lobby is losing its grip, both on the electorate and on reality. Wayne Lapiere used to be gun control's worst enemy. After his moronic, tone deaf comments the other day, he is turning into its greatest asset. The more these people talk, the dumber they sound.Music to my ears... Ahhh...

Yossarian

12-23-12, 12:46am

People just don't need guns like this.

Phew! I'm glad to know that's out of the way. There was a big crowd forming waiting for you to tell us what we need. So glad you resolved that for us, we can all go home now.

The Storyteller

12-23-12, 12:54am

Phew! I'm glad to know that's out of the way. There was a big crowd forming waiting for you to tell us what we need. So glad you resolved that for us, we can all go home now.

You're welcome. Glad I could help.

DocHolliday

12-23-12, 12:55am

Free, no one is disputing the numbers, but it is at least courteous to source your cut and paste contributions. But that's just format. As for substance, how many of the deaths are attributable to "assault weapons" in a way that would not have occurred by other means (such as still legal pistols or rifles) if those "assault weapons" were not available?

It would be interesting to know how many murders are attributed to "assault weapons" but the FBI numbers don't show the model of weapon used. One other interesting thing of note, in every State more murders were committed with knives than rifles of all types: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

The Storyteller

12-23-12, 1:02am

Never take a gun to a knife fight.

No, wait...

ApatheticNoMore

12-23-12, 1:04am

I am encouraged that there are signs the gun lobby is losing its grip, both on the electorate and on reality. Wayne Lapiere used to be gun control's worst enemy. After his moronic, tone deaf comments the other day, he is turning into its greatest asset. The more these people talk, the dumber they sound.

Yea, he makes a pretty good case for gun control. If not gun control then we are going to get way worse solutions, government databases of mental ill people (that's both discriminatory and a violation of privacy, it's one of those ideas where it's like "where do I *even* *start* on what is wrong with that idea?"), or censorship of media, or schools with as many armed guards and security measures as prisons. Yea well making the case for gun control ...

DocHolliday

12-23-12, 1:05am

Why depend on a modern-day opinion of what the amendment means when we have the founders and their contemporaries thoughts on the subject? Here are a few for consideration:

""Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

That George Washington quote shows up alot on the internet but is bogus according to: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html
All the others though are legit.

bae

12-23-12, 1:16am

I know a bit about weaponry, although admittedly not nearly as much I used to. ...

I remember in the Marines dropping by a gun store to humor a friend and was surprised to see an AR-15. It looked exactly like an M-16. I broke it down and the only difference I could find was the ability to switch back and forth to automatic fire, although this was very superficial. I could see that a simple modification could easily remedy that difference.....

Explain to us then, as you "know a bit", the modifications the BATF and the manufacturers made, decades ago, to make sure that the "simple modification" was not simple at all... You probably know all that stuff, ya?

The Storyteller

12-23-12, 8:46am

Explain to us then, as you "know a bit", the modifications the BATF and the manufacturers made, decades ago, to make sure that the "simple modification" was not simple at all... You probably know all that stuff, ya?

I'm pleased to hear that.

But it isn't quite the point I was trying to make. In fact, you add an exclamation point to the one I was. Namely, just how similar to combat weapons these things actually are. To the point where additional modifications had to be made so folks couldn't make them exactly like combat weapons.

Part of this is just common sense. Guns are designed for killing. That is why they were invented. Different guns were designed for killing different things. These guns are designed specifically for killing people. After many iterations of combat weaponry, they have become more and more efficient at doing that, to the point where one gun can kill many, many people, as quickly as possible and without jamming, overheating, or needing reloading. And when that is necessary, to do so as easily and quickly as possible, so one can continue to kill more people.

So, unless a civilian has a need to kill many many people in a short period of time, there is no reason for them to have one. At least, not one that outweighs society's interest in keeping them from doing so.

Some of the salient facts of the recent mass shooting are telling. We know this guy knew his weaponry. By some reports I have read, he was a frequent visitor of local firing ranges. When he left the house, he took the four weapons that would most efficiently kill people. He left the hunting rifles at home. When he arrived at the school, he left the shotgun in the trunk of his car and took the three most destructive and efficient weapons. When he shot his way into the school, he used the single most efficient killing machine in his possession... the AR-15. Exclusively. Until he finally shot himself with a pistol.

The Storyteller

12-23-12, 8:52am

As an aside, I always considered fully automatic on an M16 a waste of ammo and time. Single shot was always much more accurate, effective, efficient, in my view.

CathyA

12-23-12, 10:11am

Phew! I'm glad to know that's out of the way. There was a big crowd forming waiting for you to tell us what we need. So glad you resolved that for us, we can all go home now.
Very rude Yossarian.

CathyA

12-23-12, 10:14am

Explain to us then, as you "know a bit", the modifications the BATF and the manufacturers made, decades ago, to make sure that the "simple modification" was not simple at all... You probably know all that stuff, ya?

Bae, why do you have to be so condescending? Why are you so defensive when someone else might know a little about guns? (or anything else for that matter). Arrogance. Its so tiring.
Storyteller was explaining what his experience has been in a very non-threatening way. I'm so tired of your arrogance.

Alan

12-23-12, 10:25am

As an aside, I always considered fully automatic on an M16 a waste of ammo and time.
So did the Air Force back in the day. They taught me to fire in short, 3 to 4 round bursts.

I don't know how accurate the info is, but I've heard that newer M16's are now designed to do just that rather than full automatic.

Lainey

12-23-12, 10:32am

Since you posted this in two different threads, I'll respond to it here as well.

According to several reports, the shooter in that case saw the subject of your story pointing his weapon at him and decided to end his own life at that point.

In the other cases I cited earlier, armed citizens confronted the shooter with their weapons and were able to stop and hold them without resorting to firing. There is no doubt that the mere presence of weapons has an effect on criminals.

Another article questioning whether armed civilians make a difference in mass shootings:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

Yossarian

12-23-12, 10:37am

Very rude Yossarian.

Lighten up Francis.>8)

Just because you can make good book recomendations doesn't mean you should be the one to decide what everyone else needs.

Alan

12-23-12, 10:38am

I remember in the Marines dropping by a gun store to humor a friend and was surprised to see an AR-15. It looked exactly like an M-16. I broke it down and the only difference I could find was the ability to switch back and forth to automatic fire, although this was very superficial.
You know why the AR-15 and the M-16 look so similar? Because Colt based it's initial M-16 design on the former, turning a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic assault weapon.

I've noticed many folks think it's the other way around.

CathyA

12-23-12, 10:52am

double post removed

CathyA

12-23-12, 10:53am

Lighten up Francis.>8)

Just because you can make good book recomendations doesn't mean you should be the one to decide what everyone else needs.

HUH? I think you have me confused with someone else.

Why is it that gun owners can be so very defensive/hostile?

Yossarian

12-23-12, 11:29am

HUH? I think you have me confused with someone else.

Why is it that gun owners can be so very defensive/hostile?

Au contraire, not hostile at all or confused (at least not unless Buster isn't a librarian), just having a little fun and sorry if the jokes are over your head. Stripes is a classic though: http://youtu.be/0OnpkDWbeJs

CathyA

12-23-12, 12:08pm

Au contraire, not hostile at all or confused (at least not unless Buster isn't a librarian), just having a little fun and sorry if the jokes are over your head. Stripes is a classic though: http://youtu.be/0OnpkDWbeJs

You're still confused. I've never been anyone but CathyA here, and I've never been a librarian. And I never saw Stripes, so I guess that makes me ignorant.

gimmethesimplelife

12-23-12, 12:08pm

http://www.brambletonian.net/forums/style_emoticons/default/applause.gifMy sentiment to a T!+1

iris lily

12-23-12, 12:52pm

I didn't know about the kilt :-) .....

Not only that, but the dude once long ago said something positive about restoring the Stuarts to the throne and for those two things I am in his camp.

Yossarian

12-23-12, 12:54pm

You're still confused. I've never been anyone but CathyA here, and I've never been a librarian.

Oye, wasn't talking about you. Back to regularly scheduled programing now (so there is no confusion, that's a TV reference).

Yossarian

12-23-12, 1:00pm

They taught me to fire in short, 3 to 4 round bursts.

One of our local ranges has a full auto MP5 people can rent, but you have to pay by the mag. It's always amusing to see the look on peoples' faces when they run through $25 of ammo in 2.5 seconds.:laff:

iris lily

12-23-12, 1:02pm

Although I have nothing unique to contribute, I have to say that I find it so refreshing to read debate topics on this forum, as opposed to those on other forums or Facebook where people get offended and snarky if you question their opinions.

One of the problems with Facebook is the technology of it. One can't have a REAL discussion because the technical environment for writing a message is so bloody limited. There is no editing function, no delete function, no ability to highlight or make emphasis on text (that I can find, anyway.) It is just a rudimentary environment for writing.

It is meant for limited, snippet-type text exchanges and not surprisingly, we get snarky snipes on Facebook, same for websites and blogs that support "comment" features.

The old forum software like this (is it still Snitz?) where we all meet in one place, the online commons, rather than meet on someone's turf (a facebook wall or website or blog that is clearly owned by Someone) is good for fostering real discussion.

iris lily

12-23-12, 1:15pm

At the risk of incurring IL's wrath, I have to say I don't understand why some people get away with ad hominem attacks just because they are couched in shrill and incoherent rants.

I think this thread is fairly reasonable. A few little hot spots have broken out in the last few pages, but I was going to say about page 10 that this was one of the more interesting gun threads we've had in a while because all counterpoints have been brought up.

I personally think that Something Will Happen with laws or regs fairly soon but in the long run it won't make a difference.

I am not a moderator for good reason. I'd let everyone bring their talking guns to the center of town and just shoot out their mouths like has happened here, where those of the shrill and illogical text pretty much cause their metaphorical death in the world of words.

Alan

12-23-12, 1:45pm

I am not a moderator for good reason. I'd let everyone bring their talking guns to the center of town and just shoot out their mouths like has happened here, where those of the shrill and illogical text pretty much cause their metaphorical death in the world of words.
My sentiments exactly! Are you sure you don't want to be a moderator?

ApatheticNoMore

12-23-12, 4:07pm

I personally think that Something Will Happen with laws or regs fairly soon but in the long run it won't make a difference.

yea probably, and compared to other proposals to deal with the situation, gun control is desirable. I mean if all a heavily armed society does is inevitably increase the militerization of everything in response to it ... then it is not to be desired.

However, any law we get stands a good chance of being mostly a symbolic act of doing something rather than anything that will make any real difference. Why? Lots of opposition to gun control (some of it genuine and grass roots but remember that's always an after thought to the powers that be), and lots of money in the political process. Have you noticed any ability whatsoever to pass laws that actual address *anything* in a legitimate manner recently? No, the corruption of the political process ...

But supposing theoretically they could pass a law with real teeth, then what? I'm not sure. Cross country comparisons seem to show reduction in gun crime, but on the other hand I don't know if those countries ever had the level of gun crime and violence in general the U.S. does anyway. It's a violent culture. People argue things like "Australia has the same culture as the U.S.". Um no, I don't think so. So the question is to what extent it would reduce gun crime compared to what extent it just grows the black market (a source itself of crime and of course a source of anything illegal). But if it was able to shift the culture .... (still can you really do that when we loves our wars).

freein05

12-23-12, 6:06pm

Bae and Alan what do you think about my comment that there are too many gun owners. I do not think more restrictions on the purchase of firearms will do any good. We need to insure that those people who purchase them know how to properly use them safely. They should be able to demonstrate their ability to safely use them and understand the laws governing the use of firearms. This should be an ongoing program. I am a good example. I have not shot a firearm in so many years I do not feel i could safely handle one. My age also plays a part in this.

Most important their firearms have to be stored in a gun safe or a place where a bad guy can not get there firearms when not in use. Most bad guys do not have the money to purchase a firearm or would not pass a background check.

Alan

12-23-12, 6:12pm

Bae and Alan what do you think about my comment that there are too many gun owners.
I think there are too many illegal gun owners, people who are underage, are felons, have been convicted of domestic violence, etc. I'm all in favor of using existing laws to limit their access to weapons of any kind.

If you're advocating placing limitations on law abiding citizens ability to own a weapon, then no, I'm not in favor.

Tradd

12-23-12, 6:24pm

What I find terribly ironic about the whole thing: there have been large numbers of young people killed in Chicago this year, probably mostly by guns. But it's in the inner city and gangs are involved (some of those killed have been innocent bystanders), so while it's been in the news, it's not the topic of the gun debate. But when you've got cute little kids and teachers/administrators who tried to save them, well, that gets the gun-control people up in arms.

Chicago had a handgun ban (unless you owned one before the ban went into effect) for decades. Doesn't seem to have much effect, as the gang bangers and other criminals still got their hands on guns and used them to kill each other and innocent bystanders. The Chicago handgun ban was struck down in the last couple of years by the Supreme Court, but it's still been difficult for the average person to legally own one (bureaucratic red tape).

freein05

12-23-12, 6:26pm

I think there are too many illegal gun owners, people who are underage, are felons, have been convicted of domestic violence, etc. I'm all in favor of using existing laws to limit their access to weapons of any kind.

If you're advocating placing limitations on law abiding citizens ability to own a weapon, then no, I'm not in favor.

I am not advocating putting a limit on lawful citizens ownership of firearms but that they must demonstrate an ability to us them safely, know the laws governing their use, and state how they would store them safely. I feel very strongly about the storage of firearms when not in use. I would guess most bad guys do not buy their weapons. They steal them.

Edited to add: I think these are common sense laws and even better than banning certain types of weapons.

bae

12-23-12, 6:38pm

Free - on your points:

I am greatly in support of firearms safety training. I am an instructor myself in multiple disciplines, and spend a fair bit of time teaching both new and experienced folks. That said, the level of training required to simply own and safely operate a firearm is quite minimal, and can be accomplished in very little time. I think this level of safety training should be part of the K-12 curriculum in this county, perhaps as part of the health education program or the phys-ed program.

I would not be in support of *mandatory* training for adult purchaser of firearms. The accident rate doesn't support the likely expense of time and resources, most people are quite capable of safely dealing with firearms, as the data shows. Mandatory training for *using* firearms in some ways I am fine with - Hunter's Safety programs have a great track record of reducing accidents of all sorts for hunters (like, dying of exposure...).

States that have no training requirement for concealed carry permits do not seem to have higher rates of firearms misuse by permit holders than states that impose expensive, lengthy training and testing requirements, so I conclude that such programs serve primarily to increase the cost of carrying a firearm, and impose a barrier to entry on exercising a constitutional right, and so I am not in favor of those sorts of programs. A very light-weight one, perhaps, but there's still the civil rights issue - we don't require literacy tests for voting anymore, or require passing a grammar test before using the Internet...

I am sort of fine with laws requiring safe storage, except for the rather patronizing thinking that leads people to presume to tell other people what to do in their own homes, and the lack of analysis presented showing cost/benefit justifying this intrusion. I am a fan of safe storage. I keep every one of my functioning firearms locked up in vaults, except for the ones I am using. But I'd not want the government telling me how I had to secure my tools, anymore than I like the government telling me how big my windows can be, how large my toilet tanks can be, what kind of light bulbs I can buy, or how big a soda I can purchase.

Spartana

12-23-12, 7:11pm

I am not advocating putting a limit on lawful citizens ownership of firearms but that they must demonstrate an ability to us them safely, know the laws governing their use, and state how they would store them safely. I feel very strongly about the storage of firearms when not in use. I would guess most bad guys do not buy their weapons. They steal them.

Edited to add: I think these are common sense laws and even better than banning certain types of weapons.

I agree that these are common sense laws and are better then banning certain types of firearms, but as far as storage issues or the issue of too many gun owners I disagree. If someone can meet whatever safety and legal requirements we have, then I don't feel that they should be banned from purchasing a firearm - or more then one firearm if they already have one. I have 4 myself (down from a higher number after I gave up sport/hobby shooting and sold some), and my sister (who carries an AR-15 and a Glock .9mm for her job) has many more. We are both safe law abiding citizens and I don't feel that my right to own a firearm - or 10 - should be limited without due cause. As far as storage, well again I feel that, without children in my home and as a single female who, up until recently, lived alone, I shouldn't have to lock up my firearms. If someone wants to break in and steal them, having them in a safe probably won't make that much of a difference as they'll just take the safe.

Woodhaven

12-23-12, 7:49pm

I agree that these are common sense laws and are better then banning certain types of firearms, but as far as storage issues or the issue of too many gun owners I disagree. If someone can meet whatever safety and legal requirements we have, then I don't feel that they should be banned from purchasing a firearm - or more then one firearm if they already have one. I have 4 myself (down from a higher number after I gave up sport/hobby shooting and sold some), and my sister (who carries an AR-15 and a Glock .9mm for her job) has many more. We are both safe law abiding citizens and I don't feel that my right to own a firearm - or 10 - should be limited without due cause. As far as storage, well again I feel that, without children in my home and as a single female who, up until recently, lived alone, I shouldn't have to lock up my firearms. If someone wants to break in and steal them, having them in a safe probably won't make that much of a difference as they'll just take the safe.

Which is why it is advisable to bolt the safe to the floor and wall. Mine's not going anywhere.

Spartana

12-23-12, 7:56pm

Which is why it is advisable to bolt the safe to the floor and wall. Mine's not going anywhere. Well because mine are for home and personal protection (2 of them are - shotgun and handgun) it doesn't make too much sense to lock them up so I can't get to them fast :-)! But I have a killer attack dog (20 lbs of fury :-)!) to deter would be thieves and I do hide them well when I am away.

Woodhaven

12-24-12, 10:14am

Well because mine are for home and personal protection (2 of them are - shotgun and handgun) it doesn't make too much sense to lock them up so I can't get to them fast :-)! But I have a killer attack dog (20 lbs of fury :-)!) to deter would be thieves and I do hide them well when I am away.

Totally understood. I am certain you are a responsible gun owner, like the majority of us.

The Storyteller

12-24-12, 10:51am

The problem I see with the training and law abiding citizens arguments are that most of the mass shooters we have seen recently knew a great deal about their weapons, and were law abiding citizens.

Until they weren't.

I have always found them to be weak arguments.

I also find most of the home protection arguments supporting assault weapons weak. People don't need semi automatics that can fire off 100 rounds without reloading to protect their home. They also don't need an arsenal to protect it. Those are just excuses to own lots and lots of toys, and prop it up with the constitution. It won't hurt people to own a few less of a particular kind of toy.

Or any, of some.

The Storyteller

12-24-12, 11:02am

But supposing theoretically they could pass a law with real teeth, then what? .

I don't see that happening. Not yet, anyway, even after a year of 4 mass shootings ending in one at an elementary school that killed 20 children, all of which involved assault weapons and multiple round magazines or drums. We don't have the political will and there aren't enough people admitting some guns just don't belong in a civilian population. Too many politicians in the pocket of the gun lobby, and too many wannabe cowboys.

Yossarian

12-24-12, 11:50am

I also find most of the home protection arguments supporting assault weapons weak.

Is anyone asking you to buy one? Why is it people always want to impose their personal decisions on others?

Could we let people make their own decisions unless they are hurting others, or at least require that a proposed restriction would reasonably prevent harm to others? And no one has been able to make a good argument that any of the proposed restrictions do that, they only serve to mollify the emotional and irrational.

The Storyteller

12-24-12, 12:07pm

Could we let people make their own decisions unless they are hurting others,

And there's the rub, isn't it? Everything is fine until somebody decides to hurt somebody with one of these killing machines. But when they do, it is horrible.

Just ban the damn things already.

Midwest

12-24-12, 12:16pm

And there's the rub, isn't it? Everything is fine until somebody decides to hurt somebody with one of these killing machines. But when they do, it is horrible.

Just ban the damn things already.

Since the last ban didn't work, what makes you think this one will? Unless you are advocating confiscation of the existing stock of now banned weapons, the ban will be completely inneffective.

Since confiscation will not and should not happen, why don't we talk about solutions that might actually work rather than burdening law abiding citizens with even more useless laws.

The Storyteller

12-24-12, 12:23pm

Since the last ban didn't work, what makes you think this one will? Unless you are advocating confiscation of the existing stock of now banned weapons,

Well, there's a thought.

Mrs-M

12-24-12, 12:25pm

The Storyteller. Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your level-headedness, and educated approach to this conversation. It's refreshing to read a members entries that reflect a sense of reality, rather than fantasy.

Originally posted by The Storyteller.
Too many politicians in the pocket of the gun lobby, and too many wannabe cowboys.I cannot help but think the latest ill-thought round of words (right from the mouth of the NRA) has inspired wannabes to get a gun, so they too can join the ranks of their other wannabee counterparts, in their quest to find a "bad guy with a gun" and take care of the problem, and when/if they can't find a "bad guy with a gun", let's just hunt some poor innocent being down and pepper him/her, just because we can. Yeah!

Mrs-M

12-24-12, 12:29pm

Unless you are advocating confiscation of the existing stock of now banned weapons

Well, there's a thought.And a good one at that! Congratulations, Midwest, on one of the best ideas yet! Great stuff!!!

Mrs-M

12-24-12, 12:46pm

One thing I'm growing really sick of listening to (reading), is "it won't work". Rubbish! If the right people behind such improvements were appointed to tackle the problem, then the sooner all the puppets (along with their followers and supporters) behind slowing progress down could be housecleaned out of existence!

Alan

12-24-12, 12:53pm

Mrs-M

12-24-12, 12:59pm

Figuratively, Alan.

gimmethesimplelife

12-24-12, 1:41pm

The Storyteller. Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your level-headedness, and educated approach to this conversation. It's refreshing to read a members entries that reflect a sense of reality, rather than fantasy.

I cannot help but think the latest ill-thought round of words (right from the mouth of the NRA) has inspired wannabes to get a gun, so they too can join the ranks of their other wannabee counterparts, in their quest to find a "bad guy with a gun" and take care of the problem, and when/if they can't find a "bad guy with a gun", let's just hunt some poor innocent being down and pepper him/her, just because we can. Yeah!+1 Rob

The Storyteller

12-24-12, 1:42pm

One thing I'm growing really sick of listening to (reading), is "it won't work". Rubbish!

The thinking seems to be, since the answers are difficult and nothing solves gun violence completely, we should do nothing. Well, I think getting weapons of war out of the hands of civilians is a good start. At least the shooters will have less deadly weaponry when things to go awry.

I read the Colorado mass killer had an AR-15 with a hundred round drum. Something like that, you can do an awful lot of damage without the need to reload.

I have yet to read a rational explanation why anyone needs 30 round clips and hundred round drums, but some people don't even want those banned.

CathyA

12-24-12, 1:44pm

gimmethesimplelife

12-24-12, 1:45pm

I think it's going to be an interesting 2013 - I really mean this. What with noises coming out of the White House about gun control, and October 1st, 2013 being the first day of signup for ObamaCare, and the nation possibly going over the cliff and into another recession - it's going to be an interesting year. Many issues are on the table all at once it seems, and hot button issues at that, including the Supreme Court taking on gay marriage. I am thinking it's shaping up to be a roller coaster year here but.....will be interesting to see what happens with all of this, including with gun control. Rob

Mrs-M

12-24-12, 1:52pm

The thinking seems to be, since the answers are difficult and nothing solves gun violence completely, we should do nothing. Well, I think getting weapons of war out of the hands of civilians is a good start. At least the shooters will have less deadly weaponry when things to go awry.

I read the Colorado mass killer had an AR-15 with a hundred round drum. Something like that, you can do an awful lot of damage without the need to reload.

I have yet to read a rational explanation why anyone needs 30 round clips and hundred round drums, but some people don't even want those banned.You captured it wholly and completely!

Yossarian

12-24-12, 1:52pm

Not yet, anyway, even after a year of 4 mass shootings ending in one at an elementary school that killed 20 children, all of which involved assault weapons and multiple round magazines or drums.

Were those any worse than the typical shootings with other guns? Keep in mind Cho used two common handguns, one a .22 pistol with a 10 round magazine, to kill 32 people and injure 17 others at Viginia Tech.

Got to figure 2012 was a bad year but overall there has not been a big increase in mass shootings, just the headline grabbing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/MassShootings.jpg

But then I'm sure you know the scary assault weapon isn't really the issue, those guns are used in less than 1% of gun crimes and banning them didn't help any the last time. So why not quit this namby pamby stuff and just man up for a push to repeal the Second Amendment like you want?

Mrs-M

12-24-12, 1:56pm

Originally posted by Yossarian.
overall there has not been a big increase in mass shootingsGreat! Translation... everything is A-OK!

gimmethesimplelife

12-24-12, 1:59pm

Great! Translation... everything is A-OK!Dead on in my book, Mrs M! To me personally, ANY increase is mass shootings is a sign something somewhere is not working.....Rob

The Storyteller

12-24-12, 2:19pm

Have you ever noticed that gun-owners don't seem to want to do any of the compromising? Taking anything away........even if its mostly used to murder people, they view it as a personal attack and a loss of all their freedoms. There just HAS to be compromise on both sides. I do see non gun owners as being more compromising. I'm just finding it very strange that there's so much rigidity in many gun owners thinking. (not to mention paranoia).

Well, to be clear, it isn't gun owners and non-gun owners. There are many gun owners like me who are for sensible solutions.

A lot of gun owners are being manipulated by the NRA and other representatives of the armament manufacturing interests.

Yossarian

12-24-12, 2:25pm

ANY increase is mass shootings is a sign something somewhere is not working

The peak was apparently in 1929 and was trending down in the last few years, so increase is a hard thing to pin down.

I wish they had better historic stats on mental health, but something like 38 of the last 61 mass shooters showed signs of mental illness prior to their crimes. I think as Virginia Tech points out, any gun in the hands of sick person is worse than any gun in the hands of responsible people.

If you are serious about this do you have any ideas on how we address the mental health aspects?

Yossarian

12-24-12, 2:38pm

A lot of gun owners are being manipulated by the NRA and other representatives of the armament manufacturing interests.

Ha, that's like saying many pro-choice people are being manipulated by Planned Parenthood and condom manufacturers. Do you really think that if you adopt some of these bans and they end up as failures, which they inevitably will, that the response will be to return to where we are now or will it be to try additional restrictions? And if those don't work? Classic slippery slope.

Mrs-M

12-24-12, 2:39pm

The peak was apparently in 1929 and was trending down in the last few years, so increase is a hard thing to pin down.

I wish they had better historic stats on mental health, but something like 38 of the last 61 mass shooters showed signs of mental illness prior to their crimes. I think as Viginia Tech points out, any gun in the hands of sick person is worse than any gun in the hands of responisble people.

If you are serious about this as an isse do you have any ideas on how we address the mental health aspects?FHS (for heavens sakes)! "Mental health this", "mental health that", "he had mental health issues", she had mental health issues", "they had mental health problems". Rubbish! Mental health, even in those who are sane, isn't guaranteed as of tomorrow. Mental health, like everything else (human related), is (genetically) predispositioned to fail, so stop isolating (one contributing factor out of countless others) in your quest to disguise the murderous rampages and shootings that plague the US.

ApatheticNoMore

12-24-12, 2:42pm

Why even argue about how to address the mental health aspects of dealing with a case like this. His mom was receiving an alimony of some 24k *A MONTH* (or such is what I read, though yea it sounds unbelievable, really a month? not a year?). Let that sink in. 24k a month. And how that kind of money has nothing whatsoever to do with how life is experienced for most people. Half the country probably lives on that a year, then consider all the rest that live on that every 6 months (earn 48k a year) or every 4 etc. etc.. They didn't have money for shrinks or meds or whatever? (actually he was on meds, cue Jane)

But anyway unless they had some major hidden expense, no way, they have money for any mental health they would like to try. They have money coming out of their tiolet pretty much, with that kind of income, and yes I realized it is probably pretty well taxed, but nontheless. The only mental health argument to be made in a case like this is involuntary confinement, and that's ugly, sure you want to go down *that* particular road?

I mean sure one can argue that many people can not afford adequate mental health in this country, and so on, and I'm sure it's true, but that doesn't apply to these folks. That income probably literally puts them in the 1% (although of course that's not actually what occupy means by the phrase, they actually mean more the .1% - they mean money that becomes power in this society).

Yossarian

12-24-12, 2:50pm

FHS (for heavens sakes)! "Mental health this", "mental health that", "he had mental health issues", she had mental health issues", "they had mental health problems". Rubbish! Mental health, even in those who are sane, isn't guaranteed as of tomorrow. Mental health, like everything else (human related), is (genetically) predispositioned to fail, so stop isolating (one contributing factor out of countless others) in your quest to disguise the murderous rampages and shootings that plague the US.

Well, for anyone who actually cares about solutions that might work, this is an important issue. Step out of your delirious fantasy world about wild west mobs roaming the streets in vigilante gun battles, it's not reality. And no matter how much you squawk and shriek, they are not going to ban guns in the US, that's not reality either. And anything short of a total ban, which isn't going to happen, is going to leave us exactly where we are today. So if you actually care, get with reality and let's see what might have a chance of reducing the number of these inidents.

bae

12-24-12, 2:52pm

Well, for anyone who actually cares about solutions that might work, this is an important issue.

Yossarian, you well *know* this is about the culture war, not about any concern over effective policy. You can see it in the breathless descriptions of the character of gunowners in these recent (and previous) threads, and the total inattention to data or critical thinking.

Yossarian

12-24-12, 3:03pm

The only mental health argument to be made in a case like this is involuntary confinement, and that's ugly, sure you want to go down *that* particular road?

As you point out they had money and by all indications the parents were attentive. But if you are looking for things that have changed over the years, the way we treat the mentally ill is one of them. If you are willing to infringe the Constitutional rights of people who have done nothing wrong and not indicated any inclination to do wrong, should you not also look at the rights of those who do show risk factors? And if not, then maybe you are admitting that this is the price for living in a free society?

http://www.volokh.com/files/bernardharcourt-volokh_graph.1.JPG

IshbelRobertson

12-24-12, 3:07pm

The bbc are reporting another shooting in new york state. Four firefighters lured to a house fire and fired on by a gunman. Some deaths reported.

gimmethesimplelife

12-24-12, 3:08pm

gimmethesimplelife

12-24-12, 3:12pm

Yossarian, you well *know* this is about the culture war, not about any concern over effective policy. You can see it in the breathless descriptions of the character of gunowners in these recent (and previous) threads, and the total inattention to data or critical thinking.Will data or critical thinking bring back any of the deceased children in Connecticut? The few folks who died recently in PA or in the Clackamas Town Center shooting in Portland, OR? NO? Then maybe you can understand some of why others react the way they do to this issue.....As I have stated before, when I was ten I saw my father pull a gun on my mother in a drunken rage (luckily he didn't pull the trigger) - I am wondering if you had had such an experience, might you see the whole issue differently? Beyond any kind of critical thinking or data? Rob

gimmethesimplelife

12-24-12, 3:13pm

The bbc are reporting another shooting in new york state. Four firefighters lured to a house fire and fired on by a gunman. Some deaths reported.Another senseless tragedy and what a horrible time of the year for it to happen.....I am jealous of your citizenship today Ishbel, I truly am.....Rob

gimmethesimplelife

12-24-12, 3:16pm

JaneV2.0

12-24-12, 3:19pm

... They didn't have money for shrinks or meds or whatever? (actually he was on meds, cue Jane)
... .

Blah blah blah black box warning blah blah blah. I am nothing if not predictable.

I recently read a three-part essay called "I was Adam Lanza" in which the author described his sad, isolated adolescence, and he credits his mother with finding him a psychologist who successfully used talk therapy to turn his thinking around. He didn't specifically mention medication, but he emphasized that a psychiatrist (who prescribes) was purposefully not chosen.

It seems obvious that a lot of potential troublemakers are in desperate need of positive connections in their lives, and this is as true in the suburbs as it is in the urban core.

Mrs-M

12-24-12, 3:22pm

I do see something positive here.....While it won't get 100% of the US health coverage, ObamaCare is a good start to getting mental health care to those who are deprived it now.....Rob :+1: Right on, Rob!

iris lily

12-24-12, 3:34pm

Blah blah blah black box warning blah blah blah. I am nothing if not predictable.

In one of these threads we were talking about teenage men and the connection between shootings and sexual urges. I guessed you'd offer up hookers as a solution! But I don't think that's it, having a girlfriend is different (and sometimes more crazy making, granted) than having access to a hooker. You'd feel vindicated to know that in this book I've been reading We Need To Talk About Kevin the mom speculates more than once about this very thing. This is a fictional treatment of a teenage rampage shooter (only he used arrows, one reason to trip up his liberal parents at bemoaning easy access to guns) but it sure is interesting insight into possible motivations of these rampage killers.

freein05

12-24-12, 3:36pm

3 fighter shoot and killed. The shooter killed himself. This type of tragedy is why I feel gun owners need to a big part of gun control in the country. You could ban all gun sales today and there still would be millions of guns out there.

We need to look at gun owners as the problem. As people say guns don't kill people do. So we need to take a close look at gun owners as the problem.

Yossarian

12-24-12, 3:41pm

and the total inattention to data or critical thinking.

I guess I've come to terms with the culture war as part of living in a dynamic society, but some people's lack of reasoning on this issue is astounding. I think this is why they are pushing so hard to pass something soon. Good policy is good policy whenever you look at it, but the emotional blinders will (hopefully) only last so long.

Yossarian

12-24-12, 3:55pm

but it sure is interesting insight into possible motivations of these rampage killers.

I don't know how many of them are acting off of normal impulses. The Columbine kids, the Virginia Tech killer, the Aurora CO theater shooter, and maybe Adam Lanza were all dealing with psychological issues and on some kind of psychiatric medication.

JaneV2.0

12-24-12, 3:56pm

In one of these threads we were talking about teenage men and the connection between shootings and sexual urges. I guessed you'd offer up hookers as a solution! But I don't think that's it, having a girlfriend is different (and sometimes more crazy making, granted) than having access to a hooker. You'd feel vindicated to know that in this book I've been reading We Need To Talk About Kevin the mom speculates more than once about this very thing. This is a fictional treatment of a teenage rampage shooter (only he used arrows, one reason to trip up his liberal parents at bemoaning easy access to guns) but it sure is interesting insight into possible motivations of these rampage killers.

I read that book a couple of years ago, though I don't remember much about it. Maybe the speculation stuck with me.

gimmethesimplelife

12-24-12, 3:57pm

I guess I've come to terms with the culture war as part of living in a dynamic society, but some people's lack of reasoning on this issue is astounding. I think this is why they are pushing so hard to pass something soon. Good policy is good policy whenever you look at it, but the emotional blinders will (hopefully) only last so long.I ask this sincerely as I don't understand - what is the definition of "culture war" here? I see children gunned down in Connecticut, and I think we would both agree on this much - this was a senseless act, no? I see folks gunned down in suburban Portland, OR at a mall I once shopped at when I lived there, I see folks in rural PA getting gunned down, I see a lot of shooting taking place what seems fairly regularly all of a sudden. To reduce these ugly statistics down to a phrase such as culture war - if nothing else, does it not seem disrespectful to the victims and their families? Rob

The Storyteller

12-24-12, 3:59pm

Ha, that's like saying many pro-choice people are being manipulated by Planned Parenthood and condom manufacturers.

Key difference being, PP isn't in the pocket of the manufacturers, as the NRA is to the gun making machine. This is precisely why it whips its membership into a frenzy over fake controversies, just so they will rush out and buy more guns and ammo, thus lining the pockets of its real clientele.

Personally, I don't believe the NRA gives one whit about individual gun owners. It's all about the money. The members are merely willing pawns.

ApatheticNoMore

12-24-12, 4:04pm

As you point out they had money and by all indications the parents were attentive. But if you are looking for things that have changed over the years, the way we treat the mentally ill is one of them. If you are willing to infringe the Constitutional rights of people who have done nothing wrong and not indicated any inclination to do wrong, should you not also look at the rights of those who do show risk factors?

Um because they have also DONE nothing wrong! Prior to the shootings what had this guy done, and after the shootings if they don't kill themselves, well there's a place for these types of people and it's not a mental asylum, it's called prison. So yea if there are previous crimes it's one thing, but did this guy have any? So are we going to start locking up people for being weird? Losing one's freedom that way is much worse than having to give up guns it seems to me.

And if not, then maybe you are admitting that this is the price for living in a free society?

That basicallly is always instinctively the position I take on these types of things. Only it's a very minority position, and I'm not sure almost anyone understands or sympathisizes with it, so basically it has no political constituency, and there will always be a push to do something (and not just long term things like build a better social safety net and a more humane society and so on - but immediate things). And compared to many of the proposals, including many that target the mentally ill, gun laws are much preferable. But then I'm not particularly attached to guns, and look at what overall society we are creating, and whether I see at as even remotely desirable.

CathyA

12-24-12, 4:21pm

Well, to be clear, it isn't gun owners and non-gun owners. There are many gun owners like me who are for sensible solutions.

A lot of gun owners are being manipulated by the NRA and other representatives of the armament manufacturing interests.

Storyteller, I should have said "some" gun owners..........like a couple on this forum.

Yossarian

12-24-12, 4:59pm

Um because they have also DONE nothing wrong!

But that's the rub across the board isn't, no one has, yet we are here talking about restricting their rights. I'd be curious to see if there were more aggressive intervention strategies short of incarceration that could be used for high risk individuals. It's an interesting balance, widespread modest restrictions on low risk people versus more invasive restrictions on higher risk people. And I say higher only in the relative sense, since these events are rare among even the higher risk pool. But as a matter of effectiveness the widespread restrictions are likely to do nothing whereas the more tailored approach may be more effective (anything is more than nothing)

peggy

12-24-12, 5:28pm

But that's the rub across the board isn't, no one has, yet we are here talking about restricting their rights. I'd be curious to see if there were more aggressive intervention strategies short of incarceration that could be used for high risk individuals. It's an interesting balance, widespread modest restrictions on low risk people versus more invasive restrictions on higher risk people. And I say higher only in the relative sense, since these events are rare among even the higher risk pool. But as a matter of effectiveness the widespread restrictions are likely to do nothing whereas the more tailored approach may be more effective (anything is more than nothing)

Restricting rights. That's what i keep hearing...restricting rights. Kind of a straw man, or redirect. But, if you want to talk the constitution, let's talk the constitution.
First of all, who said owning every weapon of death every created is a right? If you want to keep with the strict meaning of the constitution, then let's do that. Let's look at the weaponry available at the time the second amendment was written and go with that. Muskets? Cannons maybe? Sure. Arm yourself with a musket. You have that right AS WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS. They only knew muskets, and not owning time machines, had muskets in mind when they wrote that. So, gather unto yourself all the muskets you want, and form your militia. Let us stick, absolutely, to the TRUE MEANING of the writers of the constitution.
These weren't magic men. They didn't have crystal balls. if you profess to be a strict constitutionalists, then you must know that it was written according to the times. When the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, What weaponry did they have in mind? What weapon did they think of? I say let's stick with that.

bae

12-24-12, 5:35pm

Do you propose similar limits on the First Amendment? Freedom of the press and speech would be quite different if so.

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, private ownership of cannon, and naval vessels armed with them (the strategic weaponry of the day, capable of reducing a harbor city to rubble...) was allowed, and relied upon. I do not think there would have been much of a concern over ownership of semi-automatic rifles, the design of which are over 100 years old and not exactly "modern" technology at this point.

Alan

12-24-12, 5:36pm

Restricting rights. That's what i keep hearing...restricting rights. Kind of a straw man, or redirect. But, if you want to talk the constitution, let's talk the constitution.
First of all, who said owning every weapon of death every created is a right? If you want to keep with the strict meaning of the constitution, then let's do that. Let's look at the weaponry available at the time the second amendment was written and go with that. Muskets? Cannons maybe? Sure. Arm yourself with a musket. You have that right AS WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS. They only knew muskets, and not owning time machines, had muskets in mind when they wrote that. So, gather unto yourself all the muskets you want, and form your militia. Let us stick, absolutely, to the TRUE MEANING of the writers of the constitution.
These weren't magic men. They didn't have crystal balls. if you profess to be a strict constitutionalists, then you must know that it was written according to the times. When the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, What weaponry did they have in mind? What weapon did they think of? I say let's stick with that.
I would suggest that your focus on the type of weapon is the real straw man. The Second Amendment's declaration of the right to bear arms is an affirmation of the right to defense and resistance. If our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness mean anything at all, it follows that we have an intrinsic right to self protection against those who would challenge those rights.

To me, that is the meaning of the Second Amendment.

redfox

12-24-12, 5:40pm

I would suggest that your focus on the type of weapon is the real straw man. The Second Amendment's declaration of the right to bear arms is an affirmation of the right to defense and resistance. If our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness mean anything at all, it follows that we have an intrinsic right to self protection against those who would challenge those rights.

To me, that is the meaning of the Second Amendment.

I gotta admit, the concept of "the real straw man" is pretty funny. I disagree about the type of weapon being irrelevant, but see how you would come to the conclusion you do. Actually, your stance brings into focus one of the main reasons to revisit the 2nd for me. If legal interpretations are that it covers all weapons with no exceptions,incuding the heinous assault ones, as well as whatever future horrific weaons we may invent & produce, that adds more weight for me to changing or abolishing the 2nd.

PS... If anyone would have a canon, Bae, you'd be the guy! Bet you'd have made it yourself, too...

freein05

12-24-12, 5:45pm

bae

12-24-12, 5:45pm

Redfox - I disagree that "the assault ones" are "heinous" - that is a conclusion simply unsupported by facts. The evidence rather suggests quite the opposite - the bulk of what you term "assault weapons" are used responsibly by their owners, for legitimate purposes. The "assault weapon" meme is an attack on fashion and culture.

I will note that the top-selling rifles in America the past few years have been AR-15 platforms, and for some quite specific technical reasons that have not much to do with the fact they are black and look "scary".

freein05

12-24-12, 6:01pm

One of the young children shoot in Sandy Hook was shoot 16 times! If that isn't a heinous crime I don't know what is. A little child shoot 16 times with an assault weapon shooting a 223 caliber bullet. The bullets coming out of the weapons barrel as fast as the shooter could pull the trigger. I think he 100 round magazines. Again these shooters must be stopped if that means putting restricting on the 2nd amendment rights so be it. The 2nd amendment rights people along with the NRA have brought it on themselves. I would also say that if the writers of the 2nd amendment could see how it would be used today to protect assault weapons owners it would have been written differently.

bae

12-24-12, 6:04pm

The crime is heinous indeed. The gun however was not the moral actor.

The Storyteller

12-24-12, 6:04pm

Do you propose similar limits on the First Amendment? Freedom of the press and speech would be quite different if so.

There already are limits on the First Amendment, ones that most people find reasonable. Copyright, obscenity, harmful to minors, trademark, libel, slander, threats, etc. are all restrictions on the First, which I would submit is much less ambiguous than the 2nd. Perhaps it is time to realize there are reasonable exceptions to the 2nd, as well.

Alan

12-24-12, 6:09pm

Alan you are forgetting the well regulated militia part that is in the same sentence. There was no standing army to protect the colonies so they had to use state militias. These were made up of armed citizens who could be called on to protect the colonies.
I haven't forgotten that at all. The thinking of the time was that all citizens had a duty to protect their homes, their communities, their states and their nations. I happen to agree with them, but more importantly, the Supreme Court agrees with them as well.

If you want to consider the "well regulated militia" clause as a qualifier, consider that the clause announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

bae

12-24-12, 6:10pm

We already have tens of thousands of "reasonable" restrictions of the 2nd Amendment on the books.

The proposal offered though, to which I was responding, was the tired "let's limit the 2nd Amendment to muskets" line...

So, would it be "reasonable" to exclude the Internet, cell phones, telegrams, and so on from First Amendment protection. You know, since the Founders didn't have those things?

Absurd.

I have a rifle sitting right here that I was working on this morning. It belonged to my great grandfather. It is semi-auto, holds 16 rounds, and can be reloaded pretty darned swiftly. It was made in 1914. This is not new technology, and the technology is not the issue, it's just a marketing approach for proponents of gun control, because many semi-automatic rifles are scary-looking and it is easy to froth about them.

Yossarian

12-24-12, 6:19pm

There already are limits on the First Amendment, ones that most people find reasonable. Copyright, obscenity, harmful to minors, trademark, libel, slander, threats, etc. are all restrictions on the First, which I would submit is much less ambiguous than the 2nd. Perhaps it is time to realize there are reasonable exceptions to the 2nd, as well.

But those are all restrictions on someone's actions that cause harm to others or infringe on their rights or property. I would not contend that the right to bear arms allows me to harm others or shoot or carry guns on their private property without consent. Would you say the first amendment doesn't apply to the use of the internet because it allows you to slander someone to more people faster than an 18 th century moveable type printing press?

The Storyteller

12-24-12, 6:20pm

We already have tens of thousands of "reasonable" restrictions of the 2nd Amendment on the books.

Then a couple more wouldn't hurt, particularly assault rifles, 30 round magazines, and 100 round drums. Closing the so called gun show loophole wouldn't hurt, either. Maybe a gun registration requirement in the mix. I have to register my animals, after all.

You are correct that semi auto assault weapons have been around for a long time, though, so that has nothing to do with it. We had the M-14 back in the early 60s, and machine guns much longer. I'm against civilians owning those, as well.

Spartana

12-24-12, 6:25pm

Restricting rights. That's what i keep hearing...restricting rights. Kind of a straw man, or redirect. But, if you want to talk the constitution, let's talk the constitution.
First of all, who said owning every weapon of death every created is a right? If you want to keep with the strict meaning of the constitution, then let's do that. Let's look at the weaponry available at the time the second amendment was written and go with that. Muskets? Cannons maybe? Sure. Arm yourself with a musket. You have that right AS WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS. They only knew muskets, and not owning time machines, had muskets in mind when they wrote that. So, gather unto yourself all the muskets you want, and form your militia. Let us stick, absolutely, to the TRUE MEANING of the writers of the constitution.
These weren't magic men. They didn't have crystal balls. if you profess to be a strict constitutionalists, then you must know that it was written according to the times. When the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, What weaponry did they have in mind? What weapon did they think of? I say let's stick with that.
Of course no one (the bad guys) were firing at the Founding Fathers, the Well Armed Militia, and the private citizens with semi-automatic firearms back then either - they were using single shot muskets too. I imagine that the "intent" of the Amendment was that citizens can protect themselves and their communities with equal firearms of any given period in time, irregardless of the period of historical time or firearms technology when the Ammendment was written.

The Storyteller

12-24-12, 6:27pm

But those are all restrictions on someone's actions that cause harm to others or infringe on their rights or property. I would not contend that the right to bear arms allows me to harm others or shoot or carry guns on their private property without consent.

Really? Every time someone walks into a business establishment packing a piece, no matter how legal, is doing so without that business owner's consent.

But the First Amendment is about words and thoughts. The Second is about things. If you can restrict words and thoughts, you can restrict things. So, it is within the state's scope to restrict firearms, short of banning all of them altogether. I would submit that the simple restrictions I am advocating here would pass muster, even under the current conservative court.

The Storyteller

12-24-12, 6:39pm

I should point out that I recognize the Second Amendment is an individual right, and that it does apply to self protection, not a state militia. That isn't how I read it, but it is how the courts have read it, and that is what counts. I support our system of laws and that is just how things work. I would submit that there is a great deal of room for interpretation, and different courts will likely see it a bit differently than the current court, but the thing is likely to be around as an individual right in any case.

I would love to see the thing repealed, but then, I'm also in favor of replacing our current legislative system with a parliament. Neither is likely to ever take place, not in my lifetime or a dozen others.

dmc

12-24-12, 6:44pm

Really? Every time someone walks into a business establishment packing a piece, no matter how legal, is doing so without that business owner's consent.

I have started seeing signs posted at some business establishments that concealed carry is legal and permitted at their place. The last one I saw was at a shop that was doing some work on my plane. This was inside the airport.

Spartana

12-24-12, 6:44pm

The crime is heinous indeed. The gun however was not the moral actor.
"A drunk driver with his children in the car drives on the wrong side of the road killing four" (yesterday). A speeding car crashes, cutting the car completely in half and killing the man's 2 sons - 13 and 11 - and injuring him" (yesterday).... well, I could go on and on and on with each more gruesome then the next. I blame the drivers. The police blame the drivers. The community and society blame the drivers. No one blames the vehicle. No one wants to ban either it or alcolhol. As a matter of fact many states are legallizing yet another intoxicant - pot - so how many people will drive stoned and take out a few kids in a horrific accident on their way to get munchies? Fix the problem with drunk, reckless, speeding and distracted drivers, don't ban the vehicles. Same with firearms.

bae

12-24-12, 6:49pm

And Spartana - we seem to have a culture that tolerates catch-and-release for drunk drivers.

freein05

12-24-12, 7:09pm

Spartana

12-24-12, 7:10pm

And Spartana - we seem to have a culture that tolerates catch-and-release for drunk drivers. And over 1,000 kids under age 14 are killed by drunken drivers each year (and many more if you count deaths by reckless drivers) - generally while riding in their intoxicated parents car. Yer we fine the drunken or reckless or distracted driver and send them on their merry way. Driving off into the sunset!

bae

12-24-12, 7:12pm

Is society willing to restrict 2nd amendment rights to people who have mental problems or other problems.

We do already. I believe I mentioned some of the specifics previously in this thread, or the other. We're just not very good at it. Connecticut failed to pass a bill that would have helped things perhaps, just shortly before these recent shootings, but the bill was shot down due to privacy/civil liberties concerns.

Spartana

12-24-12, 7:14pm

I again go back to the individual. We need less gun owners. I think many of us agree it is not the weapon. Is society willing to restrict 2nd amendment rights to people who have mental problems or other problems. But will fewer gun owners make a difference if they are all either the "bad" gun owners (thise who commit these kind of crimes) or all "good" owners - those who have never done anything wrong, and will never do anything wrong, with a firearm? I'd rather have 300 million "good and safe and sane" gun owners then even one "bad and crazy and criminal" gun owner. And that's why I support more gun regulations and requirements to purchase, own and use firearms to weed out those "bad" gun owners but do not support banning guns.Because to me, it is the "bad" gun owner that is the problem, not the gun or type of gun.

Alan

12-24-12, 7:20pm

gimmethesimplelife

12-24-12, 7:38pm

We already do.Given the recent shootings in CT and elsewhere, would you agree that we as a society are not doing a very good job of this? Me thinks there are families in CT, OR, PA and now NY that would agree with this.....

freein05

12-24-12, 7:45pm

We already do.

The laws are not effective or not drafted properly because we continue to have nut cases and bad guys kill with guns. I say again bad guys in most cases don't buy guns they steal them from people who have not stored them properly. Should people who do not store their weapons properly be punished if their weapons are used in a crime. I say yes.

gimmethesimplelife

12-24-12, 7:46pm

The laws are not effective or not drafted properly because we continue to have nut cases and bad guys kill with guns. I say again bad guys in most cases don't buy guns they steal them from people who not stored them properly. Should people who do not store their weapons properly be punished if their weapons are used in a crime. I say yes.+1 Rob

Alan

12-24-12, 7:56pm

Given the recent shootings in CT and elsewhere, would you agree that we as a society are not doing a very good job of this? Me thinks there are families in CT, OR, PA and now NY that would agree with this.....

The laws are not effective or not drafted properly because we continue to have nut cases and bad guys kill with guns. I say again bad guys in most cases don't buy guns they steal them from people who have not stored them properly. Should people who do not store their weapons properly be punished if their weapons are used in a crime. I say yes.
I would say the current laws work quite well given the limitations of determining when someone is likely to do harm to themselves or others.

I don't know specifics of the time leading up to these various shooters committing these acts but I'd not be surprised to find that their families, friends and neighbors did not consider them to be a threat to anyone. If that is true, by what law would you predict such a thing?

ApatheticNoMore

12-24-12, 7:58pm

I blame the drivers. The police blame the drivers. The community and society blame the drivers. No one blames the vehicle. No one wants to ban either it or alcolhol.

It's mostly because this society developed a very weird relationship with cars, so it tolerates their massive carnage. It also let it's cities near be destroyed by cars, not to mention horribly polluted by them. It's children endangered by them. It gives them priority over pedestrians (in city planning, not talking "right of way") and destroyed much of a pedestrian centered way of life etc.. And hey, it will sacrifice the whole planet on their alter in the end. They are what one uses to get around now, but that doesn't mean that this post is sarcasm, or that choosing cars was not itself a decision to sacrafice a lot of other values to their primacy, that somehow might not exactly make sense.

Yossarian

12-24-12, 9:01pm

Really? Every time someone walks into a business establishment packing a piece, no matter how legal, is doing so without that business owner's consent.

Not at all. The law recognizes the priniciple of implied consent. Just as when you walk into a business establishment wearing shoes you are not doing that without the owners consent, the owner has by virtue of operating a public business invited the public in and you are not trespassing by walking in wearing shoes. Every state I know of also allows that business owner to prohibit persons from coming into the esatablishment, and if they want to ban Air Jordans they can do that. Thus the no firearms signs- they are exceptions to the general consent granted to the public to enter the establishment. Different states require different steps to enforce that, but I don't know of any state that denies the property owner control over the property on that basis.

freein05

12-24-12, 10:28pm

It looks like the gun lobby/NRA was wrong again.

"JERUSALEM—Israel's policy on issuing guns is restrictive, and armed guards at its schools are meant to stop terrorists, not crazed or disgruntled gunmen, experts said Monday, rejecting claims by America's top gun lobby that Israel serves as proof for its philosophy that the U.S. needs more weapons, not fewer.
Far from the image of a heavily armed population where ordinary people have their own arsenals to repel attackers, Israel allows its people to acquire firearms only if they can prove their professions or places of residence put them in danger. The country relies on its security services, not armed citizens, to prevent terror attacks."

Edited to add source: http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_22255010/israel-rejects-us-gun-lobby-claims-its-security

Alan

12-24-12, 10:58pm

Woodhaven

12-24-12, 11:36pm

I wonder how they tell the difference?

+1

Woodhaven

12-25-12, 12:08am

I have clarify something. When I say there are too many guns in this country I really think I mean there are too many gun owners. As said above too many people buy a firearm and have no idea how to use it. They buy it and do not spend all time that is necessary to become a safe firearm owner. I really feel one very important aspect of firearm ownership is the safe and secure storage of them so bad guys don't get them.

So I will rephrase my gun statement.

THERE ARE TOO MANY GUN OWNERS IN THE US!

Interesting. How many people should be able to own guns? Would there be a limit to the number of guns an "approved" owner could have at any one time? Should you have to demonstrate proficiency with a weapon before you are permitted to purchase it? How would this be administered? At purchase or periodically thereafter? Perhaps if you were not "approved", you would not be allowed to take it off your property akin to having an unregistered automobile. Would any of this be more effective than revisiting the so called assault weapons ban or banning high cap magazines? If I already own a gun, do I have to demonstrate my competency with it in order to be able to keep it?

ApatheticNoMore

12-25-12, 12:08am

I wonder how they tell the difference?

Doing it for a political objective and even more so if you claim credit for the act of terrorism as that cause is usually how.

Alan

12-25-12, 12:26am

Doing it for a political objective and even more so if you claim credit for the act of terrorism as that cause is usually how.
I understand the definition of terrorism and I'm pretty sure the Israeli's don't bother checking mass killer's motivations prior to stopping them. The quoted statement that their security measures are not intended for "crazed or disgruntled gunmen" doesn't make any sense.

If the Israeli's are acting pro-actively, I'm pretty sure protection against "crazed or disgruntled gunmen" is a large part of their defense posture.

Yossarian

12-25-12, 9:48am

Gregg

12-26-12, 2:38pm

In what school of thought is a "crazed or disgruntled gunmen" not a terrorist?

DocHolliday

12-27-12, 1:03am

Why worry about Israel? From what I've read the NBC host who mocked the idea of having armed guards in schools sends his kids to a private school in DC with 11 guards. Same for Obama. Where's that SLN egalitarianism when it comes to somethings as basic as child safety?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/23/NBC-s-David-Gregory-Mocks-NRA-Push-For-Armed-Guards-In-School-Gregory-s-Kids-Go-To-School-With-Armed-Guards

Repeat after me, "all animals are equal, but ..."

Hopefully, Gregory will soon be in hotwater up to his eyeballs. The magazine he had is illegal to posess in Washington D.C. The investigation in ongoing, but he could be looking at a year in jail and a fine. That would be hilarious if he gets arrested over it.

I doubt it'll happen but there's always hope...

jp1

12-27-12, 1:31am

In what school of thought is a "crazed or disgruntled gunmen" not a terrorist?

That depends on whether we're talking about the definition an average 'man on the street' might give or the definition that our government might give. Considering that the term terrorist carries with it the loss of many civil rights I'd personally opt to define it as narrowly as possible and not include crazy gunmen unless their efforts are also politically motivated to overthrow the government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/16/court-terrorism-morales-gangs-meaningless

Gregg

12-27-12, 10:46am

That depends on whether we're talking about the definition an average 'man on the street' might give or the definition that our government might give. Considering that the term terrorist carries with it the loss of many civil rights I'd personally opt to define it as narrowly as possible and not include crazy gunmen unless their efforts are also politically motivated to overthrow the government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/16/court-terrorism-morales-gangs-meaningless

It IS an important point to consider and protect civil liberties. The term "terrorism", and by extension "terrorist" have reached the point in our society of being little more meaningful than "natural" or "artisan" or "awesome". When it comes to law the obvious problem is definition. There usually isn't any. Merriam Webster says:

Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion, and

Terror: a state of intense fear

There is a LOT of room for interpretation in those definitions. The people in Sandy Hook Elementary School almost certainly felt a state of intense fear (aka, they were "terrorized"). Does that make Adam Lanza a terrorist? If A=B and B=C does A always equal C? Do we treat gang members who shoot up a neighborhood the same way as we treat members of al-Qaeda? One of the hard parts about living in a society like ours is that we have to protect the rights of a mass killer the same way we protect those of a shoplifter. The big thing here in NE right now is to charge anyone who uses a gun to threaten another person with "making terroristic threats". To me that is the most absurd wording that could have been used because I associate terrorism with political goals. Most other people I've talked with have a similar view. Everyone, I guess, except for our lawmakers.

gimmethesimplelife

12-27-12, 11:38am

It IS an important point to consider and protect civil liberties. The term "terrorism", and by extension "terrorist" have reached the point in our society of being little more meaningful than "natural" or "artisan" or "awesome". When it comes to law the obvious problem is definition. There usually isn't any. Merriam Webster says:

Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion, and

Terror: a state of intense fear

There is a LOT of room for interpretation in those definitions. The people in Sandy Hook Elementary School almost certainly felt a state of intense fear (aka, they were "terrorized"). Does that make Adam Lanza a terrorist? If A=B and B=C does A always equal C? Do we treat gang members who shoot up a neighborhood the same way as we treat members of al-Qaeda? One of the hard parts about living in a society like ours is that we have to protect the rights of a mass killer the same way we protect those of a shoplifter. The big thing here in NE right now is to charge anyone who uses a gun to threaten another person with "making terroristic threats". To me that is the most absurd wording that could have been used because I associate terrorism with political goals. Most other people I've talked with have a similar view. Everyone, I guess, except for our lawmakers.I like how you summed up the words terror and terrorism as having been reduced down to empty, hollow words like awesome, natural, and most especially, artisan. What exactly does artisan mean anyway? This really made me stop and think and see this whole issue a little differently. Thanks! Rob (I do see terrorism as being different and usually as you said connected to some kind of politics.)