Politics Gun violence in CT

Same old excuse.

No law fixes any problem entirely.

Murder laws dont stop all murders. DUI laws dont stop all drunk drivers.

The intent is to lessen or minimize risks to public safety.

 

There is a need for distinction, both for the purposes of legislation and for discussion. I am pro-gun. But I also recognize the need to address gun violence and discuss it in a calm and rational manner. When people start using terms like clip and magazine interchangeably, I am inclined to ignore anything else they have to say. Why should I assume that their argument for regulations and outright bans is based on anything other than vague emotions and willful ignorance when they cannot be bothered to take the time to learn to distinguish between two objects that are vastly different in both form and function?

Why should I, as a gun owner and gun-rights advocate, be willing to compromise with someone who cannot tell their asshole from a hole in the ground but still wants to clutch their pearls and ban arbitrary shit because “Aurora, Sandy Hook, common sense”? You want to ban clips? Cool story, bro. Tell me how that will prevent gun violence because it sounds like you’ve put a lot of thought in to it.

Also, using these kind of bullshit graphs needs to stop.

This isn’t directed solely at you, Redux so please don't take it personally. Both sides of the debate –inside and outside of this thread – are guilty of this kind of misleading hyperbole. The graph says that the police seized fewer of guns with high capacity magazines while they were banned, more after the ban was lifted. But the graph is intentionally misleading. The graph doesn’t say anything about assault weapons as you inferred. The graph doesn't say that fewer guns were seized for having been used in crimes during the ban. It doesn’t say that fewer bullets were fired or less people were injured in any given crime during the ban. High capacity magazines were more frequently found because that’s what came with the firearms that were sold after the ban. That’s all there is to it.
By cherry-picking a single statistic, the graph tries to lead the viewer to correlate that fewer high capacity magazines being seized must mean that there was less gun crime during the ban, more after it expired. That’s like implying that airbags must cause accidents because accident investigators found more airbags had been deployed during accidents in 2010 than in 1989 when there were few cars sporting that kind of safety technology.

The 10 round limit is arbitrary nonsense. But I ran long on that last bit and have to head out but I will respond to the rest of your post when I get a chance. For the record, I agree with a strengthening the process of background checks and will concede the need to do away with allowing private sales. I don’t think bans of any kind are the answer. Registering/transferring ammunition like a firearm is both ineffective and damn near impossible. I am extremely leery of a national firearms registry, though I can appreciate the argument being made for it. I am all for requiring CCW holders to undergo more extensive training and testing in both shooting and legalities, but who will be put in charge of the signing off on the certification makes me nervous. Im out.

 

As to the definition of high capacity ammunition feeding devices, there is a standard definition in existing state laws and the previous federal laws. I dont think of us know who was consulted in the development of that definition for legislative purposes.

As to the arbitrary limit, I would suggest many laws set arbitrary limits - speed limits, blood alcohol levels (arbitrary at 2 levels - lower for a CDL drivers).

In any case, it would seem to me that it is just common sense that a shooter with a 100 round drum or a 32 round clip has the capacity to kill more people, more quickly, than someone with a weapon w/o such detachable devices.

But you are the first gun rights person here that I have encountered that is open to considering other issues...background checks, CCW training,.....and for that I am a bit more optimistic that there are many other gun rights folks, those in positions to influence policy, that will come to the table with that same willingness to look for common ground solutions that might make a difference, however small.

 

Drudge played the Hitler/Stalin card:



Alex Jones played the race card:



Confiscation! and Ban! are the words of the day on Limbaugh, Hannity, etc

Biden probably should have kept his mouth shut (whats new) until specific proposals are made public, but we're seeing fear mongering at its worst.

And all the administration is likely to do by executive order is share more federal data on criminals and persons with mental illness...or something similar to what GHW Bush did by executive order and prohibit the import of certain weapons...or expand dealer reporting requirements on multiple purchases over a five day period....all of which are administrative actions within the existing laws.

 

well, the neo-fascist set, the militia sector, such as it is, that seems to have been integrated into the conservative coalition by means of the nra's jerk to the far right over the course of the second bush term (i imagine it could be pinpointed...i just haven't done the research) seems to be following an outmoded script. and the conservative talking heads that are hoping to hold on to some imaginary cultural legitimacy by playing to them are following as well.

i think that newtown has finally triggered a deep enough reaction that the old debates prepared for the greatest possible profits of gun manufacturers by their commercial arm, the nra, have been pushed aside. the nra itself, in its present far-right form, is in significant political danger as well----i would like to think even amongst its own membership, which is obviously not monolithic and not entirely a-ok with the nra's extremist position that the 2nd amendment, construed arbitrarily by conservatives, over-rides any and all considerations about the outcomes, direct or indirect, of the present volume of guns in circulation. i haven't had time to track what's happening in nra world, whether there is an emergent split within the membership that is in a position to pose trouble for the present leadership. personally, i'd like to see the formation of a more moderate organization that represent gun owners---only at that point would the implications of the nra's political choices become clear because there'd be an alternative organization.

i've been seeing a lot of willingness on the part of regular folk who happen to own guns to work with others in fashioning some kind of approach to tighter regulation and/or better enforcement of guns. the more paranoid arguments that conflate any regulation with the imaginary ambitions of the black helicopter set are not on the table, seemingly. but i suspect that every social network, be it virtual or geographical, presents a different image. so your results may vary. but what i've been struck by is dialogues actually happening across positions that, not long ago, were more often yelling at each other. while it's possible that this follows from people who were previously silent for whatever reason beginning to weigh in and those who were previously more extreme and vocal being silent for tactical reasons (or some other, like a change of views) still, i think the change is interesting.

i say all this because, despite the unsettling nature of the dissociative clip from that fine gentleman from tennessee, i'd like to see people on the militia right take him seriously and make some kind of move. in this context it would be the worst imaginable idea for these people because that would entirely and irretrievably isolate them.

 

you have to admit it's a pretty ridiculous thing to change the law by executive order on such a decisive issue. it really is a dictator move. it would be like gwb banning abortion by executive order. to not let issues like these go through congress is a real slap in the face to democracy.

i don't know the odds of it actually happening, but for the vp to even suggest it should be shocking to us. i've said many times this is the type of thing that comes back to haunt the otherside when their party isn't in control. it's a breach of power that needs to be stopped.
--- merged: Jan 10, 2013 at 6:47 PM ---

i'm not sure the nra members are turning against the organization in anyway. at least i haven't seen evidience of it?

actually i heard today that in the last 18 days they have had 100,000 new members.

 

Executive orders have been used to clarify an existing law or further the administration of a law for nearly 100 years.

Using it to improve data collection for the NICS system (under the 2007 NICS law) or to prohibit imports of particular weapons (under the 1968 gun law) is hardly a power grab.

 

how would one go about figuring this out?

samcol if you move about in that world, do you feel like doing some looking around? i expect it'd be on forums and such. but i don't know how they work---for example if the forums etc that are out there tend to be dominated by the more vocal/fundamentalist types so that they're basically another example of narrowcasting, etc. or maybe if you can point to some space(s) that you know that have a relative diversity of viewpoints?

Walt? do you have a sense of how this is playing out internally for the nra?

just curious...

 

Polling would suggest that the NRA is not in tune with its members on some of the least controversial issues.

Most NRA members support universal background checks.

Most NRA members support gun safety training for CCW permits and oppose reciprocity (allowing to carry in states other than where permit was issued).

These are common sense solutions on which the NRA is on the wrong side.

 

When I got my driver's license, I had to go down to the DMV to take a written and behind the wheel test.
When I bought a motorcycle, I had to do it again.
My vehicles are registered, insured, and meet all federal requirements.
There are all sorts of traffic laws that govern my driving.

I'd consider driving to be "well regulated", it seems wrong that we can't regulate weapons as well as we do driving.

 

Another common sense piece of a broad comprehensive program -- restore federal funding for research on gun violence and gun safety.

The roadblock once again....the NRA's minions in Congress have blocked virtually all funding for research on gun violence. "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (or NIH or other agencies) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

Stymied by the double whammy of gun rights and anti-science.

 

The last major study conducted at the CDC in the early 90s found that a firearm in the home was far more likely to result in killing a family member/friend or committing suicide than protecting the family from an armed intruder.

That did not go over well with the NRA and no further federaly-funded studies would be tolerated!

 

just more evidence you can ban something, but not stop people from obtaining them. we live in an age where you can literally print 3d cad drawings into plastic objects. 30 round ar mags anyone?


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q10Jz2qIog8

 

Developing public policy to keep up with emerging technologies is always a challenge.

But hardly a reason not to require universal background checks on all firearm sales, consolidate state/federal data on those with mental illness, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, require dealers to report sales of multiple weapons over a 5 day period, impose stricter standards for CCW permits....