Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, December 26, 2012
Politics Some Logic Lessons for Gun Nuts
Posted by Chicago Fan on Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 7:07 AM
So, whenever I post about guns on Slog, someone uses the ad hominem fallacy to counter-"argue" by pointing out that I live in Chicago, which until recently had one of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and Chicago is in Illinois, where we're the last state in the nation that doesn't allow concealed carry (for a few more months—that law was recently struck down). Yet there are still shootings in Chicago!
And lots of them. Just Xmas day into this morning, 1 dead, 5 wounded. No shooters in custody.
So, the gun nuts say, SEE! Gun Control Doesn't Work. Look at all of these shootings in Chicago Fan's home town! Bad guys have guns that are illegal, and still use them, so I need my legal guns.
But here's the deal: these illegal guns were all at one point or another legally purchased. Then they were stolen, or sold by straw buyers to gang-bangers. The argument that we must have legal guns to prevent the threat posed to the law-abiding by illegal guns is bullshit. ALL GUNS START OUT AS LEGAL GUNS. It's not like Smith and Wesson or Glock have a special catalog for criminals.
If we eliminate legal guns—and it will take a generation of guns not being legally available, guns being confiscated after crimes and melted down, guns being bought back by government—then we won't have nearly as many illegal guns. And we will have less gun bloodshed, both routine (one night in Chicago, Ho Ho Ho!) and extreme (one school-day in Newtown).
And you folks who admire and respect cops (as I do, as the son, brother, nephew, cousin, and friend of many cops): dig this website, which lists all police personnel killed in 2012. 47 of them died by gunfire, out of 125 listed, and the list has only been updated through early December, so it missed the two killed this week.
2
There is no political will for an outright ban of guns and there won't be for a long time. The best bet right now is small steps: reinstating parts of the assault weapons ban, eliminating the gun show loophole and getting universal background checks.
Jeffrey Goldberg said it best: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch…
---
"A balanced approach to gun control in the United States would require the warring sides to agree on several contentious issues. Conservative gun-rights advocates should acknowledge that if more states had stringent universal background checks-or if a federal law put these in place-more guns would be kept out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally unstable. They should also acknowledge that requiring background checks on buyers at gun shows would not represent a threat to the Constitution. "The NRA position on this is a fiction," says Dan Gross, the head of the Brady Campaign. "Universal background checks are not an infringement on our Second Amendment rights. This is black-helicopter stuff." Gross believes that closing the gun-show loophole would be both extremely effective and a politically moderate and achievable goal. The gun lobby must also agree that concealed-carry permits should be granted only to people who pass rigorous criminal checks, as well as thorough training-and-safety courses.
Anti-gun advocates, meanwhile, should acknowledge that gun-control legislation is not the only answer to gun violence. Responsible gun ownership is also an answer. An enormous number of Americans believe this to be the case, and gun-control advocates do themselves no favors when they demonize gun owners, and advocates of armed self-defense, as backwoods barbarians. Liberals sometimes make the mistake of anthropomorphizing guns, ascribing to them moral characteristics they do not possess. Guns can be used to do evil, but guns can also be used to do good. Twelve years ago, in the aftermath of Matthew Shepard's murder, Jonathan Rauch launched a national movement when he wrote an article for Salon arguing that gay people should arm themselves against violent bigots. Pink Pistol clubs sprang up across America, in which gays and lesbians learn to use firearms in self-defense. Other vulnerable groups have also taken to the idea of concealed carry: in Texas, African American women represent the largest percentage increase of concealed-carry permit seekers since 2000."
More...
Jeffrey Goldberg said it best: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch…
---
"A balanced approach to gun control in the United States would require the warring sides to agree on several contentious issues. Conservative gun-rights advocates should acknowledge that if more states had stringent universal background checks-or if a federal law put these in place-more guns would be kept out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally unstable. They should also acknowledge that requiring background checks on buyers at gun shows would not represent a threat to the Constitution. "The NRA position on this is a fiction," says Dan Gross, the head of the Brady Campaign. "Universal background checks are not an infringement on our Second Amendment rights. This is black-helicopter stuff." Gross believes that closing the gun-show loophole would be both extremely effective and a politically moderate and achievable goal. The gun lobby must also agree that concealed-carry permits should be granted only to people who pass rigorous criminal checks, as well as thorough training-and-safety courses.
Anti-gun advocates, meanwhile, should acknowledge that gun-control legislation is not the only answer to gun violence. Responsible gun ownership is also an answer. An enormous number of Americans believe this to be the case, and gun-control advocates do themselves no favors when they demonize gun owners, and advocates of armed self-defense, as backwoods barbarians. Liberals sometimes make the mistake of anthropomorphizing guns, ascribing to them moral characteristics they do not possess. Guns can be used to do evil, but guns can also be used to do good. Twelve years ago, in the aftermath of Matthew Shepard's murder, Jonathan Rauch launched a national movement when he wrote an article for Salon arguing that gay people should arm themselves against violent bigots. Pink Pistol clubs sprang up across America, in which gays and lesbians learn to use firearms in self-defense. Other vulnerable groups have also taken to the idea of concealed carry: in Texas, African American women represent the largest percentage increase of concealed-carry permit seekers since 2000."
3
Requiring that all handguns be registered w/ the federal government, that all transfers of handgun ownership be approved by the federal government, and that any theft of a handgun be properly reported, would go a long way towards keeping guns out the hands of criminals. However, such a system would be expensive to administer and unpopular in pro-gun states. Liberals seem more interested in banning certain types of rifles based on their superficial resemblance to weapons carried by soldiers.
4
Using Chicago as a counter example is not ad hominum just because you live there and are the person making the argument.
More of a straw man, really.
More of a straw man, really.
5
Bah, my edit did not go through: I meant to say it is more of the false cause fallacy, but more accurately, it is just a bad argument.
6
@3 Jared Lee Loughner's 33-round magazine wasn't superficial. He was tackled while he was reloading.
7
If you're going to make a proposal, please make a serious one. Like it or not, we have a Second Amendment in the Constitution, and it has been interpreted very expansively by the Supreme Court. We aren't going to "eliminate legal guns." Even the UK and Australia didn't do that, and they have no constitutional impediment. If we're lucky, we may be able to impose a licensing and testing regime similar to the DMV. That's what we should be aiming for.
8
What 7 said. You're not going to get rid of every single gun in the country, and it's incredibly silly to have to come to Slog to see everybody here suggesting exactly that. You people are delusional.
Love, a liberal who does not own a gun.
Love, a liberal who does not own a gun.
9
This post is sort of startling. You provide a very sensible explanation of why strict restrictions on firearms in Chicago has not prevented slaughter, then go on to -- God, it sounds like you're proposing a ban. Are you simply unaware that such a ban would be unconstitutional? Or are you simply unwilling to work within the framework of the possible?
The thing that annoys the shit out of me about articles like this is that it really helps the opposition. "See?" they say. "These guys don't just want to get rid of big magazine clips or killing machines that have no legitimate defensive purpose like the Bushmaster 223. They want ALL your guns."
As I've longed to say to Dianne Feinstein on many occasions: "You're really not helping, you silly person. " Why not laser in on things that are constitutionally permissible and that would really make an important difference? Like banning the sale of large magazines. Like requiring background checks for all purchases. Etc.
The thing that annoys the shit out of me about articles like this is that it really helps the opposition. "See?" they say. "These guys don't just want to get rid of big magazine clips or killing machines that have no legitimate defensive purpose like the Bushmaster 223. They want ALL your guns."
As I've longed to say to Dianne Feinstein on many occasions: "You're really not helping, you silly person. " Why not laser in on things that are constitutionally permissible and that would really make an important difference? Like banning the sale of large magazines. Like requiring background checks for all purchases. Etc.
10
Laws only deter behavior if they have sufficient penalties, sufficient resources to be enforced, and sufficient publicity about both. Not only has gun violence in New York City declined as penalties have risen (with stricter sentencing guidelines) and policing at the street level become more intrusive, but participation in gun buy-back programs is fairly robust whenever it's announced here.
Outside the city, I have the impression that weapons violation has lower law enforcement priorities at the state level, but this recent business in Webster may have local departments considering their options. It would be nice if there was some constitutional way they could randomly serve search warrants on violent ex-cons. The Webster shooter had built himself a nice little arsenal, none of it legal for him to acquire or possess.
Discovering these violations would also let law enforcement track the sources of the weapons and perhaps diminish that kind of illegal trade.
Outside the city, I have the impression that weapons violation has lower law enforcement priorities at the state level, but this recent business in Webster may have local departments considering their options. It would be nice if there was some constitutional way they could randomly serve search warrants on violent ex-cons. The Webster shooter had built himself a nice little arsenal, none of it legal for him to acquire or possess.
Discovering these violations would also let law enforcement track the sources of the weapons and perhaps diminish that kind of illegal trade.
11
@3 - I've gotten this claim quite a bit lately. That somehow if I am pro-gun control it's only because I am scared of the aggressive aesthetics of modern assault rifles and I am too stupid to understand that they are not machine guns. It's the same old "Democrats are wimps and Republicans are REAL MEN" baloney that's been going on since Carter. It's not going to work.
As for 30 round magazines, or even 20 round Glocks, if you need that many bullets to get the job done - you need to spend more time at the range because you're a shitty shooter.
As for 30 round magazines, or even 20 round Glocks, if you need that many bullets to get the job done - you need to spend more time at the range because you're a shitty shooter.
12
"Are you simply unaware that such a ban would be unconstitutional?"
You're also allowed to drink alcohol now even though it was also unconstitutional at one point. It's almost as if the document can be changed as the needs of the nation change. Crazy, huh?
But yes, you're right. It won't happen. Americans are too fearful, violent, and stupid to live without the false security gun ownership gives them. The best anyone can hope for is targeted bans and loophole closures.
You're also allowed to drink alcohol now even though it was also unconstitutional at one point. It's almost as if the document can be changed as the needs of the nation change. Crazy, huh?
But yes, you're right. It won't happen. Americans are too fearful, violent, and stupid to live without the false security gun ownership gives them. The best anyone can hope for is targeted bans and loophole closures.
13
@7 Yes, we have an amendment to our Constitution that has been interpreted to allow mayhem to flourish. And, if enough people get fed up with that mayhem, we have a mechanism to repeal that amendment. We repealed the 18th. We can repeal the 2nd, too.
Which is not to say that we would ban guns nationally. Each state would then be free to set their own policy, or even amend their own constitution to guarantee gun rights.
But, whatever we do, we have to do something. The status quo has too high a cost, both in terms of casualties (and the medical and rehab costs of gunshot survivors) and in terms of, for lack of a better word, terror. How comfortable are you, really, knowing that asshole who cut you off in an SUV is packing, or the crazy old man on the next block who kicks dogs and hoots at women has a Glock? I'd happily surrender* my rights to own a gun if I had some assurance that THEY couldn't. There are an awful lot of assholes here in the Big City®; I'm really glad that most of them are not armed.
_______________
* - Not that I own a gun now, or want to, but you know, theoretically.
Which is not to say that we would ban guns nationally. Each state would then be free to set their own policy, or even amend their own constitution to guarantee gun rights.
But, whatever we do, we have to do something. The status quo has too high a cost, both in terms of casualties (and the medical and rehab costs of gunshot survivors) and in terms of, for lack of a better word, terror. How comfortable are you, really, knowing that asshole who cut you off in an SUV is packing, or the crazy old man on the next block who kicks dogs and hoots at women has a Glock? I'd happily surrender* my rights to own a gun if I had some assurance that THEY couldn't. There are an awful lot of assholes here in the Big City®; I'm really glad that most of them are not armed.
_______________
* - Not that I own a gun now, or want to, but you know, theoretically.
14
Jim Emerson's recent column notes some very illuminating facts with respect to guns and gun violence. Some of them go counter to conventional wisdom.
He also subtly attempts to dissuade people from repeating the term "gun nuts".
Face it, demonizing the opposition is a polarizing tactic, guaranteed to make achieving any progress harder.
Is it time to be the adults in the room here?
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/…
He also subtly attempts to dissuade people from repeating the term "gun nuts".
Face it, demonizing the opposition is a polarizing tactic, guaranteed to make achieving any progress harder.
Is it time to be the adults in the room here?
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/…
15
"If w eliminate legal guns..."
Looks like it's not only the gun nuts that have problems thinking clearly.
Looks like it's not only the gun nuts that have problems thinking clearly.
16
CF, you didn't mention that the motive for the vast majority of Chicago shootings is gang turf wars - not armed robberies, home invasions, suicides, familycides, or mass shootings by suicidal loners.
that fact alone refutes the "i must have a loaded 15-round semi-automatic pistol within arm's reach at all times" argument. all the gun-totin' macho men don't live anywhere near those neighborhoods, nor do they have reason to go there. they're not in much danger from drive-bys or nightclub shootings.
that fact alone refutes the "i must have a loaded 15-round semi-automatic pistol within arm's reach at all times" argument. all the gun-totin' macho men don't live anywhere near those neighborhoods, nor do they have reason to go there. they're not in much danger from drive-bys or nightclub shootings.
17
I'm sick onto death with the arguments against legislating gun control that run along the lines: "If it's a crime to own a gun, only criminals will have guns." Or that make light of the efficacy of stricter firearm regulations.
They're wrong, first and foremost: during the Assault Weapon Ban mass murders with firearms were suppressed: we've been living through the horrific uptick in massacres since a Republican administration eradicated that safeguard.
http://twitter.com/gratepool/status/2812…
But the real success story of gun regulation is in my state: California. And a horrific elementary school mass murder over twenty years ago was the catalyst.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18…
California can provide the template, if we have the will. And as Democrats we're less beholden to gun nut voters:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com…
Three, two, one...for ad hominem from gun nuts: Huffington Post! New York Times!
As for the Second Amendment arguments: please tell me all about that "well-regulated militia" to which you belong, before you whip out that chestnut.
More...
They're wrong, first and foremost: during the Assault Weapon Ban mass murders with firearms were suppressed: we've been living through the horrific uptick in massacres since a Republican administration eradicated that safeguard.
http://twitter.com/gratepool/status/2812…
But the real success story of gun regulation is in my state: California. And a horrific elementary school mass murder over twenty years ago was the catalyst.
In January 1989, Patrick Purdy, 26, stepped onto the grounds of Cleveland Elementary School and raked the school yard with at least 106 bullets from an AK-47 rifle. He killed five children, ages 6 to 9, and one teacher and injured 29 other students, before fatally shooting himself.
"Less than a year later, California enacted one of the first bans on assault weapons... and a slew of some of the country's strictest gun control laws during the 1990s and 2000s. The state Legislature was responding to rising levels of gun violence: Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, California had a higher gun mortality rate than the average for the rest of the country.
...by 1998, California's gun mortality rate had fallen below that of the rest of the country, and it continues to drop faster than the average for the other states. From 1993 to 2009, California's gun mortality rate declined by 53.2 percent -- 23.1 percentage points more than the decline in the rest of the country
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18…
California can provide the template, if we have the will. And as Democrats we're less beholden to gun nut voters:
In Gun Ownership Statistics, Partisan Divide Is Sharp
An American child grows up in a married household in the suburbs. What are the chances that his family keeps a gun in their home?
But the odds vary significantly based on the political identity of the child’s parents. If they identify as Democratic voters, the chances are only about one in four, or 25 percent, that they have a gun in their home. But the chances are more than twice that, almost 60 percent, if they are Republicans instead...
Gun ownership has declined over the past 40 years — but almost all the decrease has come from Democrats. By 2010, according to the General Social Survey, the gun ownership rate among adults that identified as Democratic had fallen to 22 percent. But it remained at about 50 percent among Republican adults."
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com…
Three, two, one...for ad hominem from gun nuts: Huffington Post! New York Times!
As for the Second Amendment arguments: please tell me all about that "well-regulated militia" to which you belong, before you whip out that chestnut.
19
The only thing that can slow these recurring massacres is a blanket ban on all semi-automatic high capacity rifles and pistols. Even a simply ban on all clips that hold more than 10 or so rounds would be a great first step. Hunters and home defense types still get to keep sensible handguns, shotguns, and low capacity semi automatic rifles (long barrel hunting rifles, basically). The question is, do the people want this, and is there a political will to enact it? The failure is on us, the people: not the paper tiger of the NRA, and not the politicians who take their cues and votes from us.
The real gun problem we have is the daily massacres of people with handguns. But since these people are not usually white, no one really cares. Universal background checks, waiting periods, mandatory licensing/training/psych reviews are the only things we can do about this, because there is no way a handgun ban is happening in this country. Not in the next few decades at least. Also, all handgun sales/thefts need to be relentlessly recorded and pursued.
Remember: this is a long game. There is no way we are getting all the semi-auto high capacity rifles off the streets in our lifetimes. That genie is way out of the bottle. But with a ban now, maybe we can make our grandchildren a little safer.
The real gun problem we have is the daily massacres of people with handguns. But since these people are not usually white, no one really cares. Universal background checks, waiting periods, mandatory licensing/training/psych reviews are the only things we can do about this, because there is no way a handgun ban is happening in this country. Not in the next few decades at least. Also, all handgun sales/thefts need to be relentlessly recorded and pursued.
Remember: this is a long game. There is no way we are getting all the semi-auto high capacity rifles off the streets in our lifetimes. That genie is way out of the bottle. But with a ban now, maybe we can make our grandchildren a little safer.
20
@3 It pains me a little to be on your side of the fence in this thread but, yes, demanding much better 'good guy' management of firearms may be our best tactic for 'gun control'.
How about some of these ideas:
Require all new firearms to, in some way, have a mechanism to readily trace its projectiles back to the registered gun and owner. ( I don't know how that works for shotguns, or future-world laser and phasers. Maybe they get exempted. )
If you lose your registered firearm, you must report it (how quickly?) or face hefty financial penalties (how much ?) A reported loss of firearm causes owner to lose firearm license for N years. Whether loss is reported or not, the gun's last registered owner is criminally negligent (and whatever the civil law equivalent is) for any injuries commited with weapon.
How about some of these ideas:
Require all new firearms to, in some way, have a mechanism to readily trace its projectiles back to the registered gun and owner. ( I don't know how that works for shotguns, or future-world laser and phasers. Maybe they get exempted. )
If you lose your registered firearm, you must report it (how quickly?) or face hefty financial penalties (how much ?) A reported loss of firearm causes owner to lose firearm license for N years. Whether loss is reported or not, the gun's last registered owner is criminally negligent (and whatever the civil law equivalent is) for any injuries commited with weapon.
22
"Handguns, shotguns, and rifles — which can be left anonymously — will merit $100 in gift cards at Ralphs, a local grocery store chain. Assault weapons will get $200 in gift cards.
Los Angeles began the gun buyback program in 2009 and has collected almost 8,000 firearms over the past few years. Last May, on Mother’s Day weekend, the city received almost 1,700 firearms, which included 53 assault weapons and a single anti-tank rocket launcher."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/26/lo…
So 8,000 fewer guns in CA, and one less anti-tank rocket launcher, with which to wreck havoc.
Hmmm, wonder if that had anything to do with the firearm kill rate plummeting in California?
Naw, after all the bad guys could still beat ya to death with lawn chairs.
Los Angeles began the gun buyback program in 2009 and has collected almost 8,000 firearms over the past few years. Last May, on Mother’s Day weekend, the city received almost 1,700 firearms, which included 53 assault weapons and a single anti-tank rocket launcher."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/26/lo…
So 8,000 fewer guns in CA, and one less anti-tank rocket launcher, with which to wreck havoc.
Hmmm, wonder if that had anything to do with the firearm kill rate plummeting in California?
Naw, after all the bad guys could still beat ya to death with lawn chairs.
24
I have to make this argument all the time. The "black market" doesn't manufacture its own guns. Illegal guns purchased on the black market were virtually all legal guns purchased in gun stores or at gun shows first. I agree we'll never get a gun ban but certainly we could eliminate certain especially dangerous things like armor piercing bullets, high capacity mags and other things. If we could mandate that guns in homes be kept in a safe we'd drastically reduce the number of guns stolen and thus the number of guns available on the black market.
25
@20 I can't really see that happening if for no other reason than that such a system would cost a lot to administer. I don't see much of an appetite for a big expansion in any government program right now.
@6 & 11 Yes, the ban on hi-cap mags made a certain amount of sense, but mostly the 1994 AWB was a dumb law.
@6 & 11 Yes, the ban on hi-cap mags made a certain amount of sense, but mostly the 1994 AWB was a dumb law.
26
@swearengen: you are correct for once. Yes, people kill people. And often they use guns to do it, because guns make it so fuckin' easy.
So lets do some reasonable things to reduce the numbers of guns people have, because that will mean therefore fewer people will kill other people. See how that works?
So lets do some reasonable things to reduce the numbers of guns people have, because that will mean therefore fewer people will kill other people. See how that works?
27
The failure to secure your firearm(s) should have have some culpability. If a criminal defeats a gun safe or a trigger lock then the gun owner should be absolved, but if the criminal steals it from a nightstand, under a bed, an unlocked closet, or a glove box they should have some responsibility for it being getting onto the black market.
It's pretty telling that there are really no arrests for gun running any more... there's no profit in smuggling guns into the country.
It's pretty telling that there are really no arrests for gun running any more... there's no profit in smuggling guns into the country.
28
Here's a decent, fairly non-biased article on how legal firearms become illegal firearms:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/…
However, if you read it carefully, you'll notice that the majority of firearms become illegal firearms because greedy people become criminals. So, how about making it harder for straw purchasers and putting some more teeth into existing laws. The problem is, currently, it is almost impossible to prosecute someone for being a straw purchaser.
Incidentally, if you want a limit of 5-10 round magazines, I'd be all for that - but in order to make it effective, you'll have to make all the existing >5-10 round magazines illegal and I don't think that will go over very well.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/…
However, if you read it carefully, you'll notice that the majority of firearms become illegal firearms because greedy people become criminals. So, how about making it harder for straw purchasers and putting some more teeth into existing laws. The problem is, currently, it is almost impossible to prosecute someone for being a straw purchaser.
Incidentally, if you want a limit of 5-10 round magazines, I'd be all for that - but in order to make it effective, you'll have to make all the existing >5-10 round magazines illegal and I don't think that will go over very well.
29
@23, that's nice, and what do you suppose would happen if those people didn't have a trigger to pull? Do you think that little shit in Newtown would have run through the school with a knife? Possible I suppose but extremely unlikely. How about the shooter at Ft Hood or the one who shot Gabby Giffords? Unlikely that they would have brought a knife and if they did extremely unlikely that more than 1-2 people would have been hurt.
30
@Chicago Fan: Do it. Go ahead. Pass a ban on the sale, ownership and possession of everything north of single shot 30-30 rifles and shotguns, and do it now - act quickly while things are running hot and you have momentum.
In fact, to save some precious time in drafting it up, just copy and paste the language from the statutes that currently ban marijuana, amphetamines, cocaine, heroin, foie gras, speeding on the interstate, steroids, and declaration of state sales taxes on online purchases.
It will *probably* work. Just in case compliance falls a bit below the goal of 95% (leaving a measly 12.5M or so guns in circulation), or takes a couple months longer than the expected end date, here are a couple of steps we could think about while we're melting all of the guns the criminals sheepishly hand in down at the station:
Make some room in the several million square feet of jails and prisons (that we're already paying for) by clearing out non-violent drug offenders.
Let those people have whatever it is that floats their boat and gets them high, as long as they don't hurt anyone. Give them a hand cleaning up if they ask for it, but otherwise, let em nod off to Spongebob and game shows while eating their Hostess junk food (shit! forgot about that - disregard) or scratching at imaginary spiders
Make a (temporary - just til the gun melting is done) law that mandates harsh sentences in the now-under-capacity jails for people who commit violence against other people.
Couple thoughts on hypothetical crimes that might qualify - killing your grandmother with, I don't know, a hammer(?), or here's another crazy one, killing a harmless and widely enjoyed tuba player who sits outside sports stadiums entertaining people.
Another qualifying crime that rarely happens (but since this is only temporary there's no harm) - make draconian sentences for people who punch, kick, mutilate, break the limbs of, disfigure, and constantly threaten their spouses, exes, girlfriends, boyfriends, or neighbors.
Take all of the above people and start putting them in the already-paid-for boxes made of concrete and steel, at least until the guns are gone and we're all safe again. We can toss them back into the wild at that point, because thankfully they'll no longer have any way to harm people.
Since you're going to push for legislation in the name of "doing something," and since it's going to be expensive in social cost because of the several tens of millions of people you're going to instantly alienate (and who otherwise, believe it or not, share an awful lot of your goals, values and beliefs), I would just ask that you make the cost worthwhile and consider putting the above on as a legislative rider, maybe a quiet amendment near the end, and let's see what happens
More...
In fact, to save some precious time in drafting it up, just copy and paste the language from the statutes that currently ban marijuana, amphetamines, cocaine, heroin, foie gras, speeding on the interstate, steroids, and declaration of state sales taxes on online purchases.
It will *probably* work. Just in case compliance falls a bit below the goal of 95% (leaving a measly 12.5M or so guns in circulation), or takes a couple months longer than the expected end date, here are a couple of steps we could think about while we're melting all of the guns the criminals sheepishly hand in down at the station:
Make some room in the several million square feet of jails and prisons (that we're already paying for) by clearing out non-violent drug offenders.
Let those people have whatever it is that floats their boat and gets them high, as long as they don't hurt anyone. Give them a hand cleaning up if they ask for it, but otherwise, let em nod off to Spongebob and game shows while eating their Hostess junk food (shit! forgot about that - disregard) or scratching at imaginary spiders
Make a (temporary - just til the gun melting is done) law that mandates harsh sentences in the now-under-capacity jails for people who commit violence against other people.
Couple thoughts on hypothetical crimes that might qualify - killing your grandmother with, I don't know, a hammer(?), or here's another crazy one, killing a harmless and widely enjoyed tuba player who sits outside sports stadiums entertaining people.
Another qualifying crime that rarely happens (but since this is only temporary there's no harm) - make draconian sentences for people who punch, kick, mutilate, break the limbs of, disfigure, and constantly threaten their spouses, exes, girlfriends, boyfriends, or neighbors.
Take all of the above people and start putting them in the already-paid-for boxes made of concrete and steel, at least until the guns are gone and we're all safe again. We can toss them back into the wild at that point, because thankfully they'll no longer have any way to harm people.
Since you're going to push for legislation in the name of "doing something," and since it's going to be expensive in social cost because of the several tens of millions of people you're going to instantly alienate (and who otherwise, believe it or not, share an awful lot of your goals, values and beliefs), I would just ask that you make the cost worthwhile and consider putting the above on as a legislative rider, maybe a quiet amendment near the end, and let's see what happens
31
Perhaps this is a simplistic reading of the plain text of the Second Amendment, but how about requiring gun owners to belong to a state or local militia, and for that body to maintain its credentials by performing regular checks on its members abilities and munitions no fewer than X times per year?
33
THAT'S your retort Shitcago Fool? Speaking of fallacies how about the one where you think you can conviscate all, or most, or even a fraction of firearms? If you haven't noticed my rights only become more affirmed by the courts when you try to take them away. Why don't you take responsibility for all the useless animals that terrorize your city and stop deflecting the blame to millions of legal gun owners?
35
Let's pause a moment to read George H.W. Bush's letter of resignation from the NRA.
You didn't think Wayne LaPierre all of a sudden turned into a huge dicknizzle just last week, do you? He's been perfecting his assholery for decades. He was even too much of a douche for Poppy Bush himself.
Realize Wayne LaPierre is their best guy. He was in 1995 and he remains their ace today. They could hand the microphone to others, but they might freak the public out too much. LaPierre is the "sane" face of the NRA. He's the "smart one" over there.
So don't expect the gun nuts to give up logical fallacies any time soon. They're deeply invested in bad reasoning, personal attacks, distractions, stonewalling. Every tactic except serious debate. They know they will lose a serious debate.
You didn't think Wayne LaPierre all of a sudden turned into a huge dicknizzle just last week, do you? He's been perfecting his assholery for decades. He was even too much of a douche for Poppy Bush himself.
Realize Wayne LaPierre is their best guy. He was in 1995 and he remains their ace today. They could hand the microphone to others, but they might freak the public out too much. LaPierre is the "sane" face of the NRA. He's the "smart one" over there.
So don't expect the gun nuts to give up logical fallacies any time soon. They're deeply invested in bad reasoning, personal attacks, distractions, stonewalling. Every tactic except serious debate. They know they will lose a serious debate.
36
@32, From 1982 to 1996, Texas had 8-16 firearms related homicides per 100,000 people per year. In 1996 Texas's right-to-carry law became effective. Since 1996 the firearm related homicide rate has dropped to about 4 per 100,000. I guess pro-gun laws must be linked to those fewer deaths!
However, if you look at the statistics for both states, you'll notice that the overall homicides nationwide dropped by similar percentages, regardless of local gun control laws. Sadly, statistics can be manipulated to support many viewpoints.
However, if you look at the statistics for both states, you'll notice that the overall homicides nationwide dropped by similar percentages, regardless of local gun control laws. Sadly, statistics can be manipulated to support many viewpoints.
38
@36 now add england japan australia denmark sweden norway germany france lux belgium to your discussion. you are aware those nations exist, right? why do you leave them out?
39
@37: Do what you want. I'm not your enemy, and neither are an awful lot of people like me, but if it's your goal to turn us into that then you certainly can choose to do so.
Just don't be surprised when I (we) react accordingly and you end up accomplishing exactly nothing substantive.
Just don't be surprised when I (we) react accordingly and you end up accomplishing exactly nothing substantive.
40
"they're not in much danger from drive-bys or nightclub shootings."
Is this a polite way of saying avoid large concentrations of urban blacks? Move to Seattle?
Is this a polite way of saying avoid large concentrations of urban blacks? Move to Seattle?
41
One of my favorite fails was when a newspaper back east published the addresses of everybody who had a concealed carry permit. Gun nuts are worried that these houses will be targets FOR theft. But surely with all the armed ninja assassins living there it would be the last place a lowly burglar would want to be.
42
@20:"A reported loss of firearm causes owner to lose firearm license for N years. Whether loss is reported or not, the gun's last registered owner is criminally negligent (and whatever the civil law equivalent is) for any injuries commited with weapon."
What a great incentive to report that gun that was destroyed in a house fine.
What a great incentive to report that gun that was destroyed in a house fine.
43
It's really hard to have a mature conversation when your entire staff insists on labeling people with opposing opinions as "nuts." You're putting yourselves in an information bubble, and alienating more people than you realize: rational, level headed people.
It is insulting, and demeaning, and strongly contributes to the fractured ideologies of American politics. Instead of seeking legislation to restrict our freedoms, we need to have an honest, open and respectful conversation with one another. The Stranger should be among the first willing to bridge these ideological gaps, but you are playing the Fox News game and trying to force an ideology on your readers.
You aren't going to find much meaningful conversation here. Reasonable people are repulsed by your one-sided, demeaning articles, and those that stay around are incensed by your tone, and you take their emotional defensiveness as evidence that you are correct. This makes you, and the people in the comments, extremely susceptible to confirmation bias.
It's sad. I expect more from journalists at the Stranger.
It is insulting, and demeaning, and strongly contributes to the fractured ideologies of American politics. Instead of seeking legislation to restrict our freedoms, we need to have an honest, open and respectful conversation with one another. The Stranger should be among the first willing to bridge these ideological gaps, but you are playing the Fox News game and trying to force an ideology on your readers.
You aren't going to find much meaningful conversation here. Reasonable people are repulsed by your one-sided, demeaning articles, and those that stay around are incensed by your tone, and you take their emotional defensiveness as evidence that you are correct. This makes you, and the people in the comments, extremely susceptible to confirmation bias.
It's sad. I expect more from journalists at the Stranger.
44
@41: Last time a newspaper did exactly that, someone came out with another list of addresses on a map, detailing where everyone who worked for the newspaper lived. A few people resigned, if I recall.
45
Lessons in avoiding ad hominem attacks from someone who dismisses everyone on the other side of an issue as a "gun nut."
Good stuff.
Good stuff.
46
I hate guns, and I think our national obsession with them makes us look incredibly stupid to most of the developed world, but I don't believe for a minute that we will ever reduce the number of guns in America. I do think banning large capacity magazines and requiring background checks and psychological checks for EVERY gun sale would be effective. I also think that once you buy a gun, you should be held financially and criminally liable for anything that gun is used for, cradle to grave. I suspect people would think twice about the risk of owning to begin with, and would certainly be more responsible in controlling their own weapons, if that were the case.
47
@41, Because obviously, "gun nuts" never leave their houses. Unlike non-"gun nuts", "gun nuts" are hunkered down in their house/bunkers 24/7.
@38, We can talk about those countries when A) we decide we're going to confiscate all the firearms in the country (never going to happen) B) when we further curtail civil liberties by allowing warrant-less search and seizure of persons and homes, C) when we install spy cameras at every intersection and doorway. I realize that B and C are not far from becoming reality - I hope that they never actually do.
@38, We can talk about those countries when A) we decide we're going to confiscate all the firearms in the country (never going to happen) B) when we further curtail civil liberties by allowing warrant-less search and seizure of persons and homes, C) when we install spy cameras at every intersection and doorway. I realize that B and C are not far from becoming reality - I hope that they never actually do.
48
I particularly like the "logic lessons" along with the incorrect claim of the "ad hominem fallacy".
Immediately preceded by labeling people who disagree with the author as "nuts".
Followed by the error of conflating one specific type of crime with all types of crimes involving guns.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for any of the pro-gun-control people to put forward specific suggestions for a law or laws that would have prevented the shooting at Sandy Hook.
Immediately preceded by labeling people who disagree with the author as "nuts".
Followed by the error of conflating one specific type of crime with all types of crimes involving guns.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for any of the pro-gun-control people to put forward specific suggestions for a law or laws that would have prevented the shooting at Sandy Hook.
49
Guns have been around for 1000 years, yet there are still no anti bullet defense mechanisms. Maybe we need a Star Wars type shield that would make them fall to the ground. Either that or the space guy from The Day The Earth Stood Still could make our refrigerators stop for 30 minutes..just to show us who is boss.
50
@49: Star Wars type shield that would stop bullets? I think you mean Dune. For a neckbeard, you don't know your sci-fi very well.
52
@39
I get it. You're a concern troll who doesn't know what a concern troll is. How orig--
Oh. Wait. Nope. That's been done too. Tough to come up with a new kind of troll, isn't it.
You're pretending to be be some objective citizen who just happens to be following step one of the NRA playbook: pretend you're concerned that gun opponents are wasting their precious time on new laws that won't work. That's why it's called concern trolling.
The truth is the NRA knows full well just how effective gun laws can be.They can look around the globe and see that in every industrialized country there is. So they bluff. They send sockpuppets like you to create online accounts to pretend you're voicing your grassroots support -- completely by coincidence! -- for NRA talking points.
You're a phony. You're an easily spotted phony. You suck at this.
I get it. You're a concern troll who doesn't know what a concern troll is. How orig--
Oh. Wait. Nope. That's been done too. Tough to come up with a new kind of troll, isn't it.
You're pretending to be be some objective citizen who just happens to be following step one of the NRA playbook: pretend you're concerned that gun opponents are wasting their precious time on new laws that won't work. That's why it's called concern trolling.
The truth is the NRA knows full well just how effective gun laws can be.They can look around the globe and see that in every industrialized country there is. So they bluff. They send sockpuppets like you to create online accounts to pretend you're voicing your grassroots support -- completely by coincidence! -- for NRA talking points.
You're a phony. You're an easily spotted phony. You suck at this.
54
@48
Stop lying. You've been given many specific suggestions. You think you can fool people by denying it.
Stop lying. You've been given many specific suggestions. You think you can fool people by denying it.
55
@54
"Stop lying."
Then link to then.
Go ahead. Link to them.
It shouldn't be too difficult, right?
But you won't because you're lying.
"Stop lying."
Then link to then.
Go ahead. Link to them.
It shouldn't be too difficult, right?
But you won't because you're lying.
56
So when I spent lots of time hunting with an old pump-action shotgun it had a plug in the magazine so it only held 3 shells. This was required by law, and there were penalties to being caught in the field with a shotgun that could hold more.
reasonable law, enforced, w/ consequences that made it the norm, and even new guns were sold w/ plugs installed. Seems like it could be a model for baby steps forward.
reasonable law, enforced, w/ consequences that made it the norm, and even new guns were sold w/ plugs installed. Seems like it could be a model for baby steps forward.
57
@49
You asked for some specific legislation that might have prevented Sandy Hook. How about these...
Mandatory licensing, including psychological evaluation, to purchase or *use* a firearm. It's not clear even Nancy Lanza, a "prepper," would have qualified. Certainly her son wouldn't have, and he might never have been exposed to and become interested in them.
No license or use of firearms by anyone under 18 (or 21). See above.
Mandatory use of gun safe. This might have prevented Adam stealing his mom's weapons.
None of these regulations would prevent a responsible adult from acquiring or using any type of firearm he wanted, but would have had a good chance of preventing this atrocity.
You asked for some specific legislation that might have prevented Sandy Hook. How about these...
Mandatory licensing, including psychological evaluation, to purchase or *use* a firearm. It's not clear even Nancy Lanza, a "prepper," would have qualified. Certainly her son wouldn't have, and he might never have been exposed to and become interested in them.
No license or use of firearms by anyone under 18 (or 21). See above.
Mandatory use of gun safe. This might have prevented Adam stealing his mom's weapons.
None of these regulations would prevent a responsible adult from acquiring or using any type of firearm he wanted, but would have had a good chance of preventing this atrocity.
58
@57
1. Mandatory licensing - as you've noted, it is not clear whether Nancy Lanza would have "qualified" ... or not. Since she seemed to have acquired all the guns legally it is probable that she would have been allowed to acquire them.
2. No license or use of firearms by anyone under 18 (or 21). That may have stopped Adam Lanza from legally practicing with them (he was 20 at the time of the shooting). So he probably would not have been as efficient as he was. So at least that would have mitigated this specific incident. But probably not prevented it.
3. Mandatory use of gun safe. I haven't seen any reports on whether a gun safe was used or not. In this specific instance it is possible that Adam Lanza would have known the combination or where the keys were kept. So it is no clear that this would have prevented this specific incident.
And that is the problem.
Without a 100% ban on guns, including confiscating all currently held guns, there is no way to prevent shootings such as this.
1. Mandatory licensing - as you've noted, it is not clear whether Nancy Lanza would have "qualified" ... or not. Since she seemed to have acquired all the guns legally it is probable that she would have been allowed to acquire them.
2. No license or use of firearms by anyone under 18 (or 21). That may have stopped Adam Lanza from legally practicing with them (he was 20 at the time of the shooting). So he probably would not have been as efficient as he was. So at least that would have mitigated this specific incident. But probably not prevented it.
3. Mandatory use of gun safe. I haven't seen any reports on whether a gun safe was used or not. In this specific instance it is possible that Adam Lanza would have known the combination or where the keys were kept. So it is no clear that this would have prevented this specific incident.
And that is the problem.
Without a 100% ban on guns, including confiscating all currently held guns, there is no way to prevent shootings such as this.
59
"Without a 100% ban on guns, including confiscating all currently held guns, there is no way to prevent shootings such as this."
I don't think that's totally true, or at least it's a bit misleading. I think we absolutely can reduce the *rate* at which these types of shootings occur through incremental legislation.
I don't think that's totally true, or at least it's a bit misleading. I think we absolutely can reduce the *rate* at which these types of shootings occur through incremental legislation.
60
@59
"I think we absolutely can reduce the 'rate' at which these types of shootings occur through incremental legislation."
Possibly.
But now take that argument one step further.
Is 1 less shooting like this a year acceptable?
Will the discussion end then?
Or will that become the new level that must be reduced with more "incremental legislation"?
"I think we absolutely can reduce the 'rate' at which these types of shootings occur through incremental legislation."
Possibly.
But now take that argument one step further.
Is 1 less shooting like this a year acceptable?
Will the discussion end then?
Or will that become the new level that must be reduced with more "incremental legislation"?
61
@58
I'm not sure why there is suddenly an unreasonably high standard when it comes to justifying gun safety measures as opposed to other safety measures. People put locks on their doors, despite the fact that criminals might be able to pick the lock or break a window, because it makes burglary less likely. Measures such as the ones I suggested are not a guarantee in every case, but would make incidents like Sandy Hook less likely. Plus they don't place undue hardship on responsible gun owners. It's time for responsible gun owners to step forward and show they are willing to take reasonable concrete steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. You are presenting a false dichotomy. We don't need a 100% ban in order to make these incidents less likely.
I'm not sure why there is suddenly an unreasonably high standard when it comes to justifying gun safety measures as opposed to other safety measures. People put locks on their doors, despite the fact that criminals might be able to pick the lock or break a window, because it makes burglary less likely. Measures such as the ones I suggested are not a guarantee in every case, but would make incidents like Sandy Hook less likely. Plus they don't place undue hardship on responsible gun owners. It's time for responsible gun owners to step forward and show they are willing to take reasonable concrete steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. You are presenting a false dichotomy. We don't need a 100% ban in order to make these incidents less likely.
62
@61
"Measures such as the ones I suggested are not a guarantee in every case, but would make incidents like Sandy Hook less likely."
This isn't even "every case".
Even in the specific case of Sandy Hook they would not have prevented the shooting.
And that is the point.
"It's time for responsible gun owners to step forward and show they are willing to take reasonable concrete steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them."
And yet Connecticut has rather strict gun control already.
But even that was not sufficient to prevent the shooting.
"You are presenting a false dichotomy."
You should really learn what that means before you use it. Okay?
Don't embarrass yourself on the internet.
"We don't need a 100% ban in order to make these incidents less likely."
As I have already stated, you need a 100% ban to PREVENT shootings such as Sandy Hook.
Anything less can only MITIGATE future shootings (fewer dead at best).
And the MITIGATED shootings become the new STANDARD that must be MITIGATED because while 19 dead children are better than 20 dead children why can't we get that number down to 18 dead children with more laws.
Even more laws would mean only 17 dead children.
Even more more laws would mean only 16 dead children.
Even more more more laws would mean only 15 dead children.
So where is the line?
"Measures such as the ones I suggested are not a guarantee in every case, but would make incidents like Sandy Hook less likely."
This isn't even "every case".
Even in the specific case of Sandy Hook they would not have prevented the shooting.
And that is the point.
"It's time for responsible gun owners to step forward and show they are willing to take reasonable concrete steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them."
And yet Connecticut has rather strict gun control already.
But even that was not sufficient to prevent the shooting.
"You are presenting a false dichotomy."
You should really learn what that means before you use it. Okay?
Don't embarrass yourself on the internet.
"We don't need a 100% ban in order to make these incidents less likely."
As I have already stated, you need a 100% ban to PREVENT shootings such as Sandy Hook.
Anything less can only MITIGATE future shootings (fewer dead at best).
And the MITIGATED shootings become the new STANDARD that must be MITIGATED because while 19 dead children are better than 20 dead children why can't we get that number down to 18 dead children with more laws.
Even more laws would mean only 17 dead children.
Even more more laws would mean only 16 dead children.
Even more more more laws would mean only 15 dead children.
So where is the line?
63
@62
See? Here it is again. AGAIN you've been given a litany of reasonable steps that could have prevented Sandy Hook. Not to mention prevented some of the other shootings, which would have made Sandy Hook an aberration instead of a horrifyingly commonplace event.
And all you do is try to imagine convoluted scenarios where the proposed steps could have been circumvented. And everyone laughed at your ridiculous rhetoric.
If it were up to you, we'd have no traffic lights because red lights don't guarantee everyone will stop. You've been told a hundred times, laws don't work like that. No law is meant to work like that. You are the ONLY idiot who demands laws be that air-tight.
To recap:
1. You asked for specifics.
2. You got speifics, and tried to pick them off with flawed arguments
3. Your flawed arguments were roundly rejected, and generally mocked for their stupidity.
4. Like the thick palooka you are, you pretend that 2 and 3 never happened. You pretend you won these arguments that you lost for the hundredth time. You lie and say nobody has proposed anything.
So. Stop lying. You got what you asked for and the cognitive dissonance gave you amnesia. Could also be you don't read English well. You're Russian, right?
See? Here it is again. AGAIN you've been given a litany of reasonable steps that could have prevented Sandy Hook. Not to mention prevented some of the other shootings, which would have made Sandy Hook an aberration instead of a horrifyingly commonplace event.
And all you do is try to imagine convoluted scenarios where the proposed steps could have been circumvented. And everyone laughed at your ridiculous rhetoric.
If it were up to you, we'd have no traffic lights because red lights don't guarantee everyone will stop. You've been told a hundred times, laws don't work like that. No law is meant to work like that. You are the ONLY idiot who demands laws be that air-tight.
To recap:
1. You asked for specifics.
2. You got speifics, and tried to pick them off with flawed arguments
3. Your flawed arguments were roundly rejected, and generally mocked for their stupidity.
4. Like the thick palooka you are, you pretend that 2 and 3 never happened. You pretend you won these arguments that you lost for the hundredth time. You lie and say nobody has proposed anything.
So. Stop lying. You got what you asked for and the cognitive dissonance gave you amnesia. Could also be you don't read English well. You're Russian, right?
64
@63
"Here it is again. AGAIN you've been given a litany of reasonable steps that could have prevented Sandy Hook."
You are a liar.
Identify which SPECIFIC suggestion would have PREVENTED the shooting at Sandy Hook.
You are a liar.
And I have already addressed each of those suggestions and shown how there is no evidence yet that any of them would have PREVENTED the shooting at Sandy Hook.
Even the original poster agreed with that.
"Measures such as the ones I suggested are not a guarantee in every case, ..."
And yet you want to lie about it because you are a liar.
"Here it is again. AGAIN you've been given a litany of reasonable steps that could have prevented Sandy Hook."
You are a liar.
Identify which SPECIFIC suggestion would have PREVENTED the shooting at Sandy Hook.
You are a liar.
And I have already addressed each of those suggestions and shown how there is no evidence yet that any of them would have PREVENTED the shooting at Sandy Hook.
Even the original poster agreed with that.
"Measures such as the ones I suggested are not a guarantee in every case, ..."
And yet you want to lie about it because you are a liar.
65
I think this is similar to the go-round I had a few weeks back.
What our young friend seems to be asking for is some sort of idea that will provide airtight assurance that the last major shoot up, in all its particulars, could not have happened, without crossing the line of the 2nd amendment. That isn't how public policy works.
To reiterate from last time- no one is suggesting that any policy/shift/procedure is going to prevent every last firearms death, or retroactively have eliminated the ability of the last shooter to carry out their attack. What those changes can do is prevent some of the crimes and accidents. it becomes clear that as we do so fewer people die. Any number of the things suggested above would do so.
What our young friend seems to be asking for is some sort of idea that will provide airtight assurance that the last major shoot up, in all its particulars, could not have happened, without crossing the line of the 2nd amendment. That isn't how public policy works.
To reiterate from last time- no one is suggesting that any policy/shift/procedure is going to prevent every last firearms death, or retroactively have eliminated the ability of the last shooter to carry out their attack. What those changes can do is prevent some of the crimes and accidents. it becomes clear that as we do so fewer people die. Any number of the things suggested above would do so.
66
@65
"To reiterate from last time- no one is suggesting that any policy/shift/procedure is going to prevent every last firearms death, ..."
Beat that straw man!
Beat it good!
Then beat it some more!
Who has asked that?
No one?
Well there's always the straw man for you to beat upon.
"To reiterate from last time- no one is suggesting that any policy/shift/procedure is going to prevent every last firearms death, ..."
Beat that straw man!
Beat it good!
Then beat it some more!
Who has asked that?
No one?
Well there's always the straw man for you to beat upon.
67
I believe fairly.unbalanced's point is that none of the proposals would have made a difference in the Newtown shooting, or for that matter, the Aurora, or Clackamas shootings. Which is what gun control nuts are mostly claiming they want to combat.
Will some of these proposals reduce overall gun deaths? Yes, probably so. However, would spending a similar amount of time/money on mental health, or general health care have an even greater reduction in untimely deaths? Yes, most likely. Yet, the attention is all on what is a very small fraction of yearly deaths in the United States.
Will some of these proposals reduce overall gun deaths? Yes, probably so. However, would spending a similar amount of time/money on mental health, or general health care have an even greater reduction in untimely deaths? Yes, most likely. Yet, the attention is all on what is a very small fraction of yearly deaths in the United States.
68
@64
Yes. You alone have the truth, and for some odd reason nobody will admit how right you are. It's a conspiracy of liars. The whole world is conspiring against you. It's a vast, vast conspiracy.
Could be some kind of cultural-linguistic barrier. You should ask some other Russians to see if they can follow your points. Maybe they could help you translate what you're trying to say into English and then somebody would start to get what you mean.
Yes. You alone have the truth, and for some odd reason nobody will admit how right you are. It's a conspiracy of liars. The whole world is conspiring against you. It's a vast, vast conspiracy.
Could be some kind of cultural-linguistic barrier. You should ask some other Russians to see if they can follow your points. Maybe they could help you translate what you're trying to say into English and then somebody would start to get what you mean.
69
@60
Why is it so important to end the discussion? Could it be the NRA fears having this discussed? Must be.
They say everything we could try is ineffective. Yet they're terrified of these "ineffective" steps. What's so scary about impotent laws? They say they've got this all figured out, yet nothing scares them more than talking about gun deaths. What's so scary about discussion?
Why is it so important to end the discussion? Could it be the NRA fears having this discussed? Must be.
They say everything we could try is ineffective. Yet they're terrified of these "ineffective" steps. What's so scary about impotent laws? They say they've got this all figured out, yet nothing scares them more than talking about gun deaths. What's so scary about discussion?
70
@67
"I believe fairly.unbalanced's point is that none of the proposals would have made a difference in the Newtown shooting, or for that matter, the Aurora, or Clackamas shootings."
Exactly.
"However, would spending a similar amount of time/money on mental health, or general health care have an even greater reduction in untimely deaths? Yes, most likely."
100% agreement.
Instead of focusing on what has the best chance of preventing these shootings (and helping people in general) the focus is on placing more restrictions on people who are not committing any gun-related crimes.
The fallacy there is that if fewer law-abiding people have fewer guns then that means that there will be fewer guns for criminals. Which only works (as I've noted) when you have a 100% ban.
"I believe fairly.unbalanced's point is that none of the proposals would have made a difference in the Newtown shooting, or for that matter, the Aurora, or Clackamas shootings."
Exactly.
"However, would spending a similar amount of time/money on mental health, or general health care have an even greater reduction in untimely deaths? Yes, most likely."
100% agreement.
Instead of focusing on what has the best chance of preventing these shootings (and helping people in general) the focus is on placing more restrictions on people who are not committing any gun-related crimes.
The fallacy there is that if fewer law-abiding people have fewer guns then that means that there will be fewer guns for criminals. Which only works (as I've noted) when you have a 100% ban.
71
@66
It's not a straw man. Every time you're given a proposal that might have prevented this shooting, you say might isn't good enough. It must have made it impossible, guaranteed. Any proposal to reduce the number of deaths, and you complain that it wouldn't prevent all the deaths. Your argument really is that dumb. That easily burnt to the ground.
Also: I guess your Russian-English dictionary of idiom doesn't explain the straw man metaphor. You don't "beat" the straw man. You burn him down. See? Build a straw man, then burn him. Straw burns up quickly. You're thinking of "beat a dead horse". We Americans say "you're beating a dead horse" when you repeatedly restate the same point that has already been rejected.
So your demand for a law that would have prevented every single Sandy Hook death is already easily burnt to the ground. No need to create a straw man of it. Your repeating that same flammable argument again and again is beating a dead horse.
I don't know what the equivalent idiom is in your Mother Russia.
It's not a straw man. Every time you're given a proposal that might have prevented this shooting, you say might isn't good enough. It must have made it impossible, guaranteed. Any proposal to reduce the number of deaths, and you complain that it wouldn't prevent all the deaths. Your argument really is that dumb. That easily burnt to the ground.
Also: I guess your Russian-English dictionary of idiom doesn't explain the straw man metaphor. You don't "beat" the straw man. You burn him down. See? Build a straw man, then burn him. Straw burns up quickly. You're thinking of "beat a dead horse". We Americans say "you're beating a dead horse" when you repeatedly restate the same point that has already been rejected.
So your demand for a law that would have prevented every single Sandy Hook death is already easily burnt to the ground. No need to create a straw man of it. Your repeating that same flammable argument again and again is beating a dead horse.
I don't know what the equivalent idiom is in your Mother Russia.
72
@66 - again, you being a fucking child.
Guns flow freely in our society, and we have a surplus of gun violence. Other nations, with more restrictive gun policies have fewer gun deaths- homicide, suicide, accident, and mass shootings. Mental health services are in desperate need, but are not an acceptable replacement for sensible firearm regulation. Both are needed.
Oh- and I want you to provide an example of a mental health services delivery system that would have prevented this. Who is a mandated reporter? who will compel participation? who will pick up the tab for in/out patient services? at what point do we have authority to curtail rights?
Guns flow freely in our society, and we have a surplus of gun violence. Other nations, with more restrictive gun policies have fewer gun deaths- homicide, suicide, accident, and mass shootings. Mental health services are in desperate need, but are not an acceptable replacement for sensible firearm regulation. Both are needed.
Oh- and I want you to provide an example of a mental health services delivery system that would have prevented this. Who is a mandated reporter? who will compel participation? who will pick up the tab for in/out patient services? at what point do we have authority to curtail rights?
73
@72
"again, you being a fucking child."
Don't hate me because of your straw man.
Why don't you work on your argument so that you don't have to beat that straw man?
Can you do that? No?
"Other nations, with more restrictive gun policies have fewer gun deaths- homicide, suicide, accident, and mass shootings."
Switzerland.
They used to require that fully automatic guns and ammo were kept at home by the people in their military service.
We have lots of restrictions on who can have fully automatic guns.
Yet they had less gun-violence than we do.
At least try to educate yourself about the facts.
You are lost in the fallacy that fewer legal gun-owners with fewer legal guns means fewer cases of gun-violence.
But the evidence does not support that fallacy.
At least not until there is a 100% ban.
So either you're for a 100% ban or there is some amount of shootings that you're willing to accept.
Or you can admit that guns do not equal gun-violence (see Switzerland) and move the focus to mental health care.
But you will probably just want to beat that straw man some more, won't you?
"again, you being a fucking child."
Don't hate me because of your straw man.
Why don't you work on your argument so that you don't have to beat that straw man?
Can you do that? No?
"Other nations, with more restrictive gun policies have fewer gun deaths- homicide, suicide, accident, and mass shootings."
Switzerland.
They used to require that fully automatic guns and ammo were kept at home by the people in their military service.
We have lots of restrictions on who can have fully automatic guns.
Yet they had less gun-violence than we do.
At least try to educate yourself about the facts.
You are lost in the fallacy that fewer legal gun-owners with fewer legal guns means fewer cases of gun-violence.
But the evidence does not support that fallacy.
At least not until there is a 100% ban.
So either you're for a 100% ban or there is some amount of shootings that you're willing to accept.
Or you can admit that guns do not equal gun-violence (see Switzerland) and move the focus to mental health care.
But you will probably just want to beat that straw man some more, won't you?
74
@71: So, some amount of violent death is acceptable. Sure, I agree with that. But where do you draw the line? Is it the ~100 people a year killed by assault weapons, the 750 people a year killed in fistfights, or the 8,000 people a year killed by handguns?
Keep in mind that all of these numbers exist in a country of 305,000,000 people. They all look fairly nominal to me.
Keep in mind that all of these numbers exist in a country of 305,000,000 people. They all look fairly nominal to me.
75
look, idiot. we've gone round about this before, and I'm a bit tired of it.
Switzerland happens to have Europe's highest percentage of gun deaths- In fact, only Guatemala, Columbia, Paraguay, US, Zimbabwe and Mexico have a higher percentage of their homicides committed by firearms (and Mexico was much lower before the recent drug wars). So maybe don't use that as an example, huh?
Again- lets hear your MH plans. any fucking day now.
Switzerland happens to have Europe's highest percentage of gun deaths- In fact, only Guatemala, Columbia, Paraguay, US, Zimbabwe and Mexico have a higher percentage of their homicides committed by firearms (and Mexico was much lower before the recent drug wars). So maybe don't use that as an example, huh?
Again- lets hear your MH plans. any fucking day now.
76
@75
"look, idiot. we've gone round about this before, and I'm a bit tired of it."
I guess beating on that straw man all the time would tire you out.
A shame that you cannot put that same effort into addressing the points that I've made.
"Switzerland happens ..."
Did you miss the point about Switzerland having its military keep their automatic guns at home?
Don't go off on tangents.
Unless all you have are tangents.
The USofA does not allow its citizens to keep automatic weapons at home (without a LOT of paperwork).
Yet Switzerland still had less gun-violence than the USofA.
So the POINT is the gun ownership (even automatic weapons) does not equate to gun violence.
If you want to claim otherwise then why don't you provide some support?
Either you're for a 100% ban or there is some amount of shootings that you're willing to accept.
Or you can admit that guns do not equal gun-violence (see Switzerland) and move the focus to mental health care.
Or you'll just beat on that straw man and go off on tangents.
Because that's all you have.
"look, idiot. we've gone round about this before, and I'm a bit tired of it."
I guess beating on that straw man all the time would tire you out.
A shame that you cannot put that same effort into addressing the points that I've made.
"Switzerland happens ..."
Did you miss the point about Switzerland having its military keep their automatic guns at home?
Don't go off on tangents.
Unless all you have are tangents.
The USofA does not allow its citizens to keep automatic weapons at home (without a LOT of paperwork).
Yet Switzerland still had less gun-violence than the USofA.
So the POINT is the gun ownership (even automatic weapons) does not equate to gun violence.
If you want to claim otherwise then why don't you provide some support?
Either you're for a 100% ban or there is some amount of shootings that you're willing to accept.
Or you can admit that guns do not equal gun-violence (see Switzerland) and move the focus to mental health care.
Or you'll just beat on that straw man and go off on tangents.
Because that's all you have.
77
@24 Unfortunately, there is a black market for AR-15s. The raw forgings for the lower receiver are freely sold, and as the lower receiver is the only part of the weapon that cannot be freely sold in a finished state (that is, without being registered as a gun manufacturer with the ATF, without having a serial number, without records being made of its sale or transfer, without background checks), in other words, that part bureaucratically being considered THE weapon itself, you can see what happens.
Someone with machining experience, and access to the right equipment, can convert an aluminum "paperweight" forging (yeah, right -- a mil-spec "paperweight") into a finished lower receiver, creating a black market weapon. (Yes, yes, I know you need all the other parts, but those are all available freely, unregistered, to buyers of any age or background, with no tracking.)
In a sane world, ATF would keep tabs on sales of parts, to locate black market manufacturers, but the NRA "Constitutionalists" have imposed so many restrictions on them that I don't think they can.
Someone with machining experience, and access to the right equipment, can convert an aluminum "paperweight" forging (yeah, right -- a mil-spec "paperweight") into a finished lower receiver, creating a black market weapon. (Yes, yes, I know you need all the other parts, but those are all available freely, unregistered, to buyers of any age or background, with no tracking.)
In a sane world, ATF would keep tabs on sales of parts, to locate black market manufacturers, but the NRA "Constitutionalists" have imposed so many restrictions on them that I don't think they can.
78
@76 To answer your question about Sandy Hook, the loss of life in that incident would probably have been greatly reduced if we had a ban on the private ownership of semi-automatic rifles capable of accepting detachable box magazines. A semi-automatic rifle w/ a tube magazine below the barrel wouldn't hold as many bullets and would take a lot longer to reload. If Adam Lanza had been using one of those instead of a Bushmaster, the children would have had more time to flee to safety while he was putting more bullets into his gun, or maybe a teacher would have had the chance to hit him in the head with a folding chair and knock him out.
79
I'll give this a whirl, Mr/s Unbalanced:
To purchase and maintain a firearm, a citizen must be a member of a State or Local militia. This militia is responsible for regularly measuring the abilities and munitions of its members, and all those in its members' households, to ensure adherence to the needs of the community providing accreditation. Those members of the public who are not members of the militia but are citizens of the accrediting community may also have oversight and/or be elected to ensure community standards are met and enforced.
The ultimate penalty for infraction of the procedures or standards of the militia or its governing community would be expulsion from the militia, at which point a citizen would be required to obtain membership in another community militia, with their munitions held in trust by their former militia until their new membership is verified. This would be the same process for purchasing munitions -- delivery would be to the militia, which would ensure the arms met their standards and were appropriately registered by the militia before being released to the member.
Any infraction of local, state, or federal law which involves the munitions of any member of the militia results in civil (and expressly not criminal) liability of the militia's membership as a whole. Such sanctions may include: moratoriums on new members, limitations on the number of weapons registered by the militia, and/or financial liability by the militia and its membership as a whole to the civil damages resulting from the infraction; the extent of which is determined by the courts as part of the resulting civil proceedings from the infraction.
In other words, the local communities of gun owners are immediately responsible for the actions of one another.
Would this have prevented Sandy Hook? Maybe, maybe not. I would like to think it would, however; that the community in which Mrs Lanza participated as a militia member would have been more readily aware of the dangers presented by her son and, wary of the liability he presented to the community as a whole, took steps to redress their concerns before he acquired access to his mother's weapons.
Thoughts?
More...
To purchase and maintain a firearm, a citizen must be a member of a State or Local militia. This militia is responsible for regularly measuring the abilities and munitions of its members, and all those in its members' households, to ensure adherence to the needs of the community providing accreditation. Those members of the public who are not members of the militia but are citizens of the accrediting community may also have oversight and/or be elected to ensure community standards are met and enforced.
The ultimate penalty for infraction of the procedures or standards of the militia or its governing community would be expulsion from the militia, at which point a citizen would be required to obtain membership in another community militia, with their munitions held in trust by their former militia until their new membership is verified. This would be the same process for purchasing munitions -- delivery would be to the militia, which would ensure the arms met their standards and were appropriately registered by the militia before being released to the member.
Any infraction of local, state, or federal law which involves the munitions of any member of the militia results in civil (and expressly not criminal) liability of the militia's membership as a whole. Such sanctions may include: moratoriums on new members, limitations on the number of weapons registered by the militia, and/or financial liability by the militia and its membership as a whole to the civil damages resulting from the infraction; the extent of which is determined by the courts as part of the resulting civil proceedings from the infraction.
In other words, the local communities of gun owners are immediately responsible for the actions of one another.
Would this have prevented Sandy Hook? Maybe, maybe not. I would like to think it would, however; that the community in which Mrs Lanza participated as a militia member would have been more readily aware of the dangers presented by her son and, wary of the liability he presented to the community as a whole, took steps to redress their concerns before he acquired access to his mother's weapons.
Thoughts?
80
When assessing the role of firearms in a society's murder rate, the most germane question is "What percentage of the total homicides in that society were committed by firearms?" A low conflict, well ordered society may have few murders per year, and if few of those are committed by a firearm, it is a safe bet that guns are well regulated, but not necessarily scarce (Canada would be a good example of a country with a shitload of regulated guns, but a relatively low rate of homicide (1/4th that of the US) and of firearm homicides-34%). Where murder is uncommon but because guns are pervasive and less well regulated that percentage will be high (58% for the Swiss). Similarly, we can have a society with a lot of conflict, but where guns are scarce (Latvia, for example had a murder rate double that of the US in 2000, but only 13% by firearm as compared to our 65%). We are a moderate conflict society with poorly regulated firearms. I think we can do better.
81
@80
Well at least I managed to get one thing through your head.
You SEEM to be admitting that guns do not equate to gun violence.
Well at least I managed to get one thing through your head.
You SEEM to be admitting that guns do not equate to gun violence.
82
@81- I have never asserted that guns equate to gun violence. I have equated poorly regulated guns to gun violence. I am a gun owner. I take great pride in my (fair to middling) marksmanship, and maintain my Mossberg 800A .308 meticulously. I also store it disassembled, and separate from my ammunition, and children are not even allowed in the room it is stored.
Until we have strong regulation or a murder rate so low that it doesn't really matter, you are on the wrong side of the argument. As I said, we are a moderate conflict society that resolves conflicts through gun violence. We are probably not a society that can stomach what friends from other parts refer to as 'Panga Diplomacy'.
Until we have strong regulation or a murder rate so low that it doesn't really matter, you are on the wrong side of the argument. As I said, we are a moderate conflict society that resolves conflicts through gun violence. We are probably not a society that can stomach what friends from other parts refer to as 'Panga Diplomacy'.
83
@82
So it seems that you are now saying that guns are NOT the problem because the problem is a "moderate conflict society".
But you're still pushing to restrict the thing that you are claiming is NOT the problem.
"Until we have strong regulation or a murder rate so low that it doesn't really matter, you are on the wrong side of the argument."
No. That was the point I have been making over and over and over and over again.
Either a 100% ban on all guns
or
You are okay with a certain number of shootings per year (or children killed per year).
The point at which "it doesn't really matter" how many children are killed is a PERSONAL opinion.
Do you understand that now?
So it seems that you are now saying that guns are NOT the problem because the problem is a "moderate conflict society".
But you're still pushing to restrict the thing that you are claiming is NOT the problem.
"Until we have strong regulation or a murder rate so low that it doesn't really matter, you are on the wrong side of the argument."
No. That was the point I have been making over and over and over and over again.
Either a 100% ban on all guns
or
You are okay with a certain number of shootings per year (or children killed per year).
The point at which "it doesn't really matter" how many children are killed is a PERSONAL opinion.
Do you understand that now?
86
@85 -- You Mean DC vs Heller, which (in part) upheld US vs Miller? That's equivocal though, no?
Besides, the purpose here I thought was to propose legislative amendments that might prevent incidents like Sandy Hook.
Besides, the purpose here I thought was to propose legislative amendments that might prevent incidents like Sandy Hook.
87
@86
No.
The purpose was to illustrate that you are either pushing to repeal the 2nd Amendment and then the acceptance of an Amendment restricting gun ownership on a national scale
or
You are okay with a certain number of gun-related shootings/death per year. What that specific number of gun-deaths/shootings versus gun-laws is would a matter of personal opinion.
As I had just stated in #83 in this thread.
As I have stated, again.
As should have been apparent if you had been able to follow my original request (show how it would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting).
But I'm going to bet that I will have to repeat it again, in this thread.
No.
The purpose was to illustrate that you are either pushing to repeal the 2nd Amendment and then the acceptance of an Amendment restricting gun ownership on a national scale
or
You are okay with a certain number of gun-related shootings/death per year. What that specific number of gun-deaths/shootings versus gun-laws is would a matter of personal opinion.
As I had just stated in #83 in this thread.
As I have stated, again.
As should have been apparent if you had been able to follow my original request (show how it would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting).
But I'm going to bet that I will have to repeat it again, in this thread.
88
@87 -- Oh, I see now. I'd read your original post as "I'm still waiting for any of the pro-gun-control people to put forward specific suggestions for a law or laws that would have prevented the shooting at Sandy Hook" and then I offered a suggestion for a law that I believe would have prevented the shooting at Sandy Hook. My bad.
But yes -- Until legislation arrives that meet the tests put forth in US v Miller, and thus allow the government to regulate weapons regardless of whether they are "in common use at the time," then the only options being presented are the two you outline: Either the 2nd Amendment is repealed or otherwise amended within in the Constitution, or we the people will have to be Ok with a level of violence that the current prolific rate of gun possession engenders.
But yes -- Until legislation arrives that meet the tests put forth in US v Miller, and thus allow the government to regulate weapons regardless of whether they are "in common use at the time," then the only options being presented are the two you outline: Either the 2nd Amendment is repealed or otherwise amended within in the Constitution, or we the people will have to be Ok with a level of violence that the current prolific rate of gun possession engenders.
89
@88
You are getting closer but you are still missing the point.
"... or we the people will have to be Ok with a level of violence that the current prolific rate of gun possession engenders."
No.
"We the people" will NOT be "Ok with a level of violence".
As I have stated before, whether any one person is "okay" with X deaths or not is a PERSONAL OPINION.
So the "discussion" will revolve in EXACTLY the same fashion as it is revolving right now.
Because it is nothing more than different people claiming that their personal opinion is a fact instead of an opinion and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong/nut/unreasonable/fascist.
You are getting closer but you are still missing the point.
"... or we the people will have to be Ok with a level of violence that the current prolific rate of gun possession engenders."
No.
"We the people" will NOT be "Ok with a level of violence".
As I have stated before, whether any one person is "okay" with X deaths or not is a PERSONAL OPINION.
So the "discussion" will revolve in EXACTLY the same fashion as it is revolving right now.
Because it is nothing more than different people claiming that their personal opinion is a fact instead of an opinion and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong/nut/unreasonable/fascist.
90
@89 No, I'm pretty sure that that's your argument: If you're only given a choice between X or Y, and you refuse X, then you are implicitly accepting Y.
A: "You can have Steak or Pasta."
B: "Oh, I'm a vegetarian; I don't eat steak."
A: "Pasta it is then!"
A: "We can either take out your tonsils, or you can keep getting tonsillitis."
B: "I don't want to lose my tonsils!"
A: "Tonsillitis it is then!"
A: "We can either regulate firearms or keep having people killed with firearms."
B: "The 2nd Amendment prevents you from regulating firearms!"
A: "Dead kids it is then!"
If you're unwilling to re-frame your argument, those are the only options you're offering.
Now if you were to ask "How much regulation would you be willing to endure to reduce the number of dead kids by 50%? By 25%? By only 5%?" If you were to frame your argument in that manner you'd get an actionable answer.
Much of the current debate seems to be in this vein -- "Let's do this and hope we can reduce the fatality rate by at least some fraction of a percent." To which the reply seems to be, ad nausem "The 2nd Amendment prevents you from regulating firearms!" Or, more facetiously, "But that's not an absolute panacea, so it's not even worth trying until you tell me exactly how many dead kids is OK, and then we'll see."
And being so cajoled in to answering such "personal opinion" questions, the answer is invariably "less than we have now." And yes, acting on "less than this" lwill ikely lead to an "X+1," "X+2" legislative effect as you mention in other threads. But that effect is not as infinite as you let on.
BAC for drunk driving has gone down from .15 in the 60s to about half that now. People still die from drunk drivers, and we still let people with cars go to a bar and drink. We don't bring back Prohibition because we know Prohibition doesn't work. Instead, we punish offenders whether they kill people or not. We set differing levels of 'acceptable' based on circumstance. In a word, we regulate -- to the maximum benefit of society within a consensus of forbearance by the people.
So yes -- if you're offering no option other than X or Y, how much of Y is "OK" doesn't matter. We the people will just have to be OK with however many guns kill however many people they do, since we're stymied from restricting which people have guns.
More...
A: "You can have Steak or Pasta."
B: "Oh, I'm a vegetarian; I don't eat steak."
A: "Pasta it is then!"
A: "We can either take out your tonsils, or you can keep getting tonsillitis."
B: "I don't want to lose my tonsils!"
A: "Tonsillitis it is then!"
A: "We can either regulate firearms or keep having people killed with firearms."
B: "The 2nd Amendment prevents you from regulating firearms!"
A: "Dead kids it is then!"
If you're unwilling to re-frame your argument, those are the only options you're offering.
Now if you were to ask "How much regulation would you be willing to endure to reduce the number of dead kids by 50%? By 25%? By only 5%?" If you were to frame your argument in that manner you'd get an actionable answer.
Much of the current debate seems to be in this vein -- "Let's do this and hope we can reduce the fatality rate by at least some fraction of a percent." To which the reply seems to be, ad nausem "The 2nd Amendment prevents you from regulating firearms!" Or, more facetiously, "But that's not an absolute panacea, so it's not even worth trying until you tell me exactly how many dead kids is OK, and then we'll see."
And being so cajoled in to answering such "personal opinion" questions, the answer is invariably "less than we have now." And yes, acting on "less than this" lwill ikely lead to an "X+1," "X+2" legislative effect as you mention in other threads. But that effect is not as infinite as you let on.
BAC for drunk driving has gone down from .15 in the 60s to about half that now. People still die from drunk drivers, and we still let people with cars go to a bar and drink. We don't bring back Prohibition because we know Prohibition doesn't work. Instead, we punish offenders whether they kill people or not. We set differing levels of 'acceptable' based on circumstance. In a word, we regulate -- to the maximum benefit of society within a consensus of forbearance by the people.
So yes -- if you're offering no option other than X or Y, how much of Y is "OK" doesn't matter. We the people will just have to be OK with however many guns kill however many people they do, since we're stymied from restricting which people have guns.
91
@90
What was that I posted about how the "discussion" will revolve in EXACTLY the same fashion as it is revolving right now.
Because it is nothing more than different people claiming that their personal opinion is a fact instead of an opinion and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong/nut/unreasonable/fascist.
"The 2nd Amendment prevents you from regulating firearms!"
Except that the SCOTUS has ruled that regulations are allowed under the 2nd Amendment so now you're just beating on a straw man in an attempt to claim that your opinion is more than just your opinion.
Exactly as I said you would.
You are either pushing to repeal the 2nd Amendment and then the acceptance of an Amendment restricting gun ownership on a national scale
or
You are okay with a certain number of gun-related shootings/death per year. What that specific number of gun-deaths/shootings versus gun-laws is would a matter of personal opinion.
So the "discussion" will revolve in EXACTLY the same fashion as it is revolving right now.
Because it is nothing more than different people claiming that their personal opinion is a fact instead of an opinion and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong/nut/unreasonable/fascist. Even if it takes beating on a straw man to accomplish that.
What was that I posted about how the "discussion" will revolve in EXACTLY the same fashion as it is revolving right now.
Because it is nothing more than different people claiming that their personal opinion is a fact instead of an opinion and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong/nut/unreasonable/fascist.
"The 2nd Amendment prevents you from regulating firearms!"
Except that the SCOTUS has ruled that regulations are allowed under the 2nd Amendment so now you're just beating on a straw man in an attempt to claim that your opinion is more than just your opinion.
Exactly as I said you would.
You are either pushing to repeal the 2nd Amendment and then the acceptance of an Amendment restricting gun ownership on a national scale
or
You are okay with a certain number of gun-related shootings/death per year. What that specific number of gun-deaths/shootings versus gun-laws is would a matter of personal opinion.
So the "discussion" will revolve in EXACTLY the same fashion as it is revolving right now.
Because it is nothing more than different people claiming that their personal opinion is a fact instead of an opinion and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong/nut/unreasonable/fascist. Even if it takes beating on a straw man to accomplish that.
92
@91 Dude, you can't have it both ways -- US v Miller (and CD v Heller) directly contradicts your statement "the SCOTUS has ruled that regulations are allowed under the 2nd Amendment." Insomuch as if there are regulations, they're limited in scope to the weapons themselves, rather than to individuals.
From the Syllabus of DC v Heller (__Emphasis mine__)
1. ...United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather __limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes__. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that __the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”__ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
3. __The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.__
From the Syllabus of DC v Heller (__Emphasis mine__)
1. ...United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather __limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes__. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that __the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”__ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
3. __The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.__
93
@92
"Insomuch as if there are regulations, they're limited in scope to the weapons themselves, rather than to individuals."
And you are still beating straw men.
Do the research on whether convicted felons are allowed to own gun (what types and under what circumstances).
You are either pushing to repeal the 2nd Amendment and then the acceptance of an Amendment restricting gun ownership on a national scale
or
You are okay with a certain number of gun-related shootings/death per year. What that specific number of gun-deaths/shootings versus gun-laws is would a matter of personal opinion.
So the "discussion" will revolve in EXACTLY the same fashion as it is revolving right now.
Because it is nothing more than different people claiming that their personal opinion is a fact instead of an opinion and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong/nut/unreasonable/fascist. Even if it takes beating on a straw man to accomplish that.
"Insomuch as if there are regulations, they're limited in scope to the weapons themselves, rather than to individuals."
And you are still beating straw men.
Do the research on whether convicted felons are allowed to own gun (what types and under what circumstances).
You are either pushing to repeal the 2nd Amendment and then the acceptance of an Amendment restricting gun ownership on a national scale
or
You are okay with a certain number of gun-related shootings/death per year. What that specific number of gun-deaths/shootings versus gun-laws is would a matter of personal opinion.
So the "discussion" will revolve in EXACTLY the same fashion as it is revolving right now.
Because it is nothing more than different people claiming that their personal opinion is a fact instead of an opinion and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong/nut/unreasonable/fascist. Even if it takes beating on a straw man to accomplish that.
94
@93 Apparently you didn't actually read the portion of DC v Heller that I included to specifically address this point. From @92:
"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"
Regardless, which is it -- either Miller is equivocal, which brings us back to my suggestion that a requirement for gun ownership to be contingent upon membership in a militia; or it is established (as held in DC v Heller) in which case only weapons and not "the people*" which can be regulated, and then only to limit to the people those weapons that are not "in common use."
*Note, it is the use of "the people" to imply the enfranchised, which limits felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms, as opposed to "persons" which is the superset including felons, the mentally ill, minors, and other citizens.
"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"
Regardless, which is it -- either Miller is equivocal, which brings us back to my suggestion that a requirement for gun ownership to be contingent upon membership in a militia; or it is established (as held in DC v Heller) in which case only weapons and not "the people*" which can be regulated, and then only to limit to the people those weapons that are not "in common use."
*Note, it is the use of "the people" to imply the enfranchised, which limits felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms, as opposed to "persons" which is the superset including felons, the mentally ill, minors, and other citizens.
95
I'm afraid all hope is lost here. I'm not really sure where this argument goes from this point? Children who live in a world of absolutes and assurances really have no place in a grown up discussion of rate reduction and political compromise. I think we adults can agree there is likely enough political will at the moment to make some changes to things like gunshow loopholes, large detachable magazines and perhaps mandated safety locks in some circumstances. Those things will likely shave a few points off the gun death rate, and a few more mothers will get to tuck their kids in at night. It won't solve our societal issues, but it might be a positive step, and perhaps a step that the NRA leadership will be forced to choke down, demonstrating to the vast majority of gun owners that it has zero impact on their legitimate uses for firearms, nor their ability to acquire them (because as adults we learned about delayed gratification and can wait a day, 3 days, a week, for our fancy new gun).
I'm still waiting for a MH service proposal. I do not imagine it will be forthcoming.
I'm still waiting for a MH service proposal. I do not imagine it will be forthcoming.
96
@94
"... which brings us back to my suggestion that a requirement for gun ownership to be contingent upon membership in a militia ..."
If you discard sex, then she was a member of the militia as used at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment.
Therefore, you failed in showing how that would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting.
Do the research.
But the point of that exercise was to illustrate how nothing short of a 100% ban would have stopped it.
So you are either pushing to repeal the 2nd Amendment and then the acceptance of an Amendment restricting gun ownership on a national scale
or
You are okay with a certain number of gun-related shootings/death per year. What that specific number of gun-deaths/shootings versus gun-laws is would a matter of personal opinion.
"... which brings us back to my suggestion that a requirement for gun ownership to be contingent upon membership in a militia ..."
If you discard sex, then she was a member of the militia as used at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment.
Therefore, you failed in showing how that would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting.
Do the research.
But the point of that exercise was to illustrate how nothing short of a 100% ban would have stopped it.
So you are either pushing to repeal the 2nd Amendment and then the acceptance of an Amendment restricting gun ownership on a national scale
or
You are okay with a certain number of gun-related shootings/death per year. What that specific number of gun-deaths/shootings versus gun-laws is would a matter of personal opinion.
97
@96
Sheesh. Schooled again, and your brain locks up, you hit the reset button, and goes back to square one.
Maybe the problem is trying to interpret American legal facts through the lens of your more familiar Russian legal system. Law works differently here than in your country, you know.
Sheesh. Schooled again, and your brain locks up, you hit the reset button, and goes back to square one.
Maybe the problem is trying to interpret American legal facts through the lens of your more familiar Russian legal system. Law works differently here than in your country, you know.
98
I say you hike your self back to your corrupt windy murder capitol, your kind is not welcome here in Free Cascadia.
How many Stranger staffers are actully from here?
Most of them seem to be Least Coast transplants with no respect for Western sensabilities.
How many Stranger staffers are actully from here?
Most of them seem to be Least Coast transplants with no respect for Western sensabilities.
99
@ 96 Sounds to me then the militia needs to be more well regulated, and the suggestions I put forth earlier stand. In summary of @79:
To purchase and maintain a firearm a citizen must be a member of a State or Local militia, which militia is responsible for the abilities and munitions of its members and their households. Any infraction of local, state, or federal law which involves members' munitions results in civil liability of the militia as a whole. As such, the militia in which Mrs Lanza participated would have a vested interest in the dangers presented by her son and, wary of the liability exposure of the community as a whole, would ensure the redress their concerns before he acquired access to the militia member's weapons.
So there you have it -- not even close to 100% repeal of the 2nd Amendment, yet significantly high probability that it would have prevented Sandy Hook. All it needs to be practical is finding the correct language to survive a test against US v Miller which, I will grant, is not guaranteed.
To purchase and maintain a firearm a citizen must be a member of a State or Local militia, which militia is responsible for the abilities and munitions of its members and their households. Any infraction of local, state, or federal law which involves members' munitions results in civil liability of the militia as a whole. As such, the militia in which Mrs Lanza participated would have a vested interest in the dangers presented by her son and, wary of the liability exposure of the community as a whole, would ensure the redress their concerns before he acquired access to the militia member's weapons.
So there you have it -- not even close to 100% repeal of the 2nd Amendment, yet significantly high probability that it would have prevented Sandy Hook. All it needs to be practical is finding the correct language to survive a test against US v Miller which, I will grant, is not guaranteed.
100
@99
"Sounds to me then the militia needs to be more well regulated, and the suggestions I put forth earlier stand."
That would be the fallacy of equivocation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocatio…
You are not using the phrase "well regulated" as it was used when the 2nd Amendment was written.
You are not using the word "militia" as it was used when the 2nd Amendment was written.
Not to mention that the mass punishment you propose has already been decided by the SCOTUS in favor of the individual's right to own guns.
Therefore, in order for your proposal to be implemented, the 2nd Amendment would have to be revoked in order to invalidate the existing decisions of the SCOTUS.
"All it needs to be practical is finding the correct language to survive a test against US v Miller which, I will grant, is not guaranteed."
So with one breath you claim that you have provided the answer and in the next breath you admit that your "answer" would not stand up to previous SCOTUS decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment.
As I have said multiple times:
Either a 100% ban on all guns requiring the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
or
You are okay with a certain number of shootings per year (or children killed per year).
"Sounds to me then the militia needs to be more well regulated, and the suggestions I put forth earlier stand."
That would be the fallacy of equivocation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocatio…
You are not using the phrase "well regulated" as it was used when the 2nd Amendment was written.
You are not using the word "militia" as it was used when the 2nd Amendment was written.
Not to mention that the mass punishment you propose has already been decided by the SCOTUS in favor of the individual's right to own guns.
Therefore, in order for your proposal to be implemented, the 2nd Amendment would have to be revoked in order to invalidate the existing decisions of the SCOTUS.
"All it needs to be practical is finding the correct language to survive a test against US v Miller which, I will grant, is not guaranteed."
So with one breath you claim that you have provided the answer and in the next breath you admit that your "answer" would not stand up to previous SCOTUS decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment.
As I have said multiple times:
Either a 100% ban on all guns requiring the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
or
You are okay with a certain number of shootings per year (or children killed per year).
101
@100 -- Come, now. You're arguing semantics instead of the question at hand: Is it feasible to restrict access to firearms without a full repeal of the 2nd Amendment
If US v Miller is equivocal, then there is language available that would provide for collective responsibility, which allows a positive response: Future Sandy Hook type incidents could be avoided if laws regarding collective responsibility among gun owners were established.
If you're instead saying that US v Miller is established -- which you imply with "has already been decided by the SCOTUS in favor of the individual's right to own guns" but don't cite your case law so I can only assume you're referring to Miller and/or Heller -- then the answer is no, and my previous statement stands: We the people will have to be Ok with a level of violence that the current prolific rate of gun possession engenders.
But if you want to play semantics with language, then despite being slightly tongue-in-cheek, my usage of "well regulated" was correct. Check the usage in The Federalist Papers, No. 29, which reads in part "A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice...to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle [citizens under arms] to the character of a well regulated militia."
As for "militia," it's definition is less important in this discussion than its agency, which is that it is a body whose authority is always subject to governmental control. The current definition in 10 USC ss 311 doesn't really help your argument though, and if you're for the original usage of 'militia' I'd counter you also need to use the original (antiquated) definition of 'the people.'
If US v Miller is equivocal, then there is language available that would provide for collective responsibility, which allows a positive response: Future Sandy Hook type incidents could be avoided if laws regarding collective responsibility among gun owners were established.
If you're instead saying that US v Miller is established -- which you imply with "has already been decided by the SCOTUS in favor of the individual's right to own guns" but don't cite your case law so I can only assume you're referring to Miller and/or Heller -- then the answer is no, and my previous statement stands: We the people will have to be Ok with a level of violence that the current prolific rate of gun possession engenders.
But if you want to play semantics with language, then despite being slightly tongue-in-cheek, my usage of "well regulated" was correct. Check the usage in The Federalist Papers, No. 29, which reads in part "A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice...to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle [citizens under arms] to the character of a well regulated militia."
As for "militia," it's definition is less important in this discussion than its agency, which is that it is a body whose authority is always subject to governmental control. The current definition in 10 USC ss 311 doesn't really help your argument though, and if you're for the original usage of 'militia' I'd counter you also need to use the original (antiquated) definition of 'the people.'
102
@101
"You're arguing semantics instead of the question at hand: Is it feasible to restrict access to firearms without a full repeal of the 2nd Amendment"
No.
I'm pointing out the exact words that have already been defined and upon which definition the SCOTUS has decided past cases.
"If US v Miller is equivocal, then there is language available that would provide for collective responsibility, ..."
No. You are conflating two completely different items.
Again:
Either a 100% ban on all guns requiring the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
or
You are okay with a certain number of shootings per year (or children killed per year).
"You're arguing semantics instead of the question at hand: Is it feasible to restrict access to firearms without a full repeal of the 2nd Amendment"
No.
I'm pointing out the exact words that have already been defined and upon which definition the SCOTUS has decided past cases.
"If US v Miller is equivocal, then there is language available that would provide for collective responsibility, ..."
No. You are conflating two completely different items.
Again:
Either a 100% ban on all guns requiring the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
or
You are okay with a certain number of shootings per year (or children killed per year).
103
@101 -- Nope, don't think so.
US v Miller is the seminal SCOTUS case is where this language is defined, and it is this language that Heller refers to an relies on:
"""The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."""
Miller then fully addresses itself to the notion of 'common use at the time,' which holding has tested subsequent federal restrictions on gun ownership.
The question then is whether Miller is equivocal regarding collective responsibility, and if so under what circumstances. If US v Cruikshank is read plainly, the National government may not impose collective responsibility, but that individual States may, which reading was upheld in Presser v Illinois, and Miller v Texas.
Which brings us back to Heller, and whether it upholds Miller unequivocally.
Since Heller's majority opinion openly cites that it is not in conflict with Presser or Cruikshank, and the dissent openly states "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a 'collective right' or an 'individual right'" it is reasonable to envision state laws which would apply some collective responsibility regarding gun ownership which would not be in violation with the Constitution or subsequent legal precedent.
If there's some other case law you're relying on please feel free to cite it.
More...
US v Miller is the seminal SCOTUS case is where this language is defined, and it is this language that Heller refers to an relies on:
"""The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."""
Miller then fully addresses itself to the notion of 'common use at the time,' which holding has tested subsequent federal restrictions on gun ownership.
The question then is whether Miller is equivocal regarding collective responsibility, and if so under what circumstances. If US v Cruikshank is read plainly, the National government may not impose collective responsibility, but that individual States may, which reading was upheld in Presser v Illinois, and Miller v Texas.
Which brings us back to Heller, and whether it upholds Miller unequivocally.
Since Heller's majority opinion openly cites that it is not in conflict with Presser or Cruikshank, and the dissent openly states "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a 'collective right' or an 'individual right'" it is reasonable to envision state laws which would apply some collective responsibility regarding gun ownership which would not be in violation with the Constitution or subsequent legal precedent.
If there's some other case law you're relying on please feel free to cite it.
104
@103
Why don't you just link to the article that you're copy-and-pasting from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amen…
"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
Which is exactly what I said.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
If you discard sex, then she was a member of the militia as used at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment.
"If US v Cruikshank is read plainly, ..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat…
"However, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 clearly suggested that Cruikshank and the chain of cases flowing from it would no longer be considered good law as a result of the radically changed view of the Fourteenth Amendment when that issue eventually comes before the courts:"
Again, again, again:
Either a 100% ban on all guns requiring the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
or
You are okay with a certain number of shootings per year (or children killed per year).
Why don't you just link to the article that you're copy-and-pasting from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amen…
"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
Which is exactly what I said.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
If you discard sex, then she was a member of the militia as used at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment.
"If US v Cruikshank is read plainly, ..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat…
"However, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 clearly suggested that Cruikshank and the chain of cases flowing from it would no longer be considered good law as a result of the radically changed view of the Fourteenth Amendment when that issue eventually comes before the courts:"
Again, again, again:
Either a 100% ban on all guns requiring the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
or
You are okay with a certain number of shootings per year (or children killed per year).
105
@104: I was mostly using guncite.com -- it's a much better resource for Second Amendment references.
Regardless, you agree Miller defines the primary scope of terms, and Heller reifies the limitations of the National government.
If Miller is read as equivocal regarding the individual State's authority to regulate arms, there is at least a third option in your formula that could reasonably be expected to prevent incidents like Sandy Hook from happening, as I've stated above.
And yes, failure to act on this third option means we the people will have to be Ok with the level of violence that the current prolific rate of gun possession engenders.
I'm off for the weekend, so you all have fun now without me.
Regardless, you agree Miller defines the primary scope of terms, and Heller reifies the limitations of the National government.
If Miller is read as equivocal regarding the individual State's authority to regulate arms, there is at least a third option in your formula that could reasonably be expected to prevent incidents like Sandy Hook from happening, as I've stated above.
And yes, failure to act on this third option means we the people will have to be Ok with the level of violence that the current prolific rate of gun possession engenders.
I'm off for the weekend, so you all have fun now without me.
106
@105
"... it's a much better resource for Second Amendment references."
No.
What you are doing is looking for articles that you believe support what you claim because you do not understand the terminology used.
Which is why you cited Cruikshank when it is not applicable nor mostly even regarded as relevant by the SCOTUS today.
"If Miller is read as equivocal ..."
Again, you are conflating two unrelated items.
And again, again, again, again:
Either a 100% ban on all guns requiring the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
or
You are okay with a certain number of shootings per year (or children killed per year).
"... it's a much better resource for Second Amendment references."
No.
What you are doing is looking for articles that you believe support what you claim because you do not understand the terminology used.
Which is why you cited Cruikshank when it is not applicable nor mostly even regarded as relevant by the SCOTUS today.
"If Miller is read as equivocal ..."
Again, you are conflating two unrelated items.
And again, again, again, again:
Either a 100% ban on all guns requiring the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
or
You are okay with a certain number of shootings per year (or children killed per year).
107
Since you legal beagles seem to be enjoying tossing cases about, I personally think MacDonald v. Chicago is much more enlightening. Itsthe first case where the Supremes recognized an individual right to own a gun, and also the first case that recognizes that the "and bear" part of "keep and bear arms" is just as important as the other verbiage. Go read it.
108
I'm not a gun nut, I'd just much rather take my logic lessons from somebody who is actually working with logic and not pure emotion.
109
A more logical conversation at this juncture would be about health care, specifically mental health care, and not hand-wringing over whether or not somebody has a gun or two in their home.
110
So, I keep seeing references to how gun control (or rather gun banning) has worked out great in the UK. However, if you look at the actual data (published by the UK Home Office):
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication…
Page 2 - relevant file is 'Historical crime data'
You'll notice that from 1980 to 1997, the per capita homicide rate was an average of 11.2. Handguns were banned in 1997. From 1997 to 2002, per capita homicide INCREASED to a maximum of 17.9 in 2002. (Mostly due, I believe, to Shipman) it has trended downward since then, averaging 12.9 from 2003-2011 with 11.5 in 2011.
But wait you say! Firearms are responsible for a miniscule number of deaths (.07 per 100k) per capita! How is that possible?? Amazingly, lacking firearms, people kill each other with sharp and blunt instruments! Apparently, a lack of firearms does not deter people from killing each other! Additionally, since the 1997 ban on handguns, at-home burglaries (burglaries from occupied locations) have increased significantly. A 'gun nut' would point at that and say, "See? Guns deter criminals." A 'gun control nut' would probably say, "Things are different in the UK."
So while yes, the handgun ban did, in fact, reduce the number of homicides by firearm, it did nothing at all to reduce the overall number of homicides and if you were a 'gun nut' as opposed to a 'gun control nut', you might say that the lack of deterrence of an armed populace caused the overall number of homicides to rise!
So, once again, if you want to reduce gun violence, you need to address the root causes of the majority of gun violence in the United States - gangs, drugs and poverty, which in many respects are intertwined. If you want to reduce mass killings you need to take a long hard look at mental health. I realize that all of those things are much much much harder than another 'assault weapons' ban, which will in fact, just be part of that slippery slope to the erosion of the second amendment because it will not have any effect on the majority of firearms crime.
More...
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication…
Page 2 - relevant file is 'Historical crime data'
You'll notice that from 1980 to 1997, the per capita homicide rate was an average of 11.2. Handguns were banned in 1997. From 1997 to 2002, per capita homicide INCREASED to a maximum of 17.9 in 2002. (Mostly due, I believe, to Shipman) it has trended downward since then, averaging 12.9 from 2003-2011 with 11.5 in 2011.
But wait you say! Firearms are responsible for a miniscule number of deaths (.07 per 100k) per capita! How is that possible?? Amazingly, lacking firearms, people kill each other with sharp and blunt instruments! Apparently, a lack of firearms does not deter people from killing each other! Additionally, since the 1997 ban on handguns, at-home burglaries (burglaries from occupied locations) have increased significantly. A 'gun nut' would point at that and say, "See? Guns deter criminals." A 'gun control nut' would probably say, "Things are different in the UK."
So while yes, the handgun ban did, in fact, reduce the number of homicides by firearm, it did nothing at all to reduce the overall number of homicides and if you were a 'gun nut' as opposed to a 'gun control nut', you might say that the lack of deterrence of an armed populace caused the overall number of homicides to rise!
So, once again, if you want to reduce gun violence, you need to address the root causes of the majority of gun violence in the United States - gangs, drugs and poverty, which in many respects are intertwined. If you want to reduce mass killings you need to take a long hard look at mental health. I realize that all of those things are much much much harder than another 'assault weapons' ban, which will in fact, just be part of that slippery slope to the erosion of the second amendment because it will not have any effect on the majority of firearms crime.
111
(Please note - the per capita homicides are listed as per million. So an average of 11.2 homicides per million before the handgun ban, 11.5 as of 2011, post handgun ban). I believe these figures are normally listed as per 100k - I used the data as presented by the UK Home Office. Also interesting reading here:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication…
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication…
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Not A Prude... And Not Just Not That... by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (111) RSS