bg-

My understanding is that his parents received a letter from his college stating that he could not return until he had a mental health evaluation. They did not do that. All of these "other people" that you feel also dropped the ball did not have the legal authority to push for mental health treatment. I don't know the laws in Arizona, but involuntary committal authority, if available, isn't given to a person's teacher. However, if available, it would be given to his parents who were also the owners of the house he lived and slept in. Again, I place their negligence equal to the Columbine killers' parents.

...and it seems all too easy for many here to "pin blame" on a firearm or its magazine.

the objective should be to reduce gun violence.
none of the absolutist arguments regard "natural law" or fantasies about "what the framers thought" mean anything in the face of that.
that's why the gun lobby cannot afford to allow a debate on rational grounds about the topic---if they loose the framing they loose completely. because they can't defend levels of gun violence.

arguments for reducing gun violence are not about "magically wiping guns off the face of the earth" or any other loopy canard brought to you in the interest of obscuring the issue and hamstringing debate courtesy of the nra and their subsidiaries organizations working in the cesspool of militia-based neo-fascism.

the argument for reducing gun violence is that the levels tolerated in the united states are not acceptable. even a rudimentary comparison between american numbers and that of almost any other country show a clear correlation between making guns less easily available and reductions in gun-related violence.

guns don't make you free. you aren't free now but many of you have guns. look around. you live in a financial oligarchy and you have a gun. you live under a single party state with two right wings and you have a gun. you live in a fading empire, you can do nothing about anything to do with either the empire or the ways in which it is fading and you have a gun. wake up.

my point was that magazine capacity is irrelevant. and, type of gun is also irrelevant. he could have done the same thing with a .22 pistol. so, banning automatic weapons and high capacity magazines would have had no effect at all on the outcome of the arizona shooting.

Wait a minute, rb, I simply restated Will's remark, "If I could go back in time and un-invent guns, I would." Don't put that on me as some "loopy canard." That's on your side, brother.

My point is that simply blaming his parents tends to absolve virtually everyone else in a situation that could have very well been influenced by someone other than his parents. I don't know much about his home situation. For all I know he could have been completely estranged from them. (And, for the record, I don't blame the firearm, nor its magazine.)

I also don't know the laws and whether his parents had legal recourse. Was he not an adult at the time? I also don't know anything about the level of understanding his parents had about mental health issues and the options that were available to them.

It's also evident that Loughner himself, as an adult, didn't seek help on his own.

Anyway, Loughner wasn't exactly a criminal until he started pulling the trigger. In how many situations is this the case? It's not that criminals get guns; it's that they already have them.

What about economies of scale? Are guns really cheap in the U.S.?

I suppose my general position on this is that there isn't a huge impact on what gun control means in terms of criminal elements. There are gun laws here in Canada that I'm sure make many Americans squirm. However, the criminal elements here have guns they shouldn't have. They probably get many of them from the States.

I view this issue as addressing symptoms, rather than problems.

The problem with crime isn't all the guns. That's an outcome. The biggest problems leading to crime are poverty, social disadvantage, educational deficiency, and mental health issues (including addiction). As you can guess, many of these are interconnected.

Rather than institute a federal-level gun-control policy in the U.S., they should establish or improve national standards regarding public health care, social assistance, quality education, and accessible mental health services. For those that are in place already, they clearly need to be revised or reformed.

Considering it's the wealthiest nation in the world, the U.S. has serious deficiencies regarding these issues.

To fight poverty alone is to fight crime.

---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 AM ----------

This is opening another can of worms, but, yeah.

no, we can't agree. unless you think it likely that the government would drop a MOAB on a neighborhood uprising, but if that were the case, shouldn't we then be allowed bombers and MOABs?

Do you really want to make a case that the outcome would have been exactly the same if he obtained an Uzi?

We've always had weapons control and always will. Bill Gates can't buy his own ICBM, Warren Buffett can't buy Stinger missiles, and most of use can't own an automatic weapon. You can argue forever where the appropriate line is; but it seems to be an issue that the gun lobby totally rejects.

Where is the appropriate delineation between military only weapons and those reasonable for a well regulated militia?

... edited because I don't want to continue this debate. Sorry.

Who's living in a fantasy world, huh?

US Murders Per Capita:0.042802 per 1,000 people
England Murders Per Capita: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
New Zealand Murders Per Capita: 0.0111524 per 1,000 people
Switzerland Murders Per Capita: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people


Murders (per capita) statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

Notice that guns are *very* liberally owned in Switzerland.

Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relatively liberal in New Zealand

Gun politics in New Zealand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strictly regulated in England

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


It's blithely ignorant to state that "Guns cause violence." Which may or may not be empirically borne out absent a controlled study. I challenge you to point out such a study to me before making another conclusion along the lines of "Anyone can attribute our high crime rate in the US to gun ownership."

Consider things like cultural clashes, more immigrants, a capitalist system, a lack of social safety net, economy and other factors before jumping to guns, because making such a claim is just damn ignorant.

sure it's defensible. This is the price of freedom. The framers knew this and preferred it to the tyranny they'd been experiencing.


i have a gun, nobody gets to tell me what i can and can't do. I'd say that's freedom.

kirstang--i don't recall making the primitive causal argument that you impute to me, nor is that argument necessary for the comparative numbers to be problematic for your position.

if you want to play the data game, i can do that.

btw i am not in the least interested in sophomoric debate tactics ("i know you said nothing like this but it's easier for me to make my little point if i just act as though you did...and maybe if i use some adjective like "blithe" it'll be less apparent a cheap bait and switch because it implies attitude.") don't bother.

..

I'd say that's anarchy.

not at all. most people at least have morals, ethics, and know right from wrong. Anarchy would be when those that don't care about right and wrong are the only ones with guns.

Anarchy doesn't imply a lack of morals and ethics; it's a lack of government or state authority.

who's the sovereign power of the USA, the people or the government?

I don't care for guns. I find that, in these pre-revolution times, they're much more trouble than they're worth. They make it too easy to kill, to easy to fundamentally change the balance of power between individuals. They are a tyranny of sorts. If you have a gun and I do not, you can have a great deal of power over me. Perhaps I've got a little libertarian in me because I don't like it when people can get power over me that they didn't earn. While I trust you personally with that power because I think I know you, I don't know everyone with a gun enough to trust them.

To answer your question more directly, I'm not well-regulated with a gun because a gun isn't the difference between liberty and tyranny. There are two things that one needs to be that line of defense: the ability to discern when the last line has been crossed and the willingness to fight. I suspect I have these, but we won't know until when and if that line is crossed. I look to places like Tunisia and Egypt to see what that line is and who has that willingness.

Let's not stray too far from your statement. You said nobody can tell you what you can and can't do, which is false. It would be more accurate to say: "Outside of the law, nobody gets to tell me what I can and can't do. However, if I choose to defy the law, I must be face the consequences."

So I suppose you are free in that you can choose whether or not to obey the law. However, you aren't so free of the consequences.

Whether or not this requires a gun is another matter.

while I applaud you for your pacifism, it's not your (or anyone elses) prerogative to demand that I remain defenseless as well.

this would be an opinion, not a fact.

---------- Post added at 12:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 PM ----------

Even within the so called law, I still have the choice to submit or remain free. Especially if the law is so blatantly violative of the constitution or my rights.

Yes, I more or less suggested this. What you will never be free of, however, are the consequences.

Anyway, I don't suppose I'd expect you submit to such laws as prima nocta or anything. I just wanted to point out to you that your statement was conditional.

You're not defenseless, dk. You clearly have the will to fight should the need arise. I'm not sure we'd have the exact same definition of when the line has been crossed, but I'm certain that, should that line be crossed, you'd rise up. That's why you're not defenseless. It's the will that makes the difference, not the tool.

And anyone can make a bomb from practically anything. We don't need a Constitutional right to bear gasoline and Styrofoam or fertilizer.
I stand by my opinion, though, and I think I can make a strong case for it even to someone who has a much different opinion of guns.

[quote]there's no case that needs made. both guns fire a projectile.
your correct except for automatic weapons. I'm obviously not advocating that we should be able to own surfact to air missles, or RPG's.
I'm not part of the gun lobby. I don't support the unrestricted owning of firearms. I believe in order to obtain a firearm you should have to go through an approved traning and profficiency class.
I guess I would draw the line at explosive ordinance.

what other fundamental rights should we have training and licensing for?

Procreation.

hmmm, considering my stepkids, I might agree with you. damn you Tully, damn you.

it's about a reasonable expectation of proficiency with the weapon. I agree that owning a firearm is a fundamental right, but it's not unlimited, nor should it be. A firearm, in the hands of an untrained or unstable person, is extremely dangerous. So is operating a motor vehicle. we require that people who wish to drive pass some basic safety and proficiency tests. it's not unreasonable to expect the same for owning firearms. Like it or not, there are some people who should not be allowed to own a firearm.

1) if we allow the government to force us to prove proficiency in something considered a right, the bar can be raised to unattainable levels to deprive the right.

2) comparing operating a motor vehicle to owning a firearm would indicate that you consider driving a right as well, do you?

3) there is no way to effectively prohibit someone from attaining a gun unless you incarcerate that person either in jail or a mental facility. how do you do that and still respect that persons civil rights?

[quote]there needs to be a line somewhere. I draw it at demonstrated safety and proficiency.
driving is not a right, it's a privelage. I merely used it as an example of responsibility.
obviously you can't prohibit something 100%. but there is no reason it can't be made illegal without demonstrating proficiency.

I have a CCW. I had to demonstrate proficiency to obtain it. this is not an unreasonable standard to apply to obtaining a firearm. there is no downside.

tough for car driving to be a right when cars didn't exist when the Constitution was written

Gun's don't kill people, people kill people. Take away the guns, and they will find another way to wage war with each other. Guns should be easier to obtain, not harder. The criminals will get one whenever they want, when you make it harder the only people you make it harder for is the law abiding citizens trying to protect themselves and families from these guys who can and will get guns no matter what the laws are.

Making it easier for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns would also make it easier for criminals to obtain guns. But I see your point.

I guess I'm wondering if "more guns" is the answer.

I don't know where you live, but around here a "criminal" can get a gun for 50$ on pretty much any street corner. When you go to a shop to buy a gun, there is all kinds of red tape, this is where the rules apply. The criminals aren't following any rules to begin with... so how does adding more make it harder for them? And how does making it easier for law abiding citizens make it easier for criminals? That makes no sense, these 2 groups of people do not obtain guns in the same way. Criminals can and will get guns even if they were completely outlawed, in the same way they do now, illegally. More or less restriction, they will continue to get their guns, and with more restriction less of the law abiding citizens will be in a position to protect them and theirs. So no, I have to disagree here, it's already as easy as it can be for criminals, you can't make it any easier.

Another "more guns is the answer" argument. I simply can't agree

But where are the illegal guns coming from?

---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 AM ----------

As an aside, I always felt this phrase, and others like it, to be quite awkward. Maybe it's the editor in me.

I think it's far more cogent to state: Most people use guns to kill people.

Bullshit

Arizona has some of the most pro-gun legislation around. Law abiding citizens carrying guns didn't help.

Loughner could have caused a lot more carnage with an automatic weapon or a hand grenade. Restricting access to both does work.

The all or nothing argument defies logic. We've always had some form of weapons control. It isn't going away and has to be updated from time to time to keep up with technology.

Go figure, folks that choose not to own weapons think they have rights, too.

But that loses the original meaning: Guns are not themselves at fault; it is the people who use guns that are to blame.

(Damn. Is my grammar off?)

Hitler didn't kill people. The people who followed him killed people.

So stop demonizing Hitler.

/Godwin'd

I know...I know, I made a language joke to make a point. I understand the phrasing is meant to point out that "guns are just tools." But I guess my point is that "guns are very effective tools for killing people, which is why most people use them for that purpose."

I'm not sure where I'm going with it, but it's clear that guns are the #1 tool of choice to kill people. The success rate I think has something to do with it.


People like to use cars as an example of something other than guns that are regulated. I'm not sure I buy much of it, based on the problems posed in the Constitution. However, when we revoke licenses of drunk drivers, reckless drivers, or when we deem certain vehicles unsafe and bar them from the road, we do so not because we're blaming Cars; we do this because the driver has failed responsibility. This is why we license drivers instead of just banning all cars.

However, you're going to get drunk drivers who drive with suspended licenses. You're going to get people who will always drive recklessly. You're going to get people driving condemned cars. These, I suppose, would be "criminals."

This isn't a valid argument for getting rid of the licensing of drivers and checking the safety of their automobiles. "If you make it harder for good drivers to drive, then only bad drivers will drive." No...that seems silly. I support a reasonable system for licensing drivers, as I support a reasonable system for licensing gun owners.

But then we get back to the Constitution. The problem with the driving/gun comparison is, of course, that driving in public is a privilege and private gun ownership is a right. However, I recently read a summary description of the Second Amendment, which I will share with you:

The Second Amendment: Twenty-seven ill-chosen words, three badly placed commas, one unrivaled legislative botch-up.

As an editor/word geek, it gave me a laugh. It's kind of true. Think about it: if a legislative body, legal team, or other official body attempted to pass off something like the Second Amendment today, it would be ridiculed. I really have no idea how it got by even back at the time. It's so murky. I think what was written in it was done so with assumptions that were understood at the time that are essentially lost to us today.

It's not clear. If it were clear, there would be far less debate.

*facepalm*

Yes, it was intentional hyperbole

But the whole "guns don't kill people" meme is ridiculous. NOTHING kills people without someone using it kill people.

But the difference between a gun and say, a knife, is that the knife has multiple other uses. Guns have one purpose: harming/killing things

Yes, and sometimes that is necessary. Again, I bring your attention to:

YouTube Beating: Richmond, VA Beating Posted to YouTube - wtvr

misunderstanding the constitution again? or just being obtuse?

it's irrelevant that cars weren't invented then, it was the right to travel freely, by any means chosen be it horse or wagon.

so traveling should be completely unregulated as well?

it is a well established principle that the right to travel anywhere and anytime is fundamental. without going in to that particular discussion, it should be noted that supreme court precedent says that no state may charge a license, fee, or tax for a right protected by the constitution.

you didn't answer my question.

and the right to travel isn't in the Constitution, though it's been established by legal rulings

that travel should be unregulated? as far as persons go, yes. but the states can regulate speed, lanes, certain safety standards of vehicles, passing lanes, etc. But the right of a person to travel freely by the conveyance of his choosing is a fundamental right, with several court cases verifying this.

I didn't say it was a constitutional right, it's a basic fundamental right. So is the right to keep and bear arms, that one just happens to be listed.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

this means that the government only has the powers assigned to it via the constitutions. all else remains to the people.

So you're against Federal "no-fly" lists, for example?

correct

Ok, haven't had time to read every post, but just throwing my two cents in on a couple things that jumped out at me.

Straw man sales-

More regulation will do ZERO to stop this. It is ALREADY illegal. Once someone is found to be doing this, the answer is to lock them away for a very long time. More felon control is needed. Not gun control. Now, if you wanted to deal with the situation, Make the straw men responsible as an accessory for every crime that can be proven to be done with a gun supplied by them. This does zero to effect the rights of honest gun owners.


Extended and high capacity mags-

There IS a reason for them. If you get woken up at night in your house by multiple intruders, which many break ins involve, you want as many rounds as you can get as quick as you can get. Having to deal with the disorientation of going from asleep to a high stress situation is hard enough without having to worry about reloading. Banning these will do nothing to stop crazies like the ass hat that shot Giffords. If you take 5 minutes a day to practice a reload, you will find it takes very little time to swap out mags, as in a few seconds. I'm a second rate shooter at best and I can can do a decent quick reload. Any crazy fuck intent on killing people can and will work around mag capacity. And there is no faster reload then a second gun. Deciding on an arbitrary number of rounds with the argument "you don't need more then that" is bullshit. We don't need a car that goes faster then 75 miles an hour either, but go ahead and try to limit that.

Background checks-

There is a system involved, and while FFL dealers do have to file a good amount of paper work, it it based off of SSN numbers. They get your info, make a phone call, and get a yay or nay. If the sheriffs office out here had bothered to make sure that Loughner's drug arrests had been put on record, then he would have been turned down. However, loop holes in the system allowed him to get the SEVERAL run ins with the law "removed" from his record, and allowed him to LIE on his application and get away with it. Again, stricter FELON control would have prevented this situation. Not stricter gun control.

FFL dealers not doing background checks-

Revoke there FFL, fine the living shit out of them, and lock them up. No further gun control needed.

Now, there were a few things on the gun control side I don't have a problem with. Making sales at a gun show require a background check doesn't bug me. People are going there with the intent of making a few bucks, and making sure they don't sell them to someone who shouldn't have a gun is ok in my book. HOWEVER, that should NOT apply to private sales and transfers outside of a gun show. I have a lot of gun buddies. Suppose I want to sell a gun to one of them, or give it to a family member as a gift. That is my business, and any attempt to interfere with that is government overstepping it's bounds.

If ever a gun control law was introduced that was actually effective at keeping guns out of the hands of felons without stepping all over the rights of law abiding citizens, I would vote for it. However, almost every law out there does nothing but hinder honest men and women from being able to protect themselves.



Ok, I feel better now that that is out of my system. Carry on folks. :)

anyone have a stat on how many home invasions are thwarted each year by homeowners with firearms?

if so, what is that number as a % of total gun owners/firearms owned?

Derwood,

The most common statistic is that "over two million" crimes are prevented each year due to defensive firearms. I'm not providing any evidence to this, you can take the words for what they are worth.

that number comes from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995

there are lots of stats, info, and myth busting at gunfacts.info

dk-

I'll save them the trouble: "That's just a right-wing rag."