Submitted by Guest Blogger, Lawrence Rafferty
In light of the tragic shooting today in Arizona, I have to wonder aloud if automatic weapons should be banned by this country. I realize that the 2nd Amendment right to own a gun is strongly defended by the NRA and other right-wing groups, but I am sick and tired of reading about all of the shootings the past couple of years. Whether it was the shootings earlier this year at various United States Marine sites around the country or the California shootout in July with the guy who was trying to attack the ACLU and the TIDES non-profit organization; the vitriol seems to be on the rise. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ And with politicians fanning the flames, this vitriol is not bound to be diminished anytime soon.
The Second Amendment is a very concise Amendment. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2 We have seen various attempts over the years by the Feds and many States and municipalities to restrict gun ownership. The recent Supreme Court case of McDonald , et al vs. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al affirmed the fundamental right of Americans to own a gun by a 5-4 decision. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf The McDonald decision did not give us any guidance on what kind of restrictions to that fundamental right the Supreme Court would allow. However, how can automatic weapons or high-powered rifles be exempt from an outright banning of their ownership or at least significant restrictions on their use? Can a good faith argument really be made that an automatic weapon is necessary for personal protection?
The Supreme Court Justices do not live in a bubble and they must see what damage these weapons have already brought to families across the nation. Don’t they?
Michellefrommadison: One must be aware that bullets (the moving part of the cartridge) are easily cast from lead. Ban bullets, then you must ban the brass shell casing, the primer and of course, the powder. But these can be stored, in controlled environments for up to half a century. As for a 1000′ no gun zone, modern firearms can go out to 333 yards without to much trouble. In fact at our shooting range, there is one bench set at 400 yards +. this proposed legislation is certainly no answer to this, just another dumb law that should not see the light of day…so it goes…
King’s proposed legislation is completely pointless. It would have had no effect on the Arizona incident, and anyone who wants to shoot a federal official sure as hell isn’t going to care about such a law. “Yeah, I was going to assassinate that guy, but they don’t allow guns around his building, so I was foiled.” Good god.
michellefrommadison-
“While anyone can load their own ammunition, the ready-access to an unlimited supply of bullets by familiar locations such as even WalMarts needs to be the first step in reducing the probabilities of these crimes since the issue of ammunition does not appear to be covered in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.”
What regulations are you proposing? The Arizona murders required a single box and most day to day criminals rarely if ever fire their guns, so large amounts of ammo aren’t needed. And if they can get a gun illegally, a box of cartridges would be laughably easy to acquire.
As for the constitutionality of such a regulation, really, do you think the 2nd protects possession of a weapon but allows infringement on the ability to make it functional? I’m no scholar, but I don’t think they were interested in protecting the right to own a club.
An excellent story provided by Maddow, the best from her I can remember seeing from her. Thanks so much for the link. As far as the issue of guns and the controlling and prevention of access and possession of guns, I believe the issue of regulation of any sort has to be in the focus of ready-availability of the ammunition. That is the issue to begin to attempt to lessen the inappropriate use of firearms, which has not even been looked at yet. While anyone can load their own ammunition, the ready-access to an unlimited supply of bullets by familiar locations such as even WalMarts needs to be the first step in reducing the probabilities of these crimes since the issue of ammunition does not appear to be covered in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/11-10 Eugene Robinson on the gun crazy country we live in.
Rachel Maddow had an interesting segment on her show last night about mass shootings–including a discussion with Sheriff Edgar Domenech who investigated the Virginia Tech massacre.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#41011447
In a similar vein to Bdaman’s link to Hupp’s testimony, I’d like to link to Nicole Goeser telling her story.
http://www.youtube.com/ohioccwdotorg#p/a/f/0/VEIv308PQ1Q
http://www.youtube.com/ohioccwdotorg#p/u/4/kvFR5M-ini8
A stalker walked into a restaurant and shot her husband dead. Despite having a high amount of training for a civilian and a concealed carry permit, she had to leave her gun in her car because it was illegal to carry it anywhere that served alcohol. Needless to say, her stalker wasn’t impressed with that law.
From Huffington Post (1/11/2010)
Peter King, Leading Republican, To Introduce Strict Gun-Control Legislation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/peter-king-strict-gun-control_n_807323.html
Excerpt:
Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman’s intentions.
King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. The proposed law follows the Saturday shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and a federal judge that left six dead, including the judge, and 14 wounded.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the nation’s most outspoken gun-control advocates, is backing King’s measure and is expected to put the weight of his pro-gun-control organization behind it.
ekeyra,
One step at a time for patience is required when dealing with issues so deeply embedded within the culture.
Read Bud’s post.
here is a good reason to ban drinking at Cajun weddings:
http://www.waltonandjohnson.com/showarchives.html?n_id=933
Blouise,
There are two ways to achieve your goal. You could convince everyone that they dont need their guns and to dispose of them peacefully and voluntarilly. If this is your goal and methodology than i would applaud you. Non-violence is always a respectable end to be achieved.
On the other hand if you wish to do away with gun ownership politically i see a few problems. The first being that the people you want to go round up everyone else’s guns, will need guns themselves. Good luck convincing them to give up theirs once they have everyone else’s. Second even if the gun confiscators are truly angelic and relinquish their weapons, how do you stop more from being produced, sold, and acquired illegally? Arent you going to have to keep a few guns around for precisely these circumstances?
In case anyone cares heres what the father of the poor girl you all seem to be arguing about had to say.
“This shouldn’t happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society, we’re going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative.”
– John Green, father of nine-year-old Christina Green, who was killed in Saturday’s Tucson shootings
rafflaw-
“By bringing up stats that had no bearing on crime with a semi-automatice weapon, you moved the goal posts.”
I stated that violent crime had decreased. You disagreed and I gave you the numbers. Then you said, not good enough, I want murder numbers, which I also supplied. You’ve been dead wrong twice now.
“I merely pointed that out to you. Show me the connection that this alleged reduction in crimes has to the concealed carry laws.”
I’ve said it in previous gun threads and I’ll say it here, again: I do not think the loosening of gun laws, including concealed carry, caused the drop in crime. Most reputable research has shown that gun laws don’t seem to have much effect one way or the other, and mere correlation between concealed carry laws and the drop in crime isn’t even close to proving causation (and I would be surprised if it ended up true).
“You are making the assumption that there is a statistical causal relationship between the two.”
I absolutely am not. The numbers I gave were to debunk the notion that liberalized gun laws lead to more crime. Unless you think that crime/murder would have gone down at astounding levels without these liberalizations, I think the point stands.
“Your links do not make that connection.”
Because I wasn’t trying to make that connection.
“Your comment that it would be hard to remove all of the large capacity magazines is not a valid reason to refuse to take the necessary steps to bring them under control. If I read the links incorrectly as to the murder rates going up(maybe it was just one section of the country?) I still ask the question, murder rates in general are not related to assualts with these ridiculous weapons.”
I confess I’m not really clear what you are saying. “These ridiculous weapons” are known to be used in a tiny fraction of all gun crime, certainly under five percent. Had the idiot in Arizona had a standard 15 or 18 round magazine, would that have been too high? He certainly would have still done horrific damage. How low a capacity is sufficient for you? Even in gun crime, it’s incredibly rare for more than a few shots to be fired. The Arizona incident is the rare exception rather than the rule.
“The Assault Weapons ban needs to reinstituted and this latest murder spree is just one more sad example why.”
Why does the full AWB need to be brought back just to regulate high capacity magazines?
“Please let me know what legitimate use these high capacity magazines have other to kill and maim people?”
Their purpose is to allow more shots without reloading. Since a tiny fraction of 1% of all guns are ever used in crime, their existence would appear to be for something other than killing and maiming. The purpose is user dependent. If I go to the range, my thumbs thank me the less I have re-load. I kill and maim paper targets. The burden is on you to show that these magazines are making a measurable difference in crime/murders. And as rare as they are, I can link you to stories of self-defense where high cap mags did make a difference.
“Are you not in favor of doing something constructive to make it more difficult if not impossible for unstable people to purchase guns?”
Absolutely. I’m just waiting for someone to explain how we get around the problems that would stop it. Violating doctor/patient privilege, a chilling effect on those who need treatment but may not get it, the denial of firearms to people who would otherwise be law abiding but who have met an arbitrary definition of “unstable”, and on and on. It also doesn’t address private sales, which are practically unstoppable, nor does it address the many weapons illegally available.
The best means to reduce crime overall have to do with constructing better social safety nets, fixing the inequities in our public school systems, re-constructing the middle class, changing the national culture (we looooove violence), improving early child care and teaching people how to parent. Unfortunately, all of that isn’t going to make a good sound bite or a one page press release.
As for gun crime, the single biggest thing we could do to get guns out of the hands of bad guys is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers. It’s often the case, when caught, that they get plead down to help put away whoever they bought the gun for. We need to make straw purchases a major offense. Also increase the penalties for illegal possession or carry.
And END THE GODDAMNED DRUG WAR.
Good night rafflaw … thanks for the opportunity to beat my favorite social drum …
Now if “Don’t Cry For Me” isn’t your cup of tea… try this on for size:
“Blouise-
“No one will ever mount an argument good enough to sway my view”
That’s sad. You are admitting that no facts, no data, nothing, will change your mind. Your position on guns seems to be based on faith.” (Jason)
=====================================
Oh dear Jason, my faith is in life … not in death
But I don’t want you to be sad …
pardon the error, “assaults” is the correct way to spell it.
Jason,
I did not move the goal posts. By bringing up stats that had no bearing on crime with a semi-automatice weapon, you moved the goal posts. I merely pointed that out to you. Show me the connection that this alleged reduction in crimes has to the concealed carry laws. You are making the assumption that there is a statistical causal relationship between the two. Your links do not make that connection. Your comment that it would be hard to remove all of the large capacity magazines is not a valid reason to refuse to take the necessary steps to bring them under control. If I read the links incorrectly as to the murder rates going up(maybe it was just one section of the country?) I still ask the question, murder rates in general are not related to assualts with these ridiculous weapons.
The Assault Weapons ban needs to reinstituted and this latest murder spree is just one more sad example why. Please let me know what legitimate use these high capacity magazines have other to kill and maim people? Especially with a hand gun.
Are you not in favor of doing something constructive to make it more difficult if not impossible for unstable people to purchase guns?
rafflaw-
“And maybe it is time to reinstitute the assault weapon ban so these large capacity magazines can also be banned.”
Even if we assume that it’s a good idea to restrict high capacity magazines (despite there being tens of millions already in circulation), why would you need to put the entire AWB back on the books?
“Jason, take a look at the murder component of the violent crime statistics that you linked to. The murder results were not as good and that strikes to the heart of our discussion.”
There’s two problems here. First, you moved the goal posts. I said that violent crime has gone down since the ban expired. I proved that true with the FBI stats. You then changed the topic to only murder numbers. So you dodged the main issue, which was that despite an explosion in concealed carry, the expiration of the AWB, and many millions more guns in circulation, violent crime went down and went down substantially.
But worse than that, unless my math is really bad (a distinct possibility), you aren’t even right about the decline in violent crime vs murder rates. I show violent crime down 12.9% over the seven year period we discussed. I show the murder rate down 15.5% over the same period.
Blouise-
“No one will ever mount an argument good enough to sway my view”
That’s sad. You are admitting that no facts, no data, nothing, will change your mind. Your position on guns seems to be based on faith.
“and I know I will never mount an argument good enough to move the culture in the direction I believe it should go”
You could. I can’t speak for all or even most pro-gun people, but my mind can be changed. It already has been, not only on guns, but other major issues. I’ve changed the minds of a number of people whose hearts bleed as liberal as mine.
Amen Blouise!