Gun (Lack of) Control

[bijanc]

Hartmann's op ed says gun ownership's no "right" in Israel or Germany, it's an ex-military thing, or in some countries, a sidebar of almost everyone having some obligatory armed service commitment. One has to show cause to own.

Be cool if K12 education or health care were "rights', not privileges (sp.)

[Marlow]

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.

"Mental health assessments" are notoriously unreliable. Tests are easily passed and even if you interview a wide variety of the 'patient's' acquaintances, there will be wide disagreement on the subject's mental health. The vast majority of people with real mental disabilities remain undiagnosed and merely regarded as 'eccentric'. The only way to get a handle on this problem is to take 80% of the guns and ammo off the market, and institute a strict licensing program. [and yes, people with diagnosed issues are restricted from ownership]

But, as noted above, this storm will blow over and people will lose the will to fight for gun control, and we'll be right back where we started from.

[kuha]

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.

I agree completely. Very well said.

[Blues]

I find it difficult to understand how any intelligent person who has concern for the public's wellbeing (not just their own wellbeing) can object to the idea of a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, or object to more intensive and thorough background checks. I'd also like to see registration required.

Our lovely governor here in Arizona, who's done much to see that Arizona has the weakest gun laws in the nation, stated that she doesn't see how what happened in Conn. might warrant changing gun laws.

Currently, in AZ no permits are required, almost everybody over 18 can openly carry, and almost everybody over 21 can carry concealed without a permit. Walk into a gun store and if you want, in most cases you can walk out with an assault rifle, a few semiautomatic handguns, lots of high capacity magazines and plenty of hollow point ammo, in under 30 minutes... It only took Tucson shooter Jared Lee Loughner (who shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, killed 6 and wounded 13 others in a supermarket parking lot rampage) a few minutes to walk into a gun store in Tucson and purchase his Glock 19 and two optional high capacity 30 round magazines. Loughner had prior convictions for drug use, was rejected by the Army for chronic drug use, and was kicked out of college for mental health reasons, but had no problem purchasing the gun, magazines, and ammo in not much longer than the time it would take to get a Quarter Pounder with cheese at a drive-through at McDonalds.... He was legally allowed to carry concealed too. He used a 30 round magazine in the shooting, and was finally tackled to the ground when he stopped to change magazines. If he'd been using a normal magazine, it seems he would have been tackled with somewhat less than 6 people dead and 14 wounded... Something doesn't seem right in this picture.

For reference, below is a youtube video of a shooter demonstrating firing the exact type of gun and magazine that Loughner used. According to the NRA, I guess every household being able to have a peashooter like this is imperative for the public's wellbeing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksx86791px8

Edit: Below is a video of a demonstration of the Bushmaster .223 assault rifle that Adam Lanza used in the Newtown massacre. The only difference is that Lanza used an optional 30 round magazine so was able to fire over 30 shots at a time without stopping..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEKSVXno4D8

[Marlow]

A. I find it difficult to understand how any intelligent person who has concern for the public's wellbeing (not just their own wellbeing) can object to the idea of a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, or object to more intensive and thorough background checks. I'd also like to see registration required.

B. Our lovely governor here in Arizona, who's done much to see that Arizona has the weakest gun laws in the nation, stated that she doesn't see how what happened in Conn. might warrant changing gun laws.

So if A is true and B is true, b ≠ a

[Blues]

A. I find it difficult to understand how any intelligent person who has concern for the public's wellbeing (not just their own wellbeing) can object to the idea of a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, or object to more intensive and thorough background checks. I'd also like to see registration required.

B. Our lovely governor here in Arizona, who's done much to see that Arizona has the weakest gun laws in the nation, stated that she doesn't see how what happened in Conn. might warrant changing gun laws.

So if A is true and B is true, b ≠ a

As in most cases, I identify with your reasoning Marlow. (smile)... I wasn't among those who voted Ms. Brewer back into office despite her gubernatorial debate performance (link below) that evidently impressed many other Arizona citizens.. :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM4-M1-TNyo

[Daisy]

And Daisy, who is stopping the conversations?

Gutless politicians who pander to the NRA, based on the fear of not being re-elected, since their constituents believe the NRA's red herrings (one being that gun control is synonymous with no guns).

[jazzcyclist]

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.

Come on man. Gun control is as much about the interpretation of the Second Amendment as much as censorship is about the interpretation of the First Amendment. The Second Amendment is what gun control jihadists keep knocking their heads against. Also, the reason Democrats have been loathe to touch this third rail has a lot more to do with declining support for gun control than fear of the NRA. Politicians are all about getting votes and it's the main reason Bill Clinton advised Democrats to throw in the towel on gun control. If support for gun control had trended upwards over the last couple of decades instead of downwards, Democrats would be as eager to take on the NRA on gun control as they are to take on the religious right on abortion and gay rights.

[Daisy]

Jazz, how does banning semi-automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets and flesh-shredding bullets impinge on the second amendment?

[jazzcyclist]

I find it difficult to understand how any intelligent person who has concern for the public's wellbeing (not just their own wellbeing) can object to the idea of a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, or object to more intensive and thorough background checks. I'd also like to see registration required.

"High capacity magazines" are easy enough to define, but how do you define "assault weapons"? Pego had no answer to this question when he answered one of my earlier posts. Semi-automatic weapons are easy to define, so I guess you can ban all semi-automatic weapons, but how do you ban "assault weapons" without banning all semi-automatic weapons?

[Daisy]

but how do you ban "assault weapons" without banning all semi-automatic weapons?

I don't see the distinction here. Anything that can fire rapid rounds should be on the list.

[Conor Dary]

As with most polling when the question is vague, as in gun control, it may appear that the public is not too hot on the topic. But ask specific questions and it gets a little better.

There is greater support for some specific changes. In August, a CNN/ORC International poll asked about semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips. Nearly 6 in 10 of those surveyed would outlaw the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault guns, such as AK-47s; a similar number would ban the sale and possession of high-capacity or extended ammunition clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 rounds before they need to be reloaded.

The results of that poll, taken in the weeks after the 12 gunshot fatalities at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and six deaths at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis., were essentially unchanged from the findings of a poll taken in January 2011, after the shooting in Tucson, which resulted in 6 deaths and the serious injury to Ms. Giffords.

The CNN poll conducted in August also found that more than 9 in 10 of respondents favor background checks and preventing convicted felons and people with mental health problems from owning guns.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012 ... trol-laws/

[jazzcyclist]

Jazz, how does banning semi-automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets and flesh-shredding bullets impinge on the second amendment?

By "armor piercing bullets", I assume you mean full-metal jacket bullets, but what do you mean by "flesh-shredding bullets"? I've never head of this term. As for the idea of banning all semi-automatic weapons, I guess gun control advocates can try, but the likelihood of them succeeding is about as slim as the likelihood of them bringing back Prohibition. There are simply too many avid hunters who use semi-automatic rifles as their weapons of choice. Yesterday, one of my co-workers, who is an avid hunter and fisherman, showed me a picture of a custom-made, semi-automatic rifle that got over the weekend that he paid $1400 for and had to wait for over a year for it to be built. Also, a bullet ban won't stop people from obtaining ammunition, since many folks load their own ammunition anyway, so all it would so is make more folks go this route.

[Marlow]

The Second Amendment is what gun control jihadists keep knocking their heads against.

Regardless of how the NRA has tried to misrepresent the 2nd Amendment, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of 18th century syntax can attest (and linguistic experts have) that the phrase:

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

simply means: anyone in the militia (which today we call the National Guard and Reserves) has the right to own a firearm. Conservative linguists would even argue that since we no longer have a 'militia' per se, the amendment has been rendered obsolete and the 'militia's' right to bear arms simply does not exist any more.

It went without saying (at the time) that people also needed them for hunting, so that's never been an issue. Who else (besides hunters and people in the (now) National Guard) has a RIGHT to a gun? No one. We may, however, license citizens to have the 'privilege' to own some kinds of guns.

[Marlow]

a bullet ban won't stop people from obtaining ammunition, since many folks load their own ammunition anyway, so all it would so is make more folks go this route.

Which is fine with me. Most of the mass-murders are not going to that much trouble. Anything we can do to stem the tide of mass-murder MUST be done.

With more gun control, murder sprees will NOT stop, but the body count will go WAY down. That's all we can (must) hope for.

[Daisy]

but what do you mean by "flesh-shredding bullets"?

I have no idea what the real term is. The point is that some bullets are designed to damage people more than others. Why are hi-tech bullets available, what do gun enthusiasts need them for?

Why do avid hunters need semi-automatic rifles?

a bullet ban won't stop people from obtaining ammunition, since many folks load their own ammunition anyway, so all it would so is make more folks go this route.

Which is fine with me. Most of the mass-murders are not going to that much trouble.

Right, no one is going to ban bullets. Limiting the types that are available is not the same as banning bullets, another red herring.

[Cooter Brown]

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

I had someone argue yesterday that "regulated" meant "trained" in the 1700's so there should be no regulation at all. I replied that in the 1700's, "arms" meant an inaccurate, slow to load single shot musket, a knife, and a stick."

[Pego]

Gun control is as much about the interpretation of the Second Amendment as much as censorship is about the interpretation of the First Amendment.

Yes. Let's have a reasonable debate where the limits of the Second Amendment may be just as there has been an endless debate of what a free speech limit may be. Is owning semi-automatic weapons by a private person an equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater?

[jazzcyclist]

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

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.

I'm not talking about "many folks", talk show hosts and internet posters, I'm talking about a sitting congresswoman and the mayor of this nation's biggest city, both who have the ear of the President. Bloomberg is the wrong person to be walking point on this issue if the gun control folks are trying to win people over. It would be much better to let someone like conservative, pro-gun Republican Joe Scarborough be the poster child for the movement since his recent epiphany.

[jeremyp]

"These incidents" almost never happen in other countries where gun access and ownership is rigorously controlled. Meanwhile, there have been about two or three other incidents in the US *since* the school shooting. To suggest the problem will "never" go away and shrug is very insincere.

Insincere? Oh come on! I have known this country for 7 decades and I have seen it's violence go on unabated, and I sincerely believe not much will change simply because this country will never get serious, as others have, of rigid gun control.

[JRM]

a bullet ban won't stop people from obtaining ammunition, since many folks load their own ammunition anyway, so all it would so is make more folks go this route.

Which is fine with me. Most of the mass-murders are not going to that much trouble. Anything we can do to stem the tide of mass-murder MUST be done.

With more gun control, murder sprees will NOT stop, but the body count will go WAY down. That's all we can (must) hope for.

Exactly. It isn't about the *act* of limiting bullets, but rather the result. How many of the recent mass shooters would have gone through the trouble of making 1000 bullets, if they couldn't pull 10 boxes off the shelf at Walmart? If you remove easy access, you likely remove 99% of the incidents.

[preston]

I'm not talking about "many folks", talk show hosts and internet posters, I'm talking about a sitting congresswoman and the mayor of this nation's biggest city, both who have the ear of the President. Bloomberg is the wrong person to be walking point on this issue if the gun control folks are trying to win people over. It would be much better to let someone like conservative, pro-gun Republican Joe Scarborough be the poster child for the movement since his recent epiphany.

Its happening on the other side as well, though. Gun advocates would be smart to make Louis Gohmert seal his mouth shut for the next few weeks.

[Marlow]

Why do avid hunters need semi-automatic rifles?

I was flipping through the channels and came across what appeared to be a wonderful little documentary about deer. It had gorgeous scenery in it and talked about how beautiful the deer were as they serenely grazed. I was enchanted until a shot rang out and blew a hole in the side of the buck. The hunter then gleefully ran up and posed with its head for his buddies to admire.

[rant]I get that hunting is necessary (I eat burgers - same thing), but I am at a complete loss how hunting is 'sport' and how someone can derive so much pleasure from killing a defenseless animal. [I killed and ate a raccoon in Navy Survival Training; it was not a happy occasion for either of us] That's why I always cheer for the bull in the ring. I can almost see the sport in that (except it is not exactly a level playing field). [/rant]

[Blues]

Jazz, how does banning semi-automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets and flesh-shredding bullets impinge on the second amendment?

By "armor piercing bullets", I assume you mean full-metal jacket bullets, but what do you mean by "flesh-shredding bullets"? I've never head of this term. As for the idea of banning all semi-automatic weapons, I guess gun control advocates can try, but the likelihood of them succeeding is about as slim as the likelihood of them bringing back Prohibition. There are simply too many avid hunters who use semi-automatic rifles as their weapons of choice. Yesterday, one of my co-workers, who is an avid hunter and fisherman, showed me a picture of a custom-made, semi-automatic rifle that got over the weekend that he paid $1400 for and had to wait for over a year for it to be built. Also, a bullet ban won't stop people from obtaining ammunition, since many folks load their own ammunition anyway, so all it would so is make more folks go this route.

C'mon Jazz... You and the rest of us know that Daisy's "flesh shredding bullets" referred to hollow points, whether Daisy knew the term or not... And although various bans may not eliminate the banned items completely, they'll make it a lot more difficult to obtain them, thus cutting down availability to those who might commit this type of crime.

Also, regarding the argument that a deranged individual will find alternative ways to kill en masse if he or she doesn't have access to high powered firearms, I don't think that's necessarily a valid argument. In many instances, having the easily available weapons in one's hands can drastically increase the "courage" or "mental testosterone" of an individual, to a point that the individual may attempt to commit an atrocity that he or she normally wouldn't have the balls to commit, or wouldn't commit if significantly more time and effort was required for thinking and planning.

[Marlow]

having the easily available weapons in one's hands can drastically increase the "courage" or "mental testosterone" of an individual, to a point that the individual may attempt to commit an atrocity that he or she normally wouldn't have the balls to commit, or wouldn't commit if significantly more time and effort was required for thinking and planning.

That has been my point too.

[preston]

...How many of the recent mass shooters would have gone through the trouble of making 1000 bullets, if they couldn't pull 10 boxes off the shelf at Walmart? If you remove easy access, you likely remove 99% of the incidents.

This is not correct. When you're talking about Javon Belcher, the answer is yes; however, in the case of mass killings where the person has little or no connection to the strangers they aim to kill we KNOW that this is something that they PLAN. It's not a crime of passion or greed; this is an act of evil. It's about as premeditated as something can be and people like these will not be stopped or deterred; they'll just research another way to inflict their mayhem.

[jazzcyclist]

but what do you mean by "flesh-shredding bullets"?

I have no idea what the real term is. The point is that some bullets are designed to damage people more than others. Why are hi-tech bullets available, what do gun enthusiasts need them for?

You're using a bunch of vague terms. Please be more precise and I'll try to answer you questions as best I can.

Why do avid hunters need semi-automatic rifles?

No one needs to hunt in 2012 America, so the entire activity is unnecessary, not to mention the instruments folks choose to pursue this hobby. Some folks hunt with bows & arrows, some with high-powered handguns, some with shotguns, some with muzzle-loaders (muskets), some with bolt-action rifles and some with lever-action rifles. What hunters choose to hunt and what they choose to kill their prey with is a matter of personal preference.

[Daisy]

but what do you mean by "flesh-shredding bullets"?

I have no idea what the real term is. The point is that some bullets are designed to damage people more than others. Why are hi-tech bullets available, what do gun enthusiasts need them for?

You're using a bunch of vague terms. Please be more precise and I'll try to answer you questions as best I can.

OK, blues just gave me the term. Hollow point bullets. So, why do gun enthusiasts need them?

[JRM]

...however, in the case of mass killings where the person has little or no connection to the strangers they aim to kill we KNOW that this is something that they PLAN. It's not a crime of passion or greed; this is an act of evil. It's about as premeditated as something can be and people like these will not be stopped or deterred; they'll just research another way to inflict their mayhem.

Nonsense. I'm tired of the ridiculous argument that "they'll find another way to do it!". Remove easy access, and you remove motivation. I reject the notion that all these shooters are the Unibomber, with unlimited time to sit in a cabin, writing manifestos, and building one bullet at a time while plotting their actions.

The CT shooter snapped at home on Friday morning, grabbed a gun, killed his mom, and for whatever reason went to the school on the spur of the moment. I very much doubt he sat at home saying "One day, I'm going to take out those kids..."

[kuha]

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

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.

I'm not talking about "many folks", talk show hosts and internet posters, I'm talking about a sitting congresswoman and the mayor of this nation's biggest city, both who have the ear of the President. Bloomberg is the wrong person to be walking point on this issue if the gun control folks are trying to win people over. It would be much better to let someone like conservative, pro-gun Republican Joe Scarborough be the poster child for the movement since his recent epiphany.

First, I did a quick google search on Michael Bloomberg and gun control and came up with lots of pieces with words like "stronger" and "tougher" controls. I couldn't find any comment by him advocating anything like a complete ban. Second, when Manchin and Scarborough are saying sane things on this subject, you have a clear sense that the tide (at least for now) has turned.

But really, to leap from the idea of "stronger/tougher" gun laws to the Chicken-Little position that the Feds are confiscating all guns is just a non-starter. It doesn't advance the conversation in any constructive way.

[jazzcyclist]

C'mon Jazz... You and the rest of us know that Daisy's "flesh shredding bullets" referred to hollow points, whether Daisy knew the term or not....

No, I did not know what he meant. There are all sorts of bullets, so why would I assume he meant hollow points? I'm trying to have an honest debate, I'm not playing games.

[jeremyp]

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.

In 25 years as a mental health professional I can recall only 2-3 murders by our patients in a semi large metropolitan area. There is no assessment that can show how prone to violence an individual is. Most mass killings done by mentally ill individuals involve paranoids, and paranoids are notorious for keeping their cards close to their chest. Lanza was a social "weirdo," as was Loughner, are we going to deny guns to the nerds? Depression is a mental illness and many shooters are depressed and suicidal but are we going to deny guns to those assessed as depressed? That would be millions. Sociopaths are killers but quite capable of fooling the best assessor. What is needed however is for the health industry to add mental health to it's treatment options and not keep it available for only the wealthy and those on medicaid.

[Blues]

having the easily available weapons in one's hands can drastically increase the "courage" or "mental testosterone" of an individual, to a point that the individual may attempt to commit an atrocity that he or she normally wouldn't have the balls to commit, or wouldn't commit if significantly more time and effort was required for thinking and planning.

That has been my point too.

I'm sorry if my post restated what you'd already posted Marlow... I didn't have time to thoroughly read all 10 pages of the thread, so I apologize if I duplicated arguments that you've already posted. It's a very valid point though in response to those who argue that having no guns wouldn't have made a difference in all these mass killings, so reiterating it might not have been a bad idea.

[preston]

...however, in the case of mass killings where the person has little or no connection to the strangers they aim to kill we KNOW that this is something that they PLAN. It's not a crime of passion or greed; this is an act of evil. It's about as premeditated as something can be and people like these will not be stopped or deterred; they'll just research another way to inflict their mayhem.

Nonsense. I'm tired of the ridiculous argument that "they'll find another way to do it!". Remove easy access, and you remove motivation. I reject the notion that all these shooters are the Unibomber, with unlimited time to sit in a cabin, writing manifestos, and building one bullet at a time while plotting their actions.

The CT shooter snapped at home on Friday morning, grabbed a gun, killed his mom, and for whatever reason went to the school on the spur of the moment. I very much doubt he sat at home saying "One day, I'm going to take out those kids..."

What's ridiculous is your hyper-emotional response to a factual argument. Which gun did the Unabomber use? How about Timothy McVeigh? YOU. ARE. WRONG. Gun control will certainly stop a hell of alot of killing (Jealous lover, Burglary gone bad, etc) but it WILL NOT stop people hell bent on creating a delusional "legend" status for themselves. The only thing it MIGHT stop is the requisite suicide that seems to accompany these killings (CO theater, VaTEch, Newtown).

[Conor Dary]

A relevant column in today's NYTimes:

In Gun Debate, a Misguided Focus on Mental Illness

Alcohol and drug abuse are far more likely to result in violent behavior than mental illness by itself. In the National Institute of Mental Health’s E.C.A. study, for example, people with no mental disorder who abused alcohol or drugs were nearly seven times as likely as those without substance abuse to commit violent acts.

All the focus on the small number of people with mental illness who are violent serves to make us feel safer by displacing and limiting the threat of violence to a small, well-defined group. But the sad and frightening truth is that the vast majority of homicides are carried out by outwardly normal people in the grip of all too ordinary human aggression to whom we provide nearly unfettered access to deadly force.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/healt ... .html?_r=0