New Gun Control... Necessary or Politically Expedient

[ltstanfo]

All,

I've started this new thread to discuss the topic of possible new gun control legislation. I would prefer that the final Newtown Police report of the tragedy be out first but with the understanding that I reserve the right to change my opinion as evidence is released, I will tentatively press on with discussing this topic. I'm still on my Christmas break so it may be a few days between responses.

To begin with, I do agree that this horrible event in Newtown has forced a public discussion on the topic of gun control. My specific concern is that both sides are trying to proceed without knowing all the relevant information... although one side certainly benefits from trying to push their agenda by keeping the tragedy in the news and therefore causing what I refer to as "knee jerk" reactions from the public.

With regards to the specifics of the Newtown incident, we do appear to know the following:

1. There were three weapons on the shooter - a rifle (Bushmaster AR-15 type clone, apparently used to do all the killing) and two pistols (Glock and Sig, specific models unknown). There was also a shotgun in the trunk of the shooter's vehicle.
2. All of the weapons were apparently legally obtained by the shooter's mother and registered accordingly under CT state law.
3. The mother was killed in her bed by the shooter. Was the weapon used to kill her one of her own? This would imply that the shooter had easy / quick access to the weapons. He subsequently took 4 weapons and the mother's car to the school.
4. CT has its own version of a so called "Assault Weapons Ban" in place and apparently the Bushmaster did not meet the criteria to the ban.

Based on items 1-4 above, it would appear that all state and federal gun laws were followed.

QUESTION FROM LEE:

A. Did the mother keep her firearms locked up or use trigger locks? There is apparently a CT statute that requires safeguarding of firearms if a child (under 16) will be in the house. The shooter was 20 so that law was not violated.
B. The mother was apparently concerned about her son's mental state, based on recent reports. If item A from above was not in place, why did she not correct this? Was there ever talk about this?
C. Child was trained by mother to shoot. No harm in and of that but if the child was psychologically unstable, should not the mother have been more cautious?

I cannot reliably discuss / debate items A-C until the police report comes out.

Until I know if any state or federal firearms laws were violated, I do not feel comfortable (as in sure of my statements beyond any doubt) addressing calls for additional gun legislation. What failed? What worked? The big buzz words of the moment include the re-institution of some variety of the first failed assault weapons ban. I say failed because there is no conclusive proof that it really did what it was intended to do:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...apons-ban-work/story?id=18000724#.UNtx7oWd8QV

Still I am willing to discuss theory and try to respond to questions. I certainly have my opinions and don't mind sharing them.

More later,
ltstanfo

 

[Robert]

Well, you already know how I feel about the subject and my acceptance that the way guns are a part of the culture in your country is something I cannot properly relate to.

I still feel the world would be a lot safer if there was an international ban on the manufacture of anything other than hunting rifles and shotguns.

 

[redrumloa]

I still feel the world would be a lot safer if there was an international ban on the manufacture of anything other than hunting rifles and shotguns.

A shiver just went down my spine.

 

[Robert]

Gandhi quotes to support a pro-gun stance?
Good, old Mahatma "assault weapons for every citizen" Gandhi?
This from the man who recently professed to look down his nose at what he perceives as propaganda?

Even by your usual standards, that is outstandingly funny. Well played.


-EDIT-

Even if the citizenship were expected to take on a tyrannical government, in this day and age you'd need everyone to have their own personal nuke (like Lee has - but his ICBM arsenal is respectfully excluded from this discussion ), just to be on the safe side.

 

[faethor]

although one side certainly benefits from trying to push their agenda by keeping the tragedy in the news and therefore causing what I refer to as "knee jerk" reactions from the public

I think I disagree at where the benefit is here? There's a pro-gun organization (NRA) there's no anti-gun organization. Pushing knee-jerk reactions increases weapon and ammo sales. Which in turn increases gun manufacturers profits. In response the gun manufactures push the NRA even more money. Again not selling guns doesn't increase anyone's bottom line an in turn there's no anti-gun organization that receives the influx of funding. I see the bigger win for the pro-gun side of the debate. Money keeps the wheels greased and keeps the polititcans greased.

Actually what I see failing here is the state of the mental healthcare industry in this country. We've moved away from treatment facilities into using prisions and jails to house those with mental instabilities and issues. This has moved us away from treatment into turning a blind eye to the problem. It's a side effect of our healthcare system.

 

[cecilia]

Actually what I see failing here is the state of the mental healthcare industry in this country. We've moved away from treatment facilities into using prisions and jails to house those with mental instabilities and issues. This has moved us away from treatment into turning a blind eye to the problem. It's a side effect of our healthcare system.

that was my point in the other thread

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

why did the mother feel the need to have guns?

 

[Wayne]

why did the mother feel the need to have guns?

Not really sure that's a correctly turned question there Fluffy...

Why do people feel the need to own cars? Televisions? Computers? Apple or Android devices? or literally anything else? I'm sitting here owning a 2012 Dodge pickup and already thinking that I "need" something else instead. (Primarily because I only drive about 5 miles a day and the 10 mpg short drive is killing me financially).

Every person out there has at least one thing they like/want/need. Even I own several weapons, having collected them over the years.

Wayne

 

[Robert]

Why do people feel the need to own cars? Televisions? Computers? Apple or Android devices? or literally anything else?

See, this is what I mean about not being able to relate to your gun culture. Your answer implies that you equate weapons with other entertainment and utility items.
I do not.
They are designed for killing.
Compare them to computers? Televisions? Cars?
Not for me. As far as I'm concerned, guns fall into the same category as grenades, improvised explosive devices and nuclear missiles.

Their primary purpose is death.

I'm sitting here owning a 2012 Dodge pickup and already thinking that I "need" something else instead. (Primarily because I only drive about 5 miles a day and the 10 mpg short drive is killing me financially).

Every person out there has at least one thing they like/want/need. Even I own several weapons, having collected them over the years.

In my peer group, if someone had a large and varied collection of computers, they'd probably be thought of as something of a harmless, nerdy geek.
If that someone also had a large and varied collection of devices designed for killing other people, they'd probably be thought of as downright weird, pretty creepy and probably best avoided.
Furthermore, nowadays they'd probably be arrested and sent to prison.

But it's clearly different where you guys live.

Lee mentioned the Dunblane massacre on the other thread. Before that happened, many people in Scotland owned handguns, including one of my uncles. As a kid it, I was spellbound by it. I can still remember the first time he let me heft it in my hand. How heavy and powerful it felt. I remember thinking that I would buy a gun when I was old enough. I told my dad, and he asked me much the same question as Fluffy did; "Why would you feel the need to own a gun?"
My answer was, "It'd be great fun to shoot a gun!" Again, my Dad pointed out that the primary purpose of a handgun is to kill another person.

But I was a kid who regularly played "killing" games with other kids, such as "Cowboys and Indians" or "British and Germans." I didn't just like handguns, I fantasised about owning all sorts of elaborate killing machines. As I grew older, my interest in guns waned.

When I was an adult and no longer fascinated by weaponry, Dunblane happened.
30 miles from me.
Handguns were banned in the aftermath and lots of people complained about their "rights" being trampled. Even then, I thought it a pathetic whinge.
Nowadays, almost no one complains about not being able to hold a collection of killing machines and, if they did, they'd be viewed as a weirdo and an extremist. Much like smoking in restaurants and bars, it's simply no longer socially acceptable.

I don't like too much about the way the UK runs its affairs but that is one change I'm extremely happy with.

Having said all that, there was never the gun-owning culture here that you guys have. You guys really love 'em killing machines to an extent that never existed this side of the pond.
Banning handguns in your country simply will never happen and, from a know-nothing-outsiders point of view, that's a shame.

 

[redrumloa]

Gandhi quotes to support a pro-gun stance?
Good, old Mahatma "assault weapons for every citizen" Gandhi?
This from the man who recently professed to look down his nose at what he perceives as propaganda?

Even by your usual standards, that is outstandingly funny. Well played.

U mad bro? An internet meme on an obscure internet discussion forum can be propaganda?

-EDIT-

Even if the citizenship were expected to take on a tyrannical government, in this day and age you'd need everyone to have their own personal nuke (like Lee has - but his ICBM arsenal is respectfully excluded from this discussion ), just to be on the safe side.

A tyrannical government wouldn't likely be nuking their own back yard. You forget the USA has always been different than EU countries. That's a good thing, otherwise you would be speaking German right now.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
― Thomas Jefferson

“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”
― Thomas Jefferson

“A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!”
― Thomas Jefferson

“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”
― Thomas Jefferson

 

[faethor]

@Robert,

Thanks. Interesting view from outside of the USA. Within the USA most of us need a car. There are a few exceptions (NYC, Chicago) but for the most part we can't do without them. However, most of us don't need guns and most of the gun owners don't hunt. If trends continue in late 2013 / early 2014 there will be more gun deaths than auto related deaths. Doing away with them is next to impossible. Also, I think it'd be hard for us to sustain our world policing actions if the society itself wasn't gun crazy. For example, the USA has a bigger Navy then the rest of the world combined. I don't think we could do that without guns being branded as a 'good' from a very young age. Clearly the positive messages of guns helps the USA to philosophy that it's okay to be the lone military super-duper power. (not commenting on if that's good or bad, more so that it's a direct relation.)\

@Red,

A tyrannical government wouldn't likely be nuking their own back yard. You forget the USA has always been different than EU countries. That's a good thing, otherwise you would be speaking German right now.

The USA could not have obtained our independence if not for the help of foreign powers of the era.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” ― Thomas Jefferson

Clearly the US government has the firepower to take whatever they want internally. That you and your peashooters are any 'last resort' is a delusion. At best you'll take out a couple of people before you are gone yourself.

It seems the NRA version of the 2nd amendment tend to skip over that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This piece wasn't to guarantee overthrow of the USA but to build a quick militia in the time of foreign invasion.

IMO, it's time the Supreme Court step up and decide what the 2nd Amendment means. Is it militia related? Or is it an unalienable right to own whatever the hell we want (aka grenades, cannons, nukes, etc.) Once that's done either side can then begin modifying the laws accordingly. However, without that clear line in the sand it's difficult for either side to bring forward modifications. As such the rights to guns are kept in a constant state of debate and out of a true direction.

 

[Wayne]

See, this is what I mean about not being able to relate to your gun culture. Your answer implies that you equate weapons with other entertainment and utility items.

The rest of your seemingly valid viewpoint aside, I wasn't equating weapons to harmless items, I was making the point that guns are simply objects. Nothing more. Nothing less. Their existence doesn't equate to evil or to violence any more than selling a car to a drunk or selling a lead pipe to "Colonel Mustard" for use in the Library.

The innate purpose of any firearm is sport, not murder. I own weapons yet I've never shot anyone or anything in my life outside of a target range and dove hunting as a young boy. I truly enjoy target shooting, Absolutely nothing wrong with it. Same with pretty much any weapon owner I'm sure,

The key difference is that neither the weapons themselves, nor the ownership of said weapons makes weapons evil - whether firearms, knives, swords, or lead pipes, "Evil" is determined by the ACTIONS (or potentially in this case, the negligence) of the person who owns the item, not the item itself.

There are more people killed every year by negligent or drunk drivers than all the firearms in the US combined. Should we - by extension - run about banning or legislating cars out of existence?

There are already laws to take away driving privileges and vehicle ownership from drunk drivers but that doesn't stop them from driving, or even buying another car. Same with guns. Bad people will always be able to acquire weapons, regardless of legality.

Not that I'm lumping you into this sentence or anything, I just think its both moronic and stupid that sheeple are emotionally knee jerking and trying to ban all weapons when only 1/10th of 1% are actually used for violence. Only 1/5th of one percent of every privately owned firearm in the world is actually used against other human beings (combining violent crimes and self defense instances)...

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Wayne

 

[faethor]

@Wayne

There are more people killed every year by negligent or drunk drivers than all the firearms in the US combined.

I don't know if there's a fair comparison here. Cars are a necessity in most parts of this nation. Guns don't have the same level of necessity. The tipping point of fair and reasonable may be hard to define. The extreme examples are always a bit easier. - Not having fully automatic weapons with 1K round clips being carried around by everyone everyday is a very good idea, for example.

Seems to be the blurry line of fair and reasonable is akin to the 'I know it when I see it' excuse tried to be used for porn. What one man's trigger point is, isn't universal. (Pun intended.)

 

[Robert]

The innate purpose of any firearm is sport, not murder.

I disagree. The innate purpose of most firearms is killing. The fact that many people now use them for sport does not change that fact.

The key difference is that neither the weapons themselves, nor the ownership of said weapons makes weapons evil -

Evil?
What has evil got to do with anything? I certainly didn't bring it up and don't think it's relevant.
What does evil even mean? It's a vacuous, almost meaningless word that is completely unhelpful in a debate about guns.

There are more people killed every year by negligent or drunk drivers than all the firearms in the US combined. Should we - by extension - run about banning or legislating cars out of existence?

Really, Wayne? Surely you know that's an absurdly fatuous argument?

Bad people will always be able to acquire weapons, regardless of legality.

True but getting a hold of a gun where I live is not a trivial matter. Could I get one if I wanted? Yes but I'd have to make serious effort and call in some old contacts from the less than legal side of the business world. The average citizen here would, I imagine, have more trouble than I would. If the manufacture of guns were internationally prohibited it would be even more difficult.

Not that I'm lumping you into this sentence or anything, I just think its both moronic and stupid that sheeple are emotionally knee jerking and trying to ban all weapons....

Knee-jerking? I'm glad you qualified that to exclude me because I've felt like this for over 20 years.

-EDIT-
Also, I don't think anyone wants to ban all weapons and I'm pretty sure you know that too.
-/EDIT-

You say you like to shoot guns. Good for you. My uncle used to like to shoot handguns.
Now he isn't allowed to and, as far as I'm concerned, Scotland feels a safer place (if only slightly) because of that.

 

[Robert]

U mad bro? An internet meme on an obscure internet discussion forum can be propaganda?

According to a certain poster on the following thread who goes by the name of redrumloa, apparently it can:
http://www.whyzzat.com/threads/nra-is-tsas-new-friend.20907/

Nice propaganda piece.

 

[Robert]

@Robert,

Thanks. Interesting view from outside of the USA. Within the USA most of us need a car. There are a few exceptions (NYC, Chicago) but for the most part we can't do without them. However, most of us don't need guns and most of the gun owners don't hunt. If trends continue in late 2013 / early 2014 there will be more gun deaths than auto related deaths. Doing away with them is next to impossible. Also, I think it'd be hard for us to sustain our world policing actions if the society itself wasn't gun crazy.

Interesting point and not one I'd really considered.
That said, and no disrespect, but as I explained on the original thread, my concern for US gun control is minimal these days. Another week, another mass shooting in the US of A. It gets a bit like another bunch of civilians slaughtered in Gaza - tragic but so common as to have an ever diminishing impact on callous, old me.

You live in a country where guns are part of the culture. To an outsider, it looks like gun death comes with that. Moreover, it looks like anyone trying to argue otherwise is either wilfully blind or barking mad. The statistics seem to reinforce that.

However, it's your country and I stopped worrying about it awhile ago. As long as they're hard to get a hold of over here, I'm happy enough. Unfortunately, they seem to be getting easier to obtain over here but are still out of the reach of the average citizen so I'm not overly concerned.
Yet.

Clearly the US government has the firepower to take whatever they want internally. That you and your peashooters are any 'last resort' is a delusion. At best you'll take out a couple of people before you are gone yourself.

That's another argument that looks hilariously absurd to outsiders. Hence my back and forths with Lee, going back several years about the individual right to bear arms being logically extended to nukes.
I'd extend this to include everything from chemical & biological weapons, attack helicopters, fighter jets with heat seeking missiles to land mines, cluster bombs and white phosphorous incendiaries. ;-)

-EDIT-
It also strikes me that one of the main reasons that people are so anti-gun control is that shooting guns is fun.
Clearly this is true; shooting guns is great fun. My uncle loved it.
However, most people realise that "my personal fun" is a pathetic counter to "your personal safety" so they drag out the old constitution nonsense to deflect from the real reasons.

 

[redrumloa]

@Wayne
I don't know if there's a fair comparison here. Cars are a necessity in most parts of this nation. Guns don't have the same level of necessity. The tipping point of fair and reasonable may be hard to define. The extreme examples are always a bit easier. - Not having fully automatic weapons with 1K round clips being carried around by everyone everyday is a very good idea, for example.

Seems to be the blurry line of fair and reasonable is akin to the 'I know it when I see it' excuse tried to be used for porn. What one man's trigger point is, isn't universal. (Pun intended.)

No offense, but in a previous thread you admitted to being the 1%. Not all of us can live in gated communities with armed guards. maybe you cannot connect with the common man. Just saying...

 

[cecilia]

why did the mother feel the need to have guns?

that's what I want to know.

frankly, I can't imagine feeling the NEED for it. Like Robert I just don't Get It.

of course, my Grandfather taught me to be antiwar. And he was in the trenches so he SAW IT ALL.

when he came home from the war he (as my grandmother liked to tell it) he threw off his uniform and his gun and never looked back.
He wanted NONE of that anymore.

he still had his share of nightmares for a while, but he was looking forward to living a good and creative life.

so, to me guns are only about destruction and death

and I see nothing good about them.

 

[Wayne]

Let's not get all butt hurt here folks. Lee's original questions were very legitimate and while I understand that gun control is one of those "pushbutton" topics, we really are just trying to have a discussion.

The "why" the mother had the guns is really irrelevant. The fact that she did, and didn't secure them from her unstable son is very relevant.

Removing all weapons is not the answer, because as we see in other countries, it's very much true that "when you outlaw guns, the only people with guns will be outlaws".

Legislating guns is not the answer, because we already have PLENTY of laws on the books, but those only apply to law abiding citizens, not the criminals that the law-abiding citizens hope to protect themselves from.

This is not about militias and defense from the tyranny of government.

This whole drive is now a knee-jerk reaction because a bunch of innocent young children got killed with a weapon (type is completely irrelevant) by a mentally disturbed smeghead.

So, as I see it, this boils down to two arguments.

1) Personal responsibility for the security of the weapons in question.
2) Help *is* available for the mentally imbalanced. Why -- if as she reportedly suspected he was crazy -- didn't SHE take steps to get him help?

Responsibility I can almost wave off because for all we know -- he killed her, then accessed the weapons. Not taking action to get him the help he should have is the bigger question, but even that's already irrelevant.

Children are dead. This in itself is a Herculean tragedy. We weep and some mourn for them but again, I offer that the gun was not the perpetrator of the crime, the crazy wanker was.

Wayne

 

[faethor]

No offense, but in a previous thread you admitted to being the 1%. Not all of us can live in gated communities with armed guards. maybe you cannot connect with the common man. Just saying...

1%? Hmm don't remember that comment. In family income we're in the top 5-10% for the USA. Though I wouldn't be surprised if we're in the top 1% locally. No gated communities, I have 19.2 acres.

You make it sound like life is so dangerous for the 'common man'. Turns out that violent crimes continue along their downward trend. Least violent crime since 1963 I'd add in many of those stats are drug related. We've had murders and about 99% are either drug related or family violence. Family is generally more of a threat than an external stranger. Rapes and murders of women are typically committed by family and friends, not an intruder. And unlike the NRA claims it appears videogames reduce violent crime . I somehow doubt there's a direct relation but if the NRA is right that there is a relation it appears to be inversely related. Heck schools encourage you to take each other out daily in gym. That's what Dodge Ball is all about.