***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[General Malaise]

Haven't read all of these pages and just spitballing here...

No way you are going to ban guns. Just not going to happen in a place like Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana. Heck in Idaho we just passed a Constitutional Amendment giving us the freedom "now and forever" to hunt...and it passed by 75% of the vote. Not going to get rid of guns here.

And in the end guns really don't kill people. Ammunition is what kills people.

So instead of trying to change gun laws - which isn't going to happen. Why not work to make the possession of ammo illegal except in certain circumstances. For example: Limit sales and possession of ammo to regulated firearm ranges- that way everyone is still allowed to participate in their "hobby", site in their gun for hunting etc. You have to buy your ammo at the range and use it there. For hunting purposes sales of limited ammo is provided by State Fish & Game for every license purchased. For example: purchase a deer license and receive 5 rounds of .243 rifle ammo...can't take a deer with less than 5 rounds...buy another license.

Something along these lines seems more logical and practical than banning guns.

Interesting and certainly a better mor welcomed response then just ban them all.

Who exactly is advocating for this????

Otis, ChopMeat, shader, General Malaise. That's just off the top of my head.

Well that's a lie.

I would ban them all. But that's extreme and I don't expect that sort of sentiment would ever gain any traction. If I want to go get cocaine, I can go do it despite the fact that it is illegal. Guns would be no different. But why not at least talk about doing something like what Australia has done? That makes sense to me. Not sure if it will help curtail the senseless shootings we'v seen far too recently here, but maybe it's a start? You want a hunting rifle, okay. You want a hand gun, alright. But why on earth does somebody need to own a weapon like the one used in the recent shootings? What good reason is there to have that in your possession?

 

[RCon]

Why should someone be limited to protecting themselves in their home, but not in public?

Home is always treated differently. Always has been.

Am I to stand by idly while getting robbed at gunpoint, or allow my wife and children to be harmed by someone with no way to defend my family?

Take a martial arts class.But seriously, you have more rights in your own home. That's not just gun rights. That's all sorts of rights. We tend to treat someone's home as their own place under their control. That doesn't hold true for just being out on the sidewalk. And part of it is that once you're out on the sidewalk, you're now encountering other people's rights to be out there that are equal to your own.

That does answer the question "why do I have more rights in my home". It doesn't answer the question "why shouldn't I have the right to self defense outside my home".

 

[jonessed]

I definitely started off from the position of banning all guns. I remain confused why people want guns - I've yet to hear a compelling reason for them.

But with that said, I'm convinced that there's a portion of the population that's very vocal. And politicians are scared of losing their contributions. So I've gone down the road asking what can be done with guns. And no gun nut is willing to be specific on what an assault weapons ban would entail.

ChopMeat's proposed ban:

- All automatic weapons

- All semi-automatic weapons. Not just specific models. No exceptions for pistol grips. ALL.

- No private ownership of the above.

- Reduction in magazine size.

Does anything less than the above have any impact on gun violence???

The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are via handguns in high density urban areas.Not that it matters. Even what you are suggesting with the ban on semi-automatic weapons would never make it through Congress much less through the courts.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

OK, here's another thing about the Australia comparison -- the slate article makes a big deal about the fact that Australia hasn't had a mass murder since 1996. But the U.S. population is about 15 times as large as the Australian population. So even if all else were equal, we should assume that the United States would have 15 times as many mass murders as Australia. If we go one year without a mass murder, that's roughly equivalent to the current streak by the Aussies.

 

[RCon]

Instead, the REAL debate centers around 3 very specific proposals:1. Revive the assault weapons ban.2. Limit the capacity of magazines to 10 bullets.3. Remove the private sales "gun show" loophole.Personally I lean against #1, and am very much in favor of #2 and #3. How about you? If you oppose these ideas, then give us reasons why. But stop acting like you're the victim here and that we want to "punish" you.

1. I'm against the ban as it was written previously. I didn't find that one to contain very productive language, but instead seemed to ban certain types of guns simply based on how scary they looked. I could probably be persuaded to support a ban on certain guns, but I'd want the criteria to make more sense than "ooh, scary".2. I'm a maybe on this. I'd want to hear the actual arguments against such a ban first.3. I'm a maybe on this one too, depending on the actual language and implementation of the bill.

 

[Glass Joe]

I definitely started off from the position of banning all guns. I remain confused why people want guns - I've yet to hear a compelling reason for them.

But with that said, I'm convinced that there's a portion of the population that's very vocal. And politicians are scared of losing their contributions. So I've gone down the road asking what can be done with guns. And no gun nut is willing to be specific on what an assault weapons ban would entail.

ChopMeat's proposed ban:

- All automatic weapons

- All semi-automatic weapons. Not just specific models. No exceptions for pistol grips. ALL.

- No private ownership of the above.

- Reduction in magazine size.

Does anything less than the above have any impact on gun violence???

The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are via handguns in high density urban areas.Not that it matters. Even what you are suggesting with the ban on semi-automatic weapons would never make it through Congress much less through the courts.

And this is my point - the gun lobby is unwilling to allow meaningful changes to gun laws. They will divert attention to other things, but dear god don't touch their guns. Regardless of whether we look at how we deal with the mentally ill, whether we allow god in schools, we attack this in a multi-pronged way.A meaningful response - one that attempts to deal with gun usage - is impossible with the gun lobby.

 

[RCon]

I definitely started off from the position of banning all guns. I remain confused why people want guns - I've yet to hear a compelling reason for them.

But with that said, I'm convinced that there's a portion of the population that's very vocal. And politicians are scared of losing their contributions. So I've gone down the road asking what can be done with guns. And no gun nut is willing to be specific on what an assault weapons ban would entail.

ChopMeat's proposed ban:

- All automatic weapons

- All semi-automatic weapons. Not just specific models. No exceptions for pistol grips. ALL.

- No private ownership of the above.

- Reduction in magazine size.

- No private sales

- Limit the number of guns an owner can own.

Does anything less than the above have any impact on gun violence???

Isn't pretty much every gun a "semi-automatic"? If I understand the definition properly (I freely admit it's very possible that I don't), it's that the act of firing one round also loads the next round into firing position. If this is so, then even the old six-shooters from the 1800s would qualify as semi-automatics, wouldn't they?

 

[TobiasFunke]

What about Australia? I don't know about their affinity for guns, but their population is not dense, and they have enacted very effective gun control laws.

Well, I've never been to Australia and I don't know anything about their history of gun culture other than what I just read this morning in this article on slate.com. But that article leads me to believe Australians didn't love their guns nearly to the degree that Americans do. There's this quote:

The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

90%! I'd be surprised if we could top 50% support for similar laws here. Is there a single mainstream politician saying that we should disallow the use of guns for self-defense? And the former Australian Prime Minister says pretty much the same thing about American gun love:

Whether the same policies would work as well in the United States—or whether similar legislation would have any chance of being passed here in the first place—is an open question. Howard, the conservative leader behind the Australian reforms, wrote an op-ed in an Australian paper after visiting the United States in the wake of the Aurora shootings. He came away convinced that America needed to change its gun laws, but lamented its lack of will to do so.

There is more to this than merely the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association and the proximity of the November presidential election. It is hard to believe that their reaction would have been any different if the murders in Aurora had taken place immediately after the election of either Obama or Romney. So deeply embedded is the gun culture of the US, that millions of law-abiding, Americans truly believe that it is safer to own a gun, based on the chilling logic that because there are so many guns in circulation, one's own weapon is needed for self-protection. To put it another way, the situation is so far gone there can be no turning back.

Thanks. The bolded does ring true, an I suppose is a reason that the comparison between Prohibition and gun control might have some value. I still think we should recognize the significant and obvious differences between the two, though. Heavy-handed gun restrictions might or might not work, and if not some of the reasons might be the same as some of the reasons Prohibition didn't work, but it's not even close to a perfect match.

 

[Bonezerelli]

Here's a fun fact,

Americans are armed more per capita than any other nation in the world. Yemen comes in a distant 2nd. However, the Yemeni's are currently fighting a civil war. There's something else clever to add here, but I'm stuck just thinking about that.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Why should someone be limited to protecting themselves in their home, but not in public?

Home is always treated differently. Always has been.

Am I to stand by idly while getting robbed at gunpoint, or allow my wife and children to be harmed by someone with no way to defend my family?

Take a martial arts class.But seriously, you have more rights in your own home. That's not just gun rights. That's all sorts of rights. We tend to treat someone's home as their own place under their control. That doesn't hold true for just being out on the sidewalk. And part of it is that once you're out on the sidewalk, you're now encountering other people's rights to be out there that are equal to your own.

That does answer the question "why do I have more rights in my home". It doesn't answer the question "why shouldn't I have the right to self defense outside my home".

He absolutely answered that question. It's the last sentence in his post.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Look, there have been three shootings in the last three months. All the shooters all had mental health issues, and weren't gun owners. Yet everyone wants to punish the 40+ million gun owners for these crimes. Find someone else to blame, we are sick of it. Lets have a serious conversation about mental health in this country, and how these people are ignored by our system. Lets talk about how they are fed drugs that make them suicidal and/or homicidal. Only then can we help prevent these terrible tragedies.

I'm not against improving our mental health care, but you didn't read the Slate piece I linked, did you.And nobody is blaming gun owners. People are saying that guns are part of the equation. That's not the same thing.

I read the piece you linked. I've also seen stats that show areas with concealed carry have lower crime rates. The fact is we have a lot of gun laws on the books, and people still break the law. We don't need more laws. We need to identify the behaviors that cause these types of crimes, and stop it before they crack and kill all these innocent people. You personally aren't blaming gun owners, but many others are.

Did you read the Harvard Lit Review? This isn't mixed data. More guns = more murders. That's it. More guns. More murders. More guns. More murders. There's no equivocation or maybes or contrary results. That's it.I'm ok with gun rights to protect yourself in your home. That would mean shotguns and lower-powered rifles. But if a locality like a city or a state want to ban handguns, they should be able to. And if they want to ban semi-automatics, they should be able to. Neither of these are necessary for home defense. They are, however, involved in a lot of these types of massacres which we see.

Do you have a link to more details regarding that study? That synposis you linked basically says they made adjustments for things and I would like to see what adjustments.It also looks like a lot of that data was from a time when gun crime was at a high level and has gone down. Has gun ownership gone down since also?

 

[Blick]

Look, there have been three shootings in the last three months. All the shooters all had mental health issues, and weren't gun owners. Yet everyone wants to punish the 40+ million gun owners for these crimes. Find someone else to blame, we are sick of it. Lets have a serious conversation about mental health in this country, and how these people are ignored by our system. Lets talk about how they are fed drugs that make them suicidal and/or homicidal. Only then can we help prevent these terrible tragedies.

Why don't you and the other supporters of gun ownership in here stop attempting to respond to straw arguments? There's a few posters in here that are spewing crap about banning guns and changing the 2nd Amendment, but for serious minded people, that's not where the debate is. Instead, the REAL debate centers around 3 very specific proposals:1. Revive the assault weapons ban.2. Limit the capacity of magazines to 10 bullets.3. Remove the private sales "gun show" loophole.Personally I lean against #1, and am very much in favor of #2 and #3. How about you? If you oppose these ideas, then give us reasons why. But stop acting like you're the victim here and that we want to "punish" you.

I'm an ardent supporter of gun rights. I own or have shot most of the weapons discussed in this thread. However, I really can't come up with a good arguement for owning a AR-15 with 20 to 30 round capacities other than right to personal freedom. Whether we like it or not, we are losing personal freedom everyday for the good of society. For example, 9/11 caused a tremendous loss in personal freedom. IMO, this isn't any different.Based on this, I think I can agree to all of the above changes. For item 3, make the private sale of any handgun go through a licensed dealer to provide the appropriate back ground checks and waiting periods.

 

[ATC1]

Why should someone be limited to protecting themselves in their home, but not in public?

Home is always treated differently. Always has been.

Am I to stand by idly while getting robbed at gunpoint, or allow my wife and children to be harmed by someone with no way to defend my family?

 

[siffoin]

Actually, the ban on bullets sounds very reasonable. Gun nuts can still collect, display, polish, and sleep with their guns. They just can't shoot them.

Is it really any different than banning guns?

My suggestion wasn't to ban ammo. Rather to regulate where ammo can be purchased and used. Shoot your guns all day long at a range...you just have to buy your bullets there.Want to hunt...no problem...you get an allotment of x rounds per license.Provide some practical means for education, testing and licensing for personal protection, and distribute a limited number of rounds for protection purposes.To me this seems reasonable. It seems practical. All this does is enforce the responsible use of firearms. Not sure why a responsible gun owner would have a problem with this line of thinking.I'm quite confident that guns aren't going away, and such a debate is mostly futile. We need to have more realistic conversations and solutions towards guns and gun ownership that melds our past with present day realities, and take steps to limit the opportunities for the angry, evil or mentally ill to massacre innocent people.

 

[jonessed]

I definitely started off from the position of banning all guns. I remain confused why people want guns - I've yet to hear a compelling reason for them.

But with that said, I'm convinced that there's a portion of the population that's very vocal. And politicians are scared of losing their contributions. So I've gone down the road asking what can be done with guns. And no gun nut is willing to be specific on what an assault weapons ban would entail.

ChopMeat's proposed ban:

- All automatic weapons

- All semi-automatic weapons. Not just specific models. No exceptions for pistol grips. ALL.

- No private ownership of the above.

- Reduction in magazine size.

Does anything less than the above have any impact on gun violence???

The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are via handguns in high density urban areas.Not that it matters. Even what you are suggesting with the ban on semi-automatic weapons would never make it through Congress much less through the courts.

And this is my point - the gun lobby is unwilling to allow meaningful changes to gun laws. They will divert attention to other things, but dear god don't touch their guns. Regardless of whether we look at how we deal with the mentally ill, whether we allow god in schools, we attack this in a multi-pronged way.A meaningful response - one that attempts to deal with gun usage - is impossible with the gun lobby.

The want to protect gun rights and people like you ultimately want to ban all guns (except for bolt-action rifles and flintlocks apparently). They are going to see compromise as only another step towards that goal. Can you blame them? That is ultimately your goal. Otis can scream, Lie! Lie!, all he wants, but anybody that has followed this thread knows his position pretty well.It's like every other big issue in politics today. Each side sees the other as the enemy and they are going to dig in to fight tooth and nail. None of this should be surprising.

To make any reasonable dent in gun-related deaths we would have to severely restrict handguns and that won't happen until you somehow void the 2nd Amendment. You need 2/3 of both Houses and 3/4 of the states for that. If you think that's an achievable goal by all means act on it. If you can muster that many people to oppose handguns then it probably should be changed.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Thanks. The bolded does ring true, an I suppose is a reason that the comparison between Prohibition and gun control might have some value. I still think we should recognize the significant and obvious differences between the two, though. Heavy-handed gun restrictions might or might not work, and if not some of the reasons might be the same as some of the reasons Prohibition didn't work, but it's not even close to a perfect match.

Sure, nothing is a perfect match. But our experience banning drugs and alcohol is instructive. Same with bans on prostitution. And bans on abortion. And bans on sodomy. It's hard to ban stuff that people really like, and there are often a lot of terrible unintended consequences.

 

[timschochet]

I definitely started off from the position of banning all guns. I remain confused why people want guns - I've yet to hear a compelling reason for them.

But with that said, I'm convinced that there's a portion of the population that's very vocal. And politicians are scared of losing their contributions. So I've gone down the road asking what can be done with guns. And no gun nut is willing to be specific on what an assault weapons ban would entail.

ChopMeat's proposed ban:

- All automatic weapons

- All semi-automatic weapons. Not just specific models. No exceptions for pistol grips. ALL.

- No private ownership of the above.

- Reduction in magazine size.

Does anything less than the above have any impact on gun violence???

The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are via handguns in high density urban areas.Not that it matters. Even what you are suggesting with the ban on semi-automatic weapons would never make it through Congress much less through the courts.

And this is my point - the gun lobby is unwilling to allow meaningful changes to gun laws. They will divert attention to other things, but dear god don't touch their guns. Regardless of whether we look at how we deal with the mentally ill, whether we allow god in schools, we attack this in a multi-pronged way.A meaningful response - one that attempts to deal with gun usage - is impossible with the gun lobby.

You guys are talking over each other. Chopmeat, you make an IMPOSSIBLE recommendation (banning all semi-automatic weapons), and when jonessed tells you its never going to happen, you accuse the gun lobby of not being able to have a serious discussion. Congratulations, you two may not have convinced each other, but you've certainly convinced yourselves how irrational the other guys are!Again, can we return to a serious debate here? Assault weapons, magazine capacity, closing loopholes. Stop with the nonsense.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

To make any reasonable dent in gun-related deaths we would have to severely restrict handguns and that won't happen until you somehow void the 2nd Amendment.

This is not at all clear. We have virtually no case law articulating the scope of the 2nd Amendment. It was only found to be an individual right 4 years ago and hasn't even been found to be incorporated against the states (it probably will be, but it hasn't yet).

 

[Glass Joe]

I definitely started off from the position of banning all guns. I remain confused why people want guns - I've yet to hear a compelling reason for them.

But with that said, I'm convinced that there's a portion of the population that's very vocal. And politicians are scared of losing their contributions. So I've gone down the road asking what can be done with guns. And no gun nut is willing to be specific on what an assault weapons ban would entail.

ChopMeat's proposed ban:

- All automatic weapons

- All semi-automatic weapons. Not just specific models. No exceptions for pistol grips. ALL.

- No private ownership of the above.

- Reduction in magazine size.

Does anything less than the above have any impact on gun violence???

The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are via handguns in high density urban areas.Not that it matters. Even what you are suggesting with the ban on semi-automatic weapons would never make it through Congress much less through the courts.

And this is my point - the gun lobby is unwilling to allow meaningful changes to gun laws. They will divert attention to other things, but dear god don't touch their guns. Regardless of whether we look at how we deal with the mentally ill, whether we allow god in schools, we attack this in a multi-pronged way.A meaningful response - one that attempts to deal with gun usage - is impossible with the gun lobby.

You guys are talking over each other. Chopmeat, you make an IMPOSSIBLE recommendation (banning all semi-automatic weapons), and when jonessed tells you its never going to happen, you accuse the gun lobby of not being able to have a serious discussion. Congratulations, you two may not have convinced each other, but you've certainly convinced yourselves how irrational the other guys are!Again, can we return to a serious debate here? Assault weapons, magazine capacity, closing loopholes. Stop with the nonsense.

Have you, Tim, offered ANYTHING that will seriously put a dent in the problem? What changes in gun laws do you propose that amount to anything more than window dressing?

 

[Otis]

Haven't read all of these pages and just spitballing here...

No way you are going to ban guns. Just not going to happen in a place like Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana. Heck in Idaho we just passed a Constitutional Amendment giving us the freedom "now and forever" to hunt...and it passed by 75% of the vote. Not going to get rid of guns here.

And in the end guns really don't kill people. Ammunition is what kills people.

So instead of trying to change gun laws - which isn't going to happen. Why not work to make the possession of ammo illegal except in certain circumstances. For example: Limit sales and possession of ammo to regulated firearm ranges- that way everyone is still allowed to participate in their "hobby", site in their gun for hunting etc. You have to buy your ammo at the range and use it there. For hunting purposes sales of limited ammo is provided by State Fish & Game for every license purchased. For example: purchase a deer license and receive 5 rounds of .243 rifle ammo...can't take a deer with less than 5 rounds...buy another license.

Something along these lines seems more logical and practical than banning guns.

Interesting and certainly a better mor welcomed response then just ban them all.

Who exactly is advocating for this????

Otis, ChopMeat, shader, General Malaise. That's just off the top of my head.

Well that's a lie.

I would ban them all.

But that's extreme and I don't expect that sort of sentiment would ever gain any traction. If I want to go get cocaine, I can go do it despite the fact that it is illegal. Guns would be no different. But why not at least talk about doing something like what Australia has done? That makes sense to me. Not sure if it will help curtail the senseless shootings we'v seen far too recently here, but maybe it's a start? You want a hunting rifle, okay. You want a hand gun, alright. But why on earth does somebody need to own a weapon like the one used in the recent shootings? What good reason is there to have that in your possession?

I don't have a problem with the sport/hunting guys. Those weapons are not used as extensively in these kinds of massacres.But assault weapons and handguns, which are exclusively for shooting people and are frequently used for that purpose, should go.

 

[RCon]

Have you, Tim, offered ANYTHING that will seriously put a dent in the problem? What changes in gun laws do you propose that amount to anything more than window dressing?

timschochet has offered three specific proposals, multiple times. It's fair to debate whether those are reasonable or whether those would "amount to more than window dressing". It's not fair to accuse him of not offering any proposals.

 

[tom22406]

This might help a few in explaining "Assault Weapons" a little better for some that may be confused.

 

[timschochet]

I definitely started off from the position of banning all guns. I remain confused why people want guns - I've yet to hear a compelling reason for them.

But with that said, I'm convinced that there's a portion of the population that's very vocal. And politicians are scared of losing their contributions. So I've gone down the road asking what can be done with guns. And no gun nut is willing to be specific on what an assault weapons ban would entail.

ChopMeat's proposed ban:

- All automatic weapons

- All semi-automatic weapons. Not just specific models. No exceptions for pistol grips. ALL.

- No private ownership of the above.

- Reduction in magazine size.

Does anything less than the above have any impact on gun violence???

The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are via handguns in high density urban areas.Not that it matters. Even what you are suggesting with the ban on semi-automatic weapons would never make it through Congress much less through the courts.

And this is my point - the gun lobby is unwilling to allow meaningful changes to gun laws. They will divert attention to other things, but dear god don't touch their guns. Regardless of whether we look at how we deal with the mentally ill, whether we allow god in schools, we attack this in a multi-pronged way.A meaningful response - one that attempts to deal with gun usage - is impossible with the gun lobby.

You guys are talking over each other. Chopmeat, you make an IMPOSSIBLE recommendation (banning all semi-automatic weapons), and when jonessed tells you its never going to happen, you accuse the gun lobby of not being able to have a serious discussion. Congratulations, you two may not have convinced each other, but you've certainly convinced yourselves how irrational the other guys are!Again, can we return to a serious debate here? Assault weapons, magazine capacity, closing loopholes. Stop with the nonsense.

Have you, Tim, offered ANYTHING that will seriously put a dent in the problem? What changes in gun laws do you propose that amount to anything more than window dressing?

Actually yes I have. I honestly believe that the two items I have been pushing for around two years now, limiting magazine capacity and closing the private sales "gun show" loophole, will save lives. They're not my ideas; they just happen to be the ones I think are doable and will work.

 

[ATC1]

But seriously, you have more rights in your own home. That's not just gun rights. That's all sorts of rights. We tend to treat someone's home as their own place under their control. That doesn't hold true for just being out on the sidewalk. And part of it is that once you're out on the sidewalk, you're now encountering other people's rights to be out there that are equal to your own.

That does answer the question "why do I have more rights in my home". It doesn't answer the question "why shouldn't I have the right to self defense outside my home".

The right to self-defense isn't the same as the right to carry a 9mm.You have First Amendment rights whereever you go. If you want to watch a porno in your house, nobody is going to stop you. If you want to watch a porno at the bus stop, people will take issue. How we can actualize our rights changes as we move from place to place.I think guns necessary for self-defense in the home is a decent compromise position. One of the merits of it is that when you're carrying a weapon out in public, we don't know if it's for self-defense. Whereas if it's in your basement, we're reasonably sure that's the purpose.

That is why it is concealed.

 

[Thunderlips]

For the life of me, I don't understand why the NRA and gun advocates pursue biometric and smart gun technology. I know one the biggest arguments against it are the idea that it MIGHT fail in a time of need.....but A) isn't there a chance (no matter how small) that most guns, regardless of having this technology associated with it MIGHT fail?....and B) just buy two,three or four guns....what are the odds of them all failing?

To me, not pursuing this type of technology and acknowledging that it is a good way for responsible gun owners to keep their guns from being involved one of these type massacres while respecting the tenants of the 2nd Amendment mirrors the kind of unreasonable attitude from anti-gun advocates who don't to compromise.

 

[jafo]

Look, there have been three shootings in the last three months. All the shooters all had mental health issues, and weren't gun owners. Yet everyone wants to punish the 40+ million gun owners for these crimes. Find someone else to blame, we are sick of it. Lets have a serious conversation about mental health in this country, and how these people are ignored by our system. Lets talk about how they are fed drugs that make them suicidal and/or homicidal. Only then can we help prevent these terrible tragedies.

Why don't you and the other supporters of gun ownership in here stop attempting to respond to straw arguments? There's a few posters in here that are spewing crap about banning guns and changing the 2nd Amendment, but for serious minded people, that's not where the debate is. Instead, the REAL debate centers around 3 very specific proposals:1. Revive the assault weapons ban.2. Limit the capacity of magazines to 10 bullets.3. Remove the private sales "gun show" loophole.Personally I lean against #1, and am very much in favor of #2 and #3. How about you? If you oppose these ideas, then give us reasons why. But stop acting like you're the victim here and that we want to "punish" you.

You are right. It seems I am wasting my time responding to many here. Let's address the proposals you have outlined.1. Revive the assault weapons ban.I do not support another ban. We tried this once before under Clinton, and it was not shown to have positively affected crime rates. I believe civilians should continue to have access to these weapons as defensive measures or recreational purposes. I find it interesting that a 7mm deer rifle is much more powerful than any of these so called "assault weapons", yet not as many people are looking to ban because they don't look as scary.2. Limit the capacity of magazines to 10 bullets.We actually tried this too under the last ban. Although, I am not strongly against this one. When I am target shooting it only takes a few seconds to change magazines anyways.3. Remove the private sales "gun show" loophole.I would be in favor of requiring private sales to go through an FFL dealer at the show, who would perform all necessary background checks to verify eligibility. We have a law that states a felon can not own a gun, yet it is hard to enforce as they can walk into a show and buy one.

 

[Mr. Chumley]

Haven't read all of these pages and just spitballing here...

No way you are going to ban guns. Just not going to happen in a place like Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana. Heck in Idaho we just passed a Constitutional Amendment giving us the freedom "now and forever" to hunt...and it passed by 75% of the vote. Not going to get rid of guns here.

And in the end guns really don't kill people. Ammunition is what kills people.So instead of trying to change gun laws - which isn't going to happen. Why not work to make the possession of ammo illegal except in certain circumstances. For example: Limit sales and possession of ammo to regulated firearm ranges- that way everyone is still allowed to participate in their "hobby", site in their gun for hunting etc. You have to buy your ammo at the range and use it there. For hunting purposes sales of limited ammo is provided by State Fish & Game for every license purchased. For example: purchase a deer license and receive 5 rounds of .243 rifle ammo...can't take a deer with less than 5 rounds...buy another license.

Something along these lines seems more logical and practical than banning guns.

Come on. It's the nut job holding the gun that kills.

And in many, many cases, without the gun it doesn't happen. That's what many pro-gun people refuse to acknowledge.

I'll grant that but let’s key our eye on the target. It's the guy pulling the trigger. We are all just burying our heads in the sand if we believe making guns harder to get is going to solve this problem. These people will continue to find ways to get guns if they are determined enough. We need to get to the root of the problem and focus on the mental health in this country. I’m sure there were warning signs from this guy. It seems there always are, yet they are tragically ignored.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Thanks. The bolded does ring true, an I suppose is a reason that the comparison between Prohibition and gun control might have some value. I still think we should recognize the significant and obvious differences between the two, though. Heavy-handed gun restrictions might or might not work, and if not some of the reasons might be the same as some of the reasons Prohibition didn't work, but it's not even close to a perfect match.

Sure, nothing is a perfect match. But our experience banning drugs and alcohol is instructive. Same with bans on prostitution. And bans on abortion. And bans on sodomy. It's hard to ban stuff that people really like, and there are often a lot of terrible unintended consequences.

I think the key difference here is that all of those things can be enjoyed quietly and privately with very little risk that you'll get caught. And while gun ownership can be quiet and private, gun usage/enjoyment cannot be. I'm not really into heroin, prostitutes or automatic weapons, but if I loved them all but they all were banned, I think I'd be much more likely to continue enjoying heroin or hookers, simply because I could make use of them without really risking arrest. That suggests to me that a gun ban might be a greater deterrent than those other things Not that I'm advocating one, just talking hypothetically about the similarities/differences.

 

[Otis]

Otis can scream, Lie! Lie!, all he wants, but anybody that has followed this thread knows his position pretty well.

My position is articulated here and has been articulated several other times in this thread over the past few days. Why mischaracterize it?

 

[Mr. Chumley]

Look, there have been three shootings in the last three months. All the shooters all had mental health issues, and weren't gun owners. Yet everyone wants to punish the 40+ million gun owners for these crimes. Find someone else to blame, we are sick of it. Lets have a serious conversation about mental health in this country, and how these people are ignored by our system. Lets talk about how they are fed drugs that make them suicidal and/or homicidal. Only then can we help prevent these terrible tragedies.

Why don't you and the other supporters of gun ownership in here stop attempting to respond to straw arguments? There's a few posters in here that are spewing crap about banning guns and changing the 2nd Amendment, but for serious minded people, that's not where the debate is. Instead, the REAL debate centers around 3 very specific proposals:1. Revive the assault weapons ban.2. Limit the capacity of magazines to 10 bullets.3. Remove the private sales "gun show" loophole.Personally I lean against #1, and am very much in favor of #2 and #3. How about you? If you oppose these ideas, then give us reasons why. But stop acting like you're the victim here and that we want to "punish" you.

You are right. It seems I am wasting my time responding to many here. Let's address the proposals you have outlined.1. Revive the assault weapons ban.I do not support another ban. We tried this once before under Clinton, and it was not shown to have positively affected crime rates. I believe civilians should continue to have access to these weapons as defensive measures or recreational purposes. I find it interesting that a 7mm deer rifle is much more powerful than any of these so called "assault weapons", yet not as many people are looking to ban because they don't look as scary.2. Limit the capacity of magazines to 10 bullets.We actually tried this too under the last ban. Although, I am not strongly against this one. When I am target shooting it only takes a few seconds to change magazines anyways.3. Remove the private sales "gun show" loophole.I would be in favor of requiring private sales to go through an FFL dealer at the show, who would perform all necessary background checks to verify eligibility. We have a law that states a felon can not own a gun, yet it is hard to enforce as they can walk into a show and buy one.

 

[Glass Joe]

I definitely started off from the position of banning all guns. I remain confused why people want guns - I've yet to hear a compelling reason for them.

But with that said, I'm convinced that there's a portion of the population that's very vocal. And politicians are scared of losing their contributions. So I've gone down the road asking what can be done with guns. And no gun nut is willing to be specific on what an assault weapons ban would entail.

ChopMeat's proposed ban:

- All automatic weapons

- All semi-automatic weapons. Not just specific models. No exceptions for pistol grips. ALL.

- No private ownership of the above.

- Reduction in magazine size.

Does anything less than the above have any impact on gun violence???

The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are via handguns in high density urban areas.Not that it matters. Even what you are suggesting with the ban on semi-automatic weapons would never make it through Congress much less through the courts.

And this is my point - the gun lobby is unwilling to allow meaningful changes to gun laws. They will divert attention to other things, but dear god don't touch their guns. Regardless of whether we look at how we deal with the mentally ill, whether we allow god in schools, we attack this in a multi-pronged way.A meaningful response - one that attempts to deal with gun usage - is impossible with the gun lobby.

You guys are talking over each other. Chopmeat, you make an IMPOSSIBLE recommendation (banning all semi-automatic weapons), and when jonessed tells you its never going to happen, you accuse the gun lobby of not being able to have a serious discussion. Congratulations, you two may not have convinced each other, but you've certainly convinced yourselves how irrational the other guys are!Again, can we return to a serious debate here? Assault weapons, magazine capacity, closing loopholes. Stop with the nonsense.

Have you, Tim, offered ANYTHING that will seriously put a dent in the problem? What changes in gun laws do you propose that amount to anything more than window dressing?

Actually yes I have. I honestly believe that the two items I have been pushing for around two years now, limiting magazine capacity and closing the private sales "gun show" loophole, will save lives. They're not my ideas; they just happen to be the ones I think are doable and will work.

I wasnt suggesting that you havent offered anything. What I've suggested is that your suggestion is so watered down as to be ineffectual. Your proposals:- Limit magazing capacity - The shooter at Sandy Hook had three guns. 10 / clip * 3 guns = 30 shots - you havent stopped him.

- Closing private sales - Ok, so now all sales go through bureaucratically-vetted offices. Now what? So the government reviews all applicants. This wouldnt have done anything for those children.

While your suggestions may be palatable to the right, they're still a waste of political capital and simply ineffective. Offer something meaningful.

 

[ATC1]

The right to self-defense isn't the same as the right to carry a 9mm.You have First Amendment rights whereever you go. If you want to watch a porno in your house, nobody is going to stop you. If you want to watch a porno at the bus stop, people will take issue. How we can actualize our rights changes as we move from place to place.I think guns necessary for self-defense in the home is a decent compromise position. One of the merits of it is that when you're carrying a weapon out in public, we don't know if it's for self-defense. Whereas if it's in your basement, we're reasonably sure that's the purpose.

That is why it is concealed.

That doesn't make it any better insofar as ensuring that you're only intending to use it for self-defense.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Thanks. The bolded does ring true, an I suppose is a reason that the comparison between Prohibition and gun control might have some value. I still think we should recognize the significant and obvious differences between the two, though. Heavy-handed gun restrictions might or might not work, and if not some of the reasons might be the same as some of the reasons Prohibition didn't work, but it's not even close to a perfect match.

Sure, nothing is a perfect match. But our experience banning drugs and alcohol is instructive. Same with bans on prostitution. And bans on abortion. And bans on sodomy. It's hard to ban stuff that people really like, and there are often a lot of terrible unintended consequences.

I think the key difference here is that all of those things can be enjoyed quietly and privately with very little risk that you'll get caught. And while gun ownership can be quiet and private, gun usage/enjoyment cannot be. I'm not really into heroin, prostitutes or automatic weapons, but if I loved them all but they all were banned, I think I'd be much more likely to continue enjoying heroin or hookers, simply because I could make use of them without really risking arrest. That suggests to me that a gun ban might be a greater deterrent than those other things Not that I'm advocating one, just talking hypothetically about the similarities/differences.

You're acting like gun owners are shooting them on their property all the time. There are loads of people who buy guns and just have them in their house for self-defense. It's one transaction and that's it. Seems to me there's far less of a chance of an arrest in that situation than with drugs or hookers, where you need to be engaged in constant transactions with the outside world.

 

[Blick]

Look, there have been three shootings in the last three months. All the shooters all had mental health issues, and weren't gun owners. Yet everyone wants to punish the 40+ million gun owners for these crimes. Find someone else to blame, we are sick of it. Lets have a serious conversation about mental health in this country, and how these people are ignored by our system. Lets talk about how they are fed drugs that make them suicidal and/or homicidal. Only then can we help prevent these terrible tragedies.

Why don't you and the other supporters of gun ownership in here stop attempting to respond to straw arguments? There's a few posters in here that are spewing crap about banning guns and changing the 2nd Amendment, but for serious minded people, that's not where the debate is. Instead, the REAL debate centers around 3 very specific proposals:1. Revive the assault weapons ban.2. Limit the capacity of magazines to 10 bullets.3. Remove the private sales "gun show" loophole.Personally I lean against #1, and am very much in favor of #2 and #3. How about you? If you oppose these ideas, then give us reasons why. But stop acting like you're the victim here and that we want to "punish" you.

You are right. It seems I am wasting my time responding to many here. Let's address the proposals you have outlined.1. Revive the assault weapons ban.I do not support another ban. We tried this once before under Clinton, and it was not shown to have positively affected crime rates. I believe civilians should continue to have access to these weapons as defensive measures or recreational purposes. I find it interesting that a 7mm deer rifle is much more powerful than any of these so called "assault weapons", yet not as many people are looking to ban because they don't look as scary.2. Limit the capacity of magazines to 10 bullets.We actually tried this too under the last ban. Although, I am not strongly against this one. When I am target shooting it only takes a few seconds to change magazines anyways.3. Remove the private sales "gun show" loophole.I would be in favor of requiring private sales to go through an FFL dealer at the show, who would perform all necessary background checks to verify eligibility. We have a law that states a felon can not own a gun, yet it is hard to enforce as they can walk into a show and buy one.

I can't believe I'm falling somewhat with the anti-gun crowd on this one, but your 7 mm would not be the weapon of choice to shoot up a bunch of people unless you want to do it from 400 yards. In my mind, that's the difference. If you've ever shot an AR you have to admit that it is an accurate, efficient, low-recoil, killing machine. Its a lot of fun to shoot, but in the wrong hands has devistating consequences.

 

[Mr. Chumley]

I'll grant that but let’s key our eye on the target. It's the guy pulling the trigger. We are all just burying our heads in the sand if we believe making guns harder to get is going to solve this problem. These people will continue to find ways to get guns if they are determined enough. We need to get to the root of the problem and focus on the mental health in this country. I’m sure there were warning signs from this guy. It seems there always are, yet they are tragically ignored.

Another strawman. Nobody is saying that getting rid of guns will, "solve the problem." People are saying that it might make the problem better. It might not matter in these arguments terms if it was 20 kids killed that day or 2, but it matters to someone.You will always have crazies. The question is how big of a weapon are you going to make it easy for them to get.

It matters to me. As a parent I felt like I was kicked in the nuts when I first heard what happened. I am heartbroken for those people. I want to see something done too. I just don't want to see a knee jerk reaction from gun control advocates that try to take this too far. I also don't want to see what I and many others perceive to be the real issue here of mental illness brushed aside.

 

[ATC1]

The right to self-defense isn't the same as the right to carry a 9mm.You have First Amendment rights whereever you go. If you want to watch a porno in your house, nobody is going to stop you. If you want to watch a porno at the bus stop, people will take issue. How we can actualize our rights changes as we move from place to place.I think guns necessary for self-defense in the home is a decent compromise position. One of the merits of it is that when you're carrying a weapon out in public, we don't know if it's for self-defense. Whereas if it's in your basement, we're reasonably sure that's the purpose.

That is why it is concealed.

That doesn't make it any better insofar as ensuring that you're only intending to use it for self-defense.

What is confusing there.When you have a shotgun in your basement, we're reasonably sure you're using it for self-defense. When you're carrying a handgun out in public, it might be for self-defense. It might be to rob a store. It might be to mug someone. And it might be to pop someone who mouths off to you.

Again. Who knows that I am carrying beardless for what purpose? You saying undercover agents should not carry because we are not sure what their reason for carrying is?

 

[timschochet]

Look, there have been three shootings in the last three months. All the shooters all had mental health issues, and weren't gun owners. Yet everyone wants to punish the 40+ million gun owners for these crimes. Find someone else to blame, we are sick of it. Lets have a serious conversation about mental health in this country, and how these people are ignored by our system. Lets talk about how they are fed drugs that make them suicidal and/or homicidal. Only then can we help prevent these terrible tragedies.

Why don't you and the other supporters of gun ownership in here stop attempting to respond to straw arguments? There's a few posters in here that are spewing crap about banning guns and changing the 2nd Amendment, but for serious minded people, that's not where the debate is. Instead, the REAL debate centers around 3 very specific proposals:1. Revive the assault weapons ban.2. Limit the capacity of magazines to 10 bullets.3. Remove the private sales "gun show" loophole.Personally I lean against #1, and am very much in favor of #2 and #3. How about you? If you oppose these ideas, then give us reasons why. But stop acting like you're the victim here and that we want to "punish" you.

You are right. It seems I am wasting my time responding to many here. Let's address the proposals you have outlined.1. Revive the assault weapons ban.I do not support another ban. We tried this once before under Clinton, and it was not shown to have positively affected crime rates. I believe civilians should continue to have access to these weapons as defensive measures or recreational purposes. I find it interesting that a 7mm deer rifle is much more powerful than any of these so called "assault weapons", yet not as many people are looking to ban because they don't look as scary.2. Limit the capacity of magazines to 10 bullets.We actually tried this too under the last ban. Although, I am not strongly against this one. When I am target shooting it only takes a few seconds to change magazines anyways.3. Remove the private sales "gun show" loophole.I would be in favor of requiring private sales to go through an FFL dealer at the show, who would perform all necessary background checks to verify eligibility. We have a law that states a felon can not own a gun, yet it is hard to enforce as they can walk into a show and buy one.

Thanks for the response.

 

[ATC1]

Or to be even more clear: THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOUR RIGHTS AT HOME AND YOUR RIGHTS IN PUBLIC VARY BY THE DIFFERENT RIGHTS. I HOPE THIS ISN'T TOO CONFUSING TO YOU.

So the 2nd amendment differentiates between the right to bare arm at home vs to defend yourself in public?

 

[Glass Joe]

I'll grant that but let's key our eye on the target. It's the guy pulling the trigger. We are all just burying our heads in the sand if we believe making guns harder to get is going to solve this problem. These people will continue to find ways to get guns if they are determined enough. We need to get to the root of the problem and focus on the mental health in this country. I'm sure there were warning signs from this guy. It seems there always are, yet they are tragically ignored.

Another strawman. Nobody is saying that getting rid of guns will, "solve the problem." People are saying that it might make the problem better. It might not matter in these arguments terms if it was 20 kids killed that day or 2, but it matters to someone.You will always have crazies. The question is how big of a weapon are you going to make it easy for them to get.

It matters to me. As a parent I felt like I was kicked in the nuts when I first heard what happened. I am heartbroken for those people. I want to see something done too. I just don't want to see a knee jerk reaction from gun control advocates that try to take this too far. I also don't want to see what I and many others perceive to be the real issue here of mental illness brushed aside.

Do you feel that all mass murderers - Cho, Klebold, etc - were mentally ill?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I'll grant that but let’s key our eye on the target. It's the guy pulling the trigger. We are all just burying our heads in the sand if we believe making guns harder to get is going to solve this problem. These people will continue to find ways to get guns if they are determined enough. We need to get to the root of the problem and focus on the mental health in this country. I’m sure there were warning signs from this guy. It seems there always are, yet they are tragically ignored.

Another strawman. Nobody is saying that getting rid of guns will, "solve the problem." People are saying that it might make the problem better. It might not matter in these arguments terms if it was 20 kids killed that day or 2, but it matters to someone.You will always have crazies. The question is how big of a weapon are you going to make it easy for them to get.

It matters to me. As a parent I felt like I was kicked in the nuts when I first heard what happened. I am heartbroken for those people. I want to see something done too. I just don't want to see a knee jerk reaction from gun control advocates that try to take this too far. I also don't want to see what I and many others perceive to be the real issue here of mental illness brushed aside.

And this is understandable. Knee-jerk policy is poor policy. Always has been for the most part. But gun control is also something that has been a topic for decades so while any policy that comes from this, if any, could be seen as knee-jerk, I don't know if that would be a completely fair label.

 

[cheese]

Look, there have been three shootings in the last three months. All the shooters all had mental health issues, and weren't gun owners. Yet everyone wants to punish the 40+ million gun owners for these crimes. Find someone else to blame, we are sick of it. Lets have a serious conversation about mental health in this country, and how these people are ignored by our system. Lets talk about how they are fed drugs that make them suicidal and/or homicidal. Only then can we help prevent these terrible tragedies.

Why don't you and the other supporters of gun ownership in here stop attempting to respond to straw arguments? There's a few posters in here that are spewing crap about banning guns and changing the 2nd Amendment, but for serious minded people, that's not where the debate is. Instead, the REAL debate centers around 3 very specific proposals:1. Revive the assault weapons ban.2. Limit the capacity of magazines to 10 bullets.3. Remove the private sales "gun show" loophole.Personally I lean against #1, and am very much in favor of #2 and #3. How about you? If you oppose these ideas, then give us reasons why. But stop acting like you're the victim here and that we want to "punish" you.

I'm an ardent supporter of gun rights. I own or have shot most of the weapons discussed in this thread. However, I really can't come up with a good arguement for owning a AR-15 with 20 to 30 round capacities other than right to personal freedom. Whether we like it or not, we are losing personal freedom everyday for the good of society. For example, 9/11 caused a tremendous loss in personal freedom. IMO, this isn't any different.Based on this, I think I can agree to all of the above changes. For item 3, make the private sale of any handgun go through a licensed dealer to provide the appropriate back ground checks and waiting periods.

Quality post here. I believe there is room for compromise here. It's probably true that making it difficult or impossible to legally own assault weapons won't fix the problem, but there isn't a very logical case against trying. In the wake of what has happened, I would support making those suggested changes. The problem is, most "gun people" would see that as some sort of admission of being wrong on this issue and that guns were somehow the cause of this tragedy. I see that as a hangup.I think people need to get over their own opinions and just back the president if he tries something like what is being suggested. It isn't an acknowledgement of anything other than kids dying sucks... bad... and we need to try something.

 

[jafo]

Look, there have been three shootings in the last three months. All the shooters all had mental health issues, and weren't gun owners. Yet everyone wants to punish the 40+ million gun owners for these crimes. Find someone else to blame, we are sick of it. Lets have a serious conversation about mental health in this country, and how these people are ignored by our system. Lets talk about how they are fed drugs that make them suicidal and/or homicidal. Only then can we help prevent these terrible tragedies.

Why don't you and the other supporters of gun ownership in here stop attempting to respond to straw arguments? There's a few posters in here that are spewing crap about banning guns and changing the 2nd Amendment, but for serious minded people, that's not where the debate is. Instead, the REAL debate centers around 3 very specific proposals:1. Revive the assault weapons ban.2. Limit the capacity of magazines to 10 bullets.3. Remove the private sales "gun show" loophole.Personally I lean against #1, and am very much in favor of #2 and #3. How about you? If you oppose these ideas, then give us reasons why. But stop acting like you're the victim here and that we want to "punish" you.

You are right. It seems I am wasting my time responding to many here. Let's address the proposals you have outlined.1. Revive the assault weapons ban.I do not support another ban. We tried this once before under Clinton, and it was not shown to have positively affected crime rates. I believe civilians should continue to have access to these weapons as defensive measures or recreational purposes. I find it interesting that a 7mm deer rifle is much more powerful than any of these so called "assault weapons", yet not as many people are looking to ban because they don't look as scary.2. Limit the capacity of magazines to 10 bullets.We actually tried this too under the last ban. Although, I am not strongly against this one. When I am target shooting it only takes a few seconds to change magazines anyways.3. Remove the private sales "gun show" loophole.I would be in favor of requiring private sales to go through an FFL dealer at the show, who would perform all necessary background checks to verify eligibility. We have a law that states a felon can not own a gun, yet it is hard to enforce as they can walk into a show and buy one.

I can't believe I'm falling somewhat with the anti-gun crowd on this one, but your 7 mm would not be the weapon of choice to shoot up a bunch of people unless you want to do it from 400 yards. In my mind, that's the difference. If you've ever shot an AR you have to admit that it is an accurate, efficient, low-recoil, killing machine. Its a lot of fun to shoot, but in the wrong hands has devistating consequences.

I guess that depends on if they care about getting caught. It wasn't all that long ago here in Ohio that someone was using a long range weapon as a "sniper attack" against a highway. This continued for several months. If i remember right only one person was killed but there was a lot of fear about traveling. They eventually caught the guy and discovered he had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.

 

[timschochet]

I definitely started off from the position of banning all guns. I remain confused why people want guns - I've yet to hear a compelling reason for them.

But with that said, I'm convinced that there's a portion of the population that's very vocal. And politicians are scared of losing their contributions. So I've gone down the road asking what can be done with guns. And no gun nut is willing to be specific on what an assault weapons ban would entail.

ChopMeat's proposed ban:

- All automatic weapons

- All semi-automatic weapons. Not just specific models. No exceptions for pistol grips. ALL.

- No private ownership of the above.

- Reduction in magazine size.

Does anything less than the above have any impact on gun violence???

The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are via handguns in high density urban areas.Not that it matters. Even what you are suggesting with the ban on semi-automatic weapons would never make it through Congress much less through the courts.

And this is my point - the gun lobby is unwilling to allow meaningful changes to gun laws. They will divert attention to other things, but dear god don't touch their guns. Regardless of whether we look at how we deal with the mentally ill, whether we allow god in schools, we attack this in a multi-pronged way.A meaningful response - one that attempts to deal with gun usage - is impossible with the gun lobby.

You guys are talking over each other. Chopmeat, you make an IMPOSSIBLE recommendation (banning all semi-automatic weapons), and when jonessed tells you its never going to happen, you accuse the gun lobby of not being able to have a serious discussion. Congratulations, you two may not have convinced each other, but you've certainly convinced yourselves how irrational the other guys are!Again, can we return to a serious debate here? Assault weapons, magazine capacity, closing loopholes. Stop with the nonsense.

Have you, Tim, offered ANYTHING that will seriously put a dent in the problem? What changes in gun laws do you propose that amount to anything more than window dressing?

Actually yes I have. I honestly believe that the two items I have been pushing for around two years now, limiting magazine capacity and closing the private sales "gun show" loophole, will save lives. They're not my ideas; they just happen to be the ones I think are doable and will work.

I wasnt suggesting that you havent offered anything. What I've suggested is that your suggestion is so watered down as to be ineffectual. Your proposals:- Limit magazing capacity - The shooter at Sandy Hook had three guns. 10 / clip * 3 guns = 30 shots - you havent stopped him.

- Closing private sales - Ok, so now all sales go through bureaucratically-vetted offices. Now what? So the government reviews all applicants. This wouldnt have done anything for those children.

While your suggestions may be palatable to the right, they're still a waste of political capital and simply ineffective. Offer something meaningful.

I don't believe my ideas would be ineffective:1. PERHAPS limiting the magazine capacity wouldn't have stopped the killer on Friday- but law enforcement authorities believe it might very well have had a significant effect in the case of Jared Loughner and a few other cases in which the killer sprayed bullets indisciminately.

2. The reason that law enforcement is so much in favor of closing the private sales loophole is that, statistically, the use of these currently unrecorded guns in violent crimes is especially high. Having records of each sale would (a) make it more difficult for felons to purchase weapons (b) make it MUCH easier for the police to catch bad guys.

My goal on this issue is twofold: to reduce crime and the likelihood of awful events like what happened on Friday, and to allow responsible law-abiding gun owners to continue to own firearms for protection and pleasure. I don't believe these two goals are irreconcilable.

 

[BassNBrew]

Thanks. The bolded does ring true, an I suppose is a reason that the comparison between Prohibition and gun control might have some value. I still think we should recognize the significant and obvious differences between the two, though. Heavy-handed gun restrictions might or might not work, and if not some of the reasons might be the same as some of the reasons Prohibition didn't work, but it's not even close to a perfect match.

Sure, nothing is a perfect match. But our experience banning drugs and alcohol is instructive. Same with bans on prostitution. And bans on abortion. And bans on sodomy. It's hard to ban stuff that people really like, and there are often a lot of terrible unintended consequences.

I think the key difference here is that all of those things can be enjoyed quietly and privately with very little risk that you'll get caught. And while gun ownership can be quiet and private, gun usage/enjoyment cannot be. I'm not really into heroin, prostitutes or automatic weapons, but if I loved them all but they all were banned, I think I'd be much more likely to continue enjoying heroin or hookers, simply because I could make use of them without really risking arrest. That suggests to me that a gun ban might be a greater deterrent than those other things Not that I'm advocating one, just talking hypothetically about the similarities/differences.

Tobias - I see where you're coming from. That said, couldn't you use the anti-gun argument that if we would eliminate all (guns, hookers, alcohol), it would reduce the total number, which would have a positive impact? The reason I originally brought up alcohol is that there are very few positive benefits other than personal enjoyment. We as a society have decided to only limit alcohol to a certain extent and accept the colateral damage and death beyond that. I'm not sure what country that earlier poster was from, but he was surprised that this country has legal distribution of guns that kill and substances (alcohol and cigarettes) that kill. Like many have said, it's a cultural thing. So while it's not a perfect anology, I does have some merit. I realize guns are louder if you shoot them, but booze can lead to loud behavior that tips off usage. Many mock the "don't take my guns away" crowd, but it's not much different than don't take my booze away other than the booze population is much larger than the gun owner population. If the pro-hooker, pro-drug, or pro-gambling population was larger we'd have more access to those items which can be destructive if not handled in a responsible manner. Legal weed usage is gaining traction over legal cocaine usage because that population is larger. We have pockets of gambling because a large percentage of the population favors gambling. Note that I undertand gambling, drugs (especially weed), and hookers aren't in the same ballpark as guns and alcohol from a death standpoint, just using that to explain why alcohol is not banned and these items are.

 

[ATC1]

Again. Who knows that I am carrying beardless for what purpose? You saying undercover agents should not carry because we are not sure what their reason for carrying is?

No. I'm not saying that.We know why undercover agents are carrying guns. BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDERCOVER AGENTS.

Well know why citizens with concealed carry permits are carrying. It is for self defense.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

While your suggestions may be palatable to the right, they're still a waste of political capital and simply ineffective. Offer something meaningful.

Maybe starting on the civil side is where we need to go. Whenever you hit a business in their wallet they change to make sure their wallet doesn't get hit. So, let's start by making any seller, private or commercial, liable in civil court, to the victims that suffered by the use of what they sold. You want to massively change gun culture in this country, that would do it without changing on a policy level, the perceived constitutional right to own these weapons.If you want to go one step further, make the manufacturer liable too. And I'm not saying possible liability, I'm talking strict liability. If a hand gun or an assault weapon (for example) is used in the commission of a crime then the seller and manufacture are both strictly liable for all civil damages, jointly. You would see manufacture and seller instigated safeguards in these things faster than any other way.We could also attach criminal and civil penalties to parents whose children take their weapons and use them. Wouldn't have helped in the Connecticut situation as the kid killed him mom, but she was the "gun nut". If you want to be a gun nut (and I mean that with respect) then you bare the responsibility if your child - or even anyone on the planet - uses your weapon in a crime.Legalize and decriminalize many drugs. Yes, that one hits this topic too whether people want to admit it or not.Mental illness does need to be addressed. I'm all for it for a myriad of reasons. I have no idea how to begin, but I'm willing to listen to anything.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

To kind of expand upon Matthias' point, let's look at where the Second Amendment exists in the bill of rights.

Before it is the free speech/press/religion (and keep in mind that at the founding "free speech" generally meant freedom from prior restraints).

After it, we have the right against quartering troops and then unreasonable searches and seizures. I think all of those rights, the 2nd through the 4th amendments, are easily read together as establishing a locus of increased protection in the home, in the same way that the 5th through 8th Amendments deal with due process and protection against the coercive criminal power of the State.

Whether we believe the Second Amendment was a collective or individual right, the precatory clause clearly states that it's purpose was to provide for militias. Militia members kept their weapons in their homes (in fact, the Militia Act, adopted by the early Congress required them to keep a weapon in their homes). Now, I believe that the purpose of the Second Amendment was so that federal laws could not intrude on the States' ability to form militias by keeping citizens from having arms in their homes. It was designed to keep a balance of power between the states and the federal government considering that the Founders could not decide on a measure to outlaw a standing army. It was an individual right, but a limited one, employed for a limited purpose.

Which is not to say that there was no right to self-defense. The Castle doctrine was recognized by Blackstone, who traced it back to Cicero. Others traced it back to Exodus. If the 9th Amendment protected anything, it certainly protected the common law right of self defense in the home as understood at the founding. I would argue that a true originalist would recognize that.

 

[ATC1]

Or to be even more clear: THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOUR RIGHTS AT HOME AND YOUR RIGHTS IN PUBLIC VARY BY THE DIFFERENT RIGHTS. I HOPE THIS ISN'T TOO CONFUSING TO YOU.

So the 2nd amendment differentiates between the right to bare arm at home vs to defend yourself in public?

You have the right to bare arms pretty much everywhere, I think.You don't have the right to bear arms everywhere. Some places ban concealed weapons or weapons altogether. So the way your Second Amendment rights are articulated do vary from place to place.

Which is why I think those gun-free-zones are unconstitutional and don't help anyone but the criminals. Malls, movies, schools. All gun free zones and the likely targeted areas.

 

[timschochet]

While your suggestions may be palatable to the right, they're still a waste of political capital and simply ineffective. Offer something meaningful.

Maybe starting on the civil side is where we need to go. Whenever you hit a business in their wallet they change to make sure their wallet doesn't get hit. So, let's start by making any seller, private or commercial, liable in civil court, to the victims that suffered by the use of what they sold. You want to massively change gun culture in this country, that would do it without changing on a policy level, the perceived constitutional right to own these weapons.If you want to go one step further, make the manufacturer liable too. And I'm not saying possible liability, I'm talking strict liability. If a hand gun or an assault weapon (for example) is used in the commission of a crime then the seller and manufacture are both strictly liable for all civil damages, jointly. You would see manufacture and seller instigated safeguards in these things faster than any other way.

We could also attach criminal and civil penalties to parents whose children take their weapons and use them. Wouldn't have helped in the Connecticut situation as the kid killed him mom, but she was the "gun nut". If you want to be a gun nut (and I mean that with respect) then you bare the responsibility if your child - or even anyone on the planet - uses your weapon in a crime.

Legalize and decriminalize many drugs. Yes, that one hits this topic too whether people want to admit it or not.

Mental illness does need to be addressed. I'm all for it for a myriad of reasons. I have no idea how to begin, but I'm willing to listen to anything.

Well, there may be a problem with these two ideas. Because according to doctors, there is a strong connection between marijuana use and increased schizophrenia for certain people. It's the one concern I have about decriminalizing pot.

 

[ATC1]

To kind of expand upon Matthias' point, let's look at where the Second Amendment exists in the bill of rights.Before it is the free speech/press/religion (and keep in mind that at the founding "free speech" generally meant freedom from prior restraints).After it, we have the right against quartering troops and then unreasonable searches and seizures. I think all of those rights, the 2nd through the 4th amendments, are easily read together as establishing a locus of increased protection in the home, in the same way that the 5th through 8th Amendments deal with due process and protection against the coercive criminal power of the State.Whether we believe the Second Amendment was a collective or individual right, the precatory clause clearly states that it's purpose was to provide for militias. Militia members kept their weapons in their homes (in fact, the Militia Act, adopted by the early Congress required them to keep a weapon in their homes). Now, I believe that the purpose of the Second Amendment was so that federal laws could not intrude on the States' ability to form militias by keeping citizens from having arms in their homes. It was designed to keep a balance of power between the states and the federal government considering that the Founders could not decide on a measure to outlaw a standing army. It was an individual right, but a limited one, employed for a limited purpose. Which is not to say that there was no right to self-defense. The Castle doctrine was recognized by Blackstone, who traced it back to Cicero. Others traced it back to Exodus. If the 9th Amendment protected anything, it certainly protected the common law right of self defense in the home as understood at the founding. I would argue that a true originalist would recognize that.

I was told I could protect myself by carrying concealed outside of my home if I went through the proper training, responsibility etc. Why should that be limited to me in certain locations where mass shootings occur? I know the bill of rights can be interpreted many ways. But I make sure I know what my local laws require of me to be able defend myself.