Gun (Lack of) Control

[Marlow]

People angry enough and willing enough will kill.

I agree. But guns make it so easy to be a killer that without guns many (most?) are simply too craven to go through with it. Why must we make it so EASY to be a mass-murderer?

[JRM]

Worth noting the deadliest school massacre in US history did not involve a single gun.

Not really worth noting, since the rest of them involved lots of guns.

Mentally unstable people bent on mayhem, will create mayhem

There are mentally-unstable people everywhere. There is not easy access to guns everywhere. Of course, one of the other differences is that in most other countries, there is also easily-accessible healthcare.

[guru]

There are mentally-unstable people everywhere. Of course, one of the other differences is that in most other countries, there is also easily-accessible healthcare.

Almost without fail these madmen come from wealthy backgrounds, including this one.

[odelltrclan]

People angry enough and willing enough will kill.

I agree. But guns make it so easy to be a killer that without guns many (most?) are simply too craven to go through with it. Why must we make it so EASY to be a mass-murderer?

People kill.

Largely ignored by the mainstream media are events where having guns have saved people's lives. I have read about a half dozen in just the last year where someone thwarted potential murders because they had something to defend themselves with.

In June 2012 in Phoenix a break and enter criminal was thwarted by a 14 year old who was babysitting with siblings who had a gun and was trained to use it.

In the Clackamas Town Center Mall incident, many more lives would have been taken had someone who had a concealed carrying permit not stood brave and stopped the gunman.

There are many more examples. There are going to be crazy people who try to kill. They will find other ways because they are deranged sick people.

We have seen examples in history where guns are removed from citizens and then the governments oppress. Examples include Stalin, Tse-Tung, and Hitler. Tse-Tung disarmed the masses and then proceeded to murder something like 40 million people who disagreed with his politics. Do you really think this country is immune to something like that happening here?

Alcohol kills far more people than guns. How about taking that away? Be careful for what you wish for.

[Conor Dary]

We have seen examples in history where guns are removed from citizens and then the governments oppress. Examples include Stalin, Tse-Tung, and Hitler. Tse-Tung disarmed the masses and then proceeded to murder something like 40 million people who disagreed with his politics. Do you really think this country is immune to something like that happening here?

I knew someone would go off the deep end....Stalin, HItler, Genghis Khan!

So now we are going to fight the US Government? They have nukes, so should US citizens be allowed to have those?

Of course the mother of the killer was deep into this sort of nonsense.

“Last time we visited with her in person we talked about prepping and you know, are you ready for what can happen down the line when the economy collapses,” said the gunman’s aunt, Marsha Lanza.

The reporter asked, “Survivalist kind of thing?”

“Yea,” said Marsha Lanza.

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/loca ... -shooting/

[Daisy]

Largely ignored by the mainstream media are events where having guns have saved people's lives.

How many of them need a semi-automatic to achieve this? Did they need specialty bullets too (Flesh-shredding or armor piercing)? The problem with this debate is there is always a starting premise that gun control is synonymous with no guns. That is a red herring and false.

[TN1965]

People kill.

Then why not "control" people instead of controlling guns?

Require psychiatric assessments at regular intervals from an early age, with increased frequency for individuals who show any sign of trouble. Then lock up the "worst" cases in mental institutes before they commit any violent crime.

Deny drivers license or any other government issued privilege if they refuse to participate. Better yet, lock them up in prison if they do not cooperate.

This does not totally eliminate mass killing, but would drastically reduce it.

How many people would support this as an alternative to gun control?

[Pego]

I have read about a half dozen in just the last year where someone thwarted potential murders because they had something to defend themselves with.

10,000+ gun deaths in the country in 1 year vs 6 deaths thwarted

Thank you for the insightful math.

[mump boy]

People angry enough and willing enough will kill.

I agree. But guns make it so easy to be a killer that without guns many (most?) are simply too craven to go through with it. Why must we make it so EASY to be a mass-murderer?

People kill.

Largely ignored by the mainstream media are events where having guns have saved people's lives. I have read about a half dozen in just the last year where someone thwarted potential murders because they had something to defend themselves with.

In June 2012 in Phoenix a break and enter criminal was thwarted by a 14 year old who was babysitting with siblings who had a gun and was trained to use it.

In the Clackamas Town Center Mall incident, many more lives would have been taken had someone who had a concealed carrying permit not stood brave and stopped the gunman.

There are many more examples. There are going to be crazy people who try to kill. They will find other ways because they are deranged sick people.

We have seen examples in history where guns are removed from citizens and then the governments oppress. Examples include Stalin, Tse-Tung, and Hitler. Tse-Tung disarmed the masses and then proceeded to murder something like 40 million people who disagreed with his politics. Do you really think this country is immune to something like that happening here?

Alcohol kills far more people than guns. How about taking that away? Be careful for what you wish for.

Is this some kind of Onion parody ??

[Daisy]

Alcohol kills far more people than guns. How about taking that away? Be careful for what you wish for.

I just noticed this, and yes, for some people, sure. Or their cars. I'm thinking that any state that regularly has people being caught for DUI probably needs a lot of what ever you're worried about losing.

Paul G. Barber Jr., 52, of Stoughton, has been arrested 21 times for DUI in Wisconsin and other states over the last three decades.

And these examples of chronic DUI offenders come up in the Wisconsin State Journal all the time.

[odelltrclan]

I have read about a half dozen in just the last year where someone thwarted potential murders because they had something to defend themselves with.

10,000+ gun deaths in the country in 1 year vs 6 deaths thwarted

Thank you for the insightful math.

Your logic is lacking. You presume these deaths would not have happened had there been no guns. Most of the murders that were committed will still be committed, guns or no guns. People who want to kill others will simply move on to the next available way of doing so.

Daisy, this thread was about guns in general, not assault weapons. I have already heard leftist talking heads in the media today talking about confiscation of all guns, not just assault weapons.

[Conor Dary]

Daisy, this thread was about guns in general, not assault weapons. I have already heard leftist talking heads in the media today talking about confiscation of all guns, not just assault weapons.

And I heard the world will end on Friday...whom to believe?????

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/12/ ... -will-end/

[odelltrclan]

People kill.

Then why not "control" people instead of controlling guns?

Require psychiatric assessments at regular intervals from an early age, with increased frequency for individuals who show any sign of trouble. Then lock up the "worst" cases in mental institutes before they commit any violent crime.

Deny drivers license or any other government issued privilege if they refuse to participate. Better yet, lock them up in prison if they do not cooperate.

This does not totally eliminate mass killing, but would drastically reduce it.

How many people would support this as an alternative to gun control?

Yes, of course. The problem lies with a very very few. Sick people. Sick minds. We need to find ways to identify those people and prevent them from themselves. But, it can never happen 100%. Many first serious signs of trouble I suspect will be when the "event" occurs.

[Daisy]

I have already heard leftist talking heads in the media today talking about confiscation of all guns, not just assault weapons.

Conveniently promoted by the right to bring the conversation to a grinding halt. As I said, a red herring.

[Pego]

Most of the murders that were committed will still be committed, guns or no guns.

I will argue to the contrary. There is a mountain of crime stats indicating it (do not ask me to provide it, it is available).
BTW, your response to Daisy is a typical "ad hominem" (those lefties!) attack. This country needs sensible drug control laws. I for one do not want to confiscate your precious guns, only the assault weapons plus having evidence of gun ownership (just like registering your house, car, wife, kids...).

[jazzcyclist]

I'll bet gun dealers are making a fortune these days. Every time politicians like Michael Bloomberg and Dianne Feinstein open their mouths, gun dealers go cha-ching $$$$$.

[odelltrclan]

Most of the murders that were committed will still be committed, guns or no guns.

I will argue to the contrary. There is a mountain of crime stats indicating it (do not ask me to provide it, it is available).
BTW, your response to Daisy is a typical "ad hominem" (those lefties!) attack. This country needs sensible drug control laws. I for one do not want to confiscate your precious guns, only the assault weapons plus having evidence of gun ownership (just like registering your house, car, wife, kids...).

The primary person I mentioned holds himself out to be a "leftist" so, no, this was not an "ad hominem" attack as you claim. I have heard him say so myself. Just stating the facts. And Daisy, who is stopping the conversations? Heard today certain people calling for NRA members to be killed for supporting the right to have guns. Who really is whacked? Pego, why are you bringing up drug control? Is that what you meant? I agree with sensible laws. Not confiscation of guns as certain people are suggesting. By the way, I don't own any guns. But I am all for the right to do so. If I am now viewed as an "extremist" for believing citizens have this right then so be it!

[guru]

Whatever you think of the gun issue, one thing is certain - the media is out of control. They got exactly nothing right on Friday, including the name of the shooter. I hope Ryan Lanza sues the AP into bankruptcy.

[Conor Dary]

I have already heard leftist talking heads in the media today talking about confiscation of all guns, not just assault weapons.

Conveniently promoted by the right to bring the conversation to a grinding halt. As I said, a red herring.

Of course, it is. What else is new?

[Pego]

Pego, why are you bringing up drug control? Is that what you meant?

Of course I meant gun control and you know it. That is being discussed here.

[dukehjsteve]

I have already heard leftist talking heads in the media today talking about confiscation of all guns, not just assault weapons.

Conveniently promoted by the right to bring the conversation to a grinding halt. As I said, a red herring.

Yes, indeed. What complete nonsense.

I have absolutely no sympathy for the right wingers on this issue. A civilized society is not a society saturated with semiautomatic hand guns and assault rifles. The reflexive misreading of the 2nd amendment and appeals to "liberty" have gotten very, very old.

As always, I am in complete accord with kuha.

[Conor Dary]

I think this time could be different. Both big pro gun Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Harry Reid have come out and said something has to be done.

“We’re looking at everything,” Manchin told MSNBC during one of at least two appearances he made on the network Monday. Manchin expressed interest in Democratic calls for assault weapons bans, clip bans as well as talk about “the culture.” He acknowledged that his tone on gun control has shifted post-Newtown.

“All of this needs to be done, and, you know, it just really has changed us,” he said. “It’s changed me.”

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), who like Manchin has also enjoyed support from the NRA, sounded a similar note Monday.

“I’ve got an A rating from the NRA. But the status quo isn’t acceptable,” he told reporters Monday. “I’ve got three daughters. They asked me on Friday evening, ‘Dad, what are you gonna do about this?’ There’s got to be a way to put reasonable restrictions, particularly as we look at assault weapons, as we look at these fast clips of ammunition.”

And also the last election shows the Democrats really don't need to cater to the rightwing gun nuts anymore. The demographics are changing.

Almost five years ago Thomas Schaller published an important book titled Whistling Past Dixie, which basically argued that it was time for Democrats to stop running scared of the views of Southern whites — they weren’t going to get those votes anyway, and demographic change had proceeded to the point where they could win national elections without the South. Indeed, so it has come to pass: while Obama did win Virginia, he did it by appealing to the new Virginia of the DC suburbs, not the rural whites, and otherwise he had a totally non-Dixie victory.

So Nate Cohn argues that this same logic applies to gun control: the voters who care passionately about their semi-automatic weapons are rural whites who ain’t gonna vote Democratic in any case — and the new Democratic coalition doesn’t need them. David Atkins takes it further, saying the awful truth: the pro-gun fanatics are basically the kind of people who think that Obama is a Kenyan socialist atheistic Islamist, and the urban hordes are coming for their property any day now. People, in other words, who already vote 100 percent Republican — and lose elections.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/1 ... gun-lobby/

[gh]

....
So Nate Cohn argues that this same logic applies to gun control: the voters who care passionately about their semi-automatic weapons are rural whites who ain’t gonna vote Democratic in any case.../

If we want to keep this thread alive, let's avoid stereotypical profiling, OK?

There are well-educated, highly paid social liberals who own/love fully automatic weapons (like a neighbor of mine) for whom political stripe has nothing to do with this.

The whole issue is just slightly more complex than dissing on some crackers.

[jazzcyclist]

I have already heard leftist talking heads in the media today talking about confiscation of all guns, not just assault weapons.

Conveniently promoted by the right to bring the conversation to a grinding halt. As I said, a red herring.

But there are some politicians, like Michael Bloomberg, who want to ban all private gun ownership. And Congresswoman Carol McCarthy, a.k.a. the "Gun Lady", wants Obama to ban guns by executive order. On MSNBC's Hardball today, it was pointed out folks like Bloomberg and McCarthy would hurt the gun control movement since they fit the worst anti-gun stereotype imaginable and can be easily caricatured. Also, MSNBC's Alex Wagner has said on air that she would like to see the Second Amendment repealed.

[kuha]

I have already heard leftist talking heads in the media today talking about confiscation of all guns, not just assault weapons.

Conveniently promoted by the right to bring the conversation to a grinding halt. As I said, a red herring.

But there are some politicians, like Michael Bloomberg, who want to ban all private gun ownership. And Congresswoman Carol McCarthy, a.k.a. the "Gun Lady", wants Obama to ban guns by executive order. On MSNBC's Hardball today, it was pointed out folks like Bloomberg and McCarthy would hurt the gun control movement since they fit the worst anti-gun stereotype imaginable and can be easily caricatured. Also, MSNBC's Alex Wagner has said on air that she would like to see the Second Amendment repealed.

And there are many people in the US right now who want their state(s) to secede from the Union. In both cases, the chatter means nothing: it ain't happening. To get worked up about either view right now is a giant distraction from reality.

[jazzcyclist]

Most of the murders that were committed will still be committed, guns or no guns.

I will argue to the contrary. There is a mountain of crime stats indicating it (do not ask me to provide it, it is available).

Intuitively, I agree with you Pego. The unavailability of guns probably wouldn't stop the determined nutjob from killing, but it probably would prevent spur of the moment murders, such as crimes of passion.

I for one do not want to confiscate your precious guns, only the assault weapons plus having evidence of gun ownership (just like registering your house, car, wife, kids...).

How do you define "assault weapons" in such a way that you don't ban guns like the Remington 742 semiautomatic 30-06 which can do everything that an AR-15 or AK-47S can do, but is more powerful than both?

[bijanc]

Hartmann wants to ban gun ownership for those for whom they're not a professional necessity (there's no constitutional right to own one in either Israel or Switzerland), but it ain't gonna happen here:)

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/why-do-we-get-riled-about-gun-rights-and-not-rights-health-care-and-education

There are items one cannot own or buy in the U.S. unless one can proof a professional need.

[Pego]

How do you define "assault weapons" in such a way that you don't ban guns like the Remington 742 semiautomatic 30-06 which can do everything that an AR-15 or AK-47S can do, but is more powerful than both?

I am totally clueless as to those specs, but I am sure that there are many people intimately familiar with it that could work out this sort of issues.

I will tell you that the last time I fired a weapon (at a target) was in a military service in 1963. They insisted .

[Marlow]

Banning guns altogether will create a toxic Prohibition-style backlash, even if it is a minority that talk about prying their cold dead fingers off their guns. We can do some sweeping changes without resorting to gun prohibition. It will take some bi-partisan leadership, but hopefully Sandy Hook is the last straw in making SOMETHING happen.

I will tell you that the last time I fired a weapon (at a target) was in a military service in 1963. They insisted .

I was on my squadron's pistol team and loved it, but I hate everything else about guns. They are a recipe for disaster in most sane people's hands, much less the unhinged among us.

[jazzcyclist]

And also the last election shows the Democrats really don't need to cater to the rightwing gun nuts anymore. The demographics are changing.

You're right that on issues like race, religion, gay rights, abortion and drugs, demographics have steadily trended towards tolerance and acceptance, and young people are likely to be more liberal on these issues than their parents and grandparents. However, the one issue on which liberals are losing the demographic battle is on the issue of gun rights. People today are more anti-gun control than ever, and young folks are more pro-Second Amendment than their parents and grandparents. Historically, shootings such as these have only led to a momentary spike in support for gun control, only to return to previous levels after a couple of months.

If recent history is a guide, the mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., on Friday is unlikely to move poll results about guns rights and gun control in any lasting way.

Thirteen years ago, another shooting rampage at Columbine High School, not far from Aurora, produced a brief bump in support for stricter gun laws, but that new support had eroded a year later and ultimately gave way to a longer-term decline.

The Columbine shootings attracted by far the most public interest of any news story in 1999, according to the Pew Research Center. That April week, more than two-thirds of Americans (68 percent) said they had followed the story very closely.

The tragedy helped provoke a national debate over gun control laws, which in turn produced a flurry of polls checking Americans' opinions on the wisdom of such laws. A few weeks after the shootings, Pew Research found 65 percent of Americans said it was more important to control gun ownership, while only 30 percent said it was more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns. That was a eight-point jump in those favoring gun control laws (up from 57 percent) since the pollster had last asked the question in December 1993.

The post-Columbine bump had faded about a year later, and support for stricter gun laws remained roughly constant over the next eight years. Following the 2008 election, however, support for stricter gun laws dropped off considerably. By April 2010, Pew Research found more Americans placing greater importance on protecting the rights of gun owners (49 percent) than on restricting gun ownership (45 percent).

Similar questions tracked by Gallup and the Washington Post and ABC News showed similar patterns. Just after the Columbine shootings, Gallup found 66 percent of Americans saying that laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter, but by October 2010 the pollster found support for stricter laws had fallen to just 44 percent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/2 ... 90169.html

[jhc68]

Meaningful gun control is difficult impossible to imagine given the $$$ involved, the number of weapons already circulating, and the emotional reactions of people who love their guns.

That being said, I think I'll puke if I hear three of the pro-gun talking points even one more time:
1) We'd all be safer if we all had guns so we could protect ourselves by having shoot outs with the bad guys. The WWW is overflowing with people who seriously believe that the staff at Sandy Hook should have been armed with readily accessible firearms at the school. And the shooter's mom ends up being killed by the firearms she has acquired to protect herself.

2) People kill people, not guns. Yes, people will kill each other -- they always have and will continue that habit -- but guns make it so easy and so efficient. A lunatic cant take lives in an instant, at a distance and with minimal effort. No way the Newtown shooter slays 26 people in so short a time with a knife or a hammer or his hands, no way. And, yeah, he could have rigged a bomb or some other mass killing device but there was no need for much planning or intelligence when semi-automatic weapons with huge clips are readily available.

3) We need weapons to guard against the tyranny of our own government. This is such an archaic and infantile notion that it leaves me speechless. Yet millions of seemingly normal Americans apparently believe that the only reason their own elected government doesn't enslave them is the collection of rifles stashed in their homes.

Excuse me, but I just don't want to hear any of this blather any more.

[JRM]

Meaningful gun control is difficult impossible to imagine given the $$$ involved, the number of weapons already circulating, and the emotional reactions of people who love their guns.

In the world of nuclear weapons, the best method to stem proliferation is to restrict access to the fuel. It's impossible to stop people from assembling a bomb, but it's most certainly possible to limit their access to the necessary amount of uranium or plutonium. You can't make a nuclear bomb without fissile material.

In the world of gun control, the equivalent effort would be "bullet control." In fact, this was best summed up in a routine by Chris Rock (google it). His summary line: "I think bullets should cost $5000 ... because if a bullet cost $5000, there'd be no more innocent bystanders."

[Tuariki]

One of the reasons I returned to NZ and gave up my green card was because I wanted to bring my kids up in a country where gun control was not an issue. And where schools do not need armed guards or metal detectors.

[Pego]

young folks are more pro-Second Amendment than their parents and grandparents

Sensible gun laws have nothing to do with the Second Amendment. It is being abused by the gun lobby just as Fred Phelps abuses the First Amendment.

[Cooter Brown]

If you want to be licenses as a gun owner, you should have to pass a mental health assessment. Maybe require an update to it every 10 years. If you have someone with mental health issues living in your home, guns can't be housed on site.

It'd be really hard for the pro-gun lobby to argue and win over public opinion that the mentally ill have a right to own or have access to guns.