(12-17-2012 12:02 PM)07owl Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:59 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  I have an acquaintance who strongly believes that guns should not be regulated at all--even assault rifles. His argument is that a day is coming when Americans will have to fight the government because the government is slowly taking away our Constitutional rights, and we cannot afford to let today's government take away our ability to fight back in the future. I think he's paranoid, but I post his opinion here because (a) it is the extreme view on one side of the argument and (b) I don't think his view should be dismissed without reflection.

My personal feeling is that guns are tools, not causes. Mental illness is the cause. The Columbine killers made bombs. If they didn't have guns, perhaps they would have made more bombs and/or larger bombs. But that raises another issue: To what extent should the government be monitoring the mental health of its citizens?

I would feel a lot more comfortable if your friend didn't have a gun

+1000, given his stated rationale. Can one say, "the lunatic fringe"? Again, consitutional rights have to be viewed with perspective of our changing times. At the time the Second Ammendment was put into law, the musket was the most powerful weapon out there...and slavery was legal. Times have changed-- dramatically so, and the Constitution must be changed/ammended accordingly to continue to have relevance and meaning. Does the "right to bare arms" trump the right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

CNN.com is running a thoughtful commentary by a Johns Hopkins professor/dean who has studied school shootings and their perpetrators.

A short excerpt:

Quote:Would gun control help? Yes and no. Yes, because anything that thwarts the efforts of a Carneal or a Johnson to get their hands on guns will make it harder to perpetrate a massacre and will deter the ambivalent. If Adam Lanza had had to go to greater lengths to get his hands on weapons, he might have run out of psychic energy to do this terrible deed. It appears he had little trouble, though, because the guns belonged to his mother, were registered and legally owned. Why in the world we enable civilians to own such lethal instruments baffles millions of citizens and will be the subject of a searching debate if our politicians can get over the barriers that have prevented serious reform.

But gun control is not enough. A determined person will find a way. Andrew Golden and Mitchell Johnson took a blow torch to a safe to try to get at the guns they knew were hidden there. That failed, so they found wire clippers and managed to cut their way through the cables that were supposed to keep Golden's grandfather's gun collection out of the wrong hands. People who are this intent on getting their hands on weapons are very difficult to stop. That is not an argument against gun control because thousands of unbalanced young men are not quite that determined; they are ambivalent. That is why gun control is a necessary but not sufficient step.

Although we will not be able to stop all of these tragedies, we can cut down on their number by insuring that adults make themselves available to kids in completely confidential settings, reassuring them of their privacy when they take that risky step to come forward. We can provide opportunities for "round pegs" like Michael Carneal, a bright, intellectually inclined kid, to find a social space that doesn't depend on athletic prowess or a handsome face.

(12-17-2012 11:54 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  Yes. I don't believe assault rifles should be for sale to the general public. Semi-automatics, I'd have to see which ones they want banned.

I guess the main thing we need to do is to ensure that the gun owners in America are responsible gun owners. How to do that, I am not sure. Tighter standards for ownership? Insurance against the harm done by the wrongful use of their weapons? Don't know. Don't really have an opinion on it right now.

Assault rifles that are easily accessible to the public are semi-automatic, not fully auto. The rifle my granddad hunted with for 50 years was a semi-automatic .30-06. Almost very pistol that isn't a revolver is a semi-automatic. The most popular shotguns are semi-auto. The knowledge gap about what gun is ok to use and what might be banned I wouldn't trust to a politician who thinks everything from a slingshot to a cannon is an "AK-47"

The problem with this most recent shooter is how could he possibly been detected? Did he have any criminal record or history of violence? What was going through his mind we'll never know, but even if we were to revamp the mental health treatment programs, would he have even had reason for treatment? From what little I know, his mother was a responsible gun owner and took him shooting as well. I feel like if I ever have kids, by the time they're 20 they'll have no problems handling guns, nor would I question them using them (assuming I don't have any reason to doubt their mental status).

I agree with 69/70/75's idea of a slippery slope. It's reactionary to say we need to start banning guns after a shooting, but we could also ban tobacco, fat people, and alcohol as well to start saving lives.

Let me be clear. I would fully support a ban on truly automatic assault weapons if I believed:
1) it would have a material impact, and
2) it would not lead to the slippery slope.

I don't believe either of those. I'm guessing most, if not all, of you who support such a ban believe both of those.

(12-17-2012 12:54 PM)lou Wrote:  I agree with 69/70/75's idea of a slippery slope. It's reactionary to say we need to start banning guns after a shooting, but we could also ban tobacco, fat people, and alcohol as well to start saving lives.

So , to save me, you'd have to kill me? Ouch!

I agree with the Professor Mike referred to above. If a person is determined enough, he will find a way. All gun control will do is make it a little harder. This debate reminds me of the debate over the Patriot Act - trading liberty for safety.

(12-17-2012 12:54 PM)lou Wrote:  [quote='d1owls4life' pid='8715158' dateline='1355763269']


I agree with 69/70/75's idea of a slippery slope. It's reactionary to say we need to start banning guns after a shooting, but we could also ban tobacco, fat people, and alcohol as well to start saving lives.

We'd do much better banning automobiles. Think of how many people are killed or injured in automobiles. And it would please the environmentalists as well.

For those who do not support a gun ban because it infringes upon one's liberties. Is this due to a broad reading of the 2nd amendment or because you believe that the gov't should not be speaking to what someone can/cannot do?

If it's the later, do you also support the decriminalization/legalization of drugs?

Or is this wading into water that's too deep?

(12-17-2012 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let me be clear. I would fully support a ban on truly automatic assault weapons if I believed:
1) it would have a material impact, and
2) it would not lead to the slippery slope.

I don't believe either of those. I'm guessing most, if not all, of you who support such a ban believe both of those.

I support a ban on assault weapons even though I don't think it would have much of an impact on massacres like the one in Newtown. I don't think there's much credence to the slippery slope argument.

Of course, the real problem is enforcement and in establishing a law that can't be easily circumvented (which, as I understand it, the previous federal ban was).

If you want to stop school shootings you need much stronger security measures. That would tend to make the school experience pretty miserable in a variety of aspects and cost a fortune.

(12-17-2012 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  For those who do not support a gun ban because it infringes upon one's liberties. Is this due to a broad reading of the 2nd amendment or because you believe that the gov't should not be speaking to what someone can/cannot do?

If it's the later, do you also support the decriminalization/legalization of drugs?

Or is this wading into water that's too deep?

With respect to the first question, neither. It is a literal reading of the Second Amendment, not a broad one, the words are pretty explicit and straightforward, and the authors made it pretty clear what they intended. And I don't believe that the government should never interfere in an individual's rights, but I do believe that such interferences should minimal and the cost/benefit analysis supporting them should be strongly favorable. In the case of an assault weapon ban, I think the costs might be small but so are the benefits. To do enough gun control to have a material impact would require impairing rights on a much greater basis too. And I'm skeptical about where that may lead us.

I'm a strong believer that without the Seond Amendment, the rest are worthless.

With respect to your second question, yes, absolutely.

(12-17-2012 01:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  For those who do not support a gun ban because it infringes upon one's liberties. Is this due to a broad reading of the 2nd amendment or because you believe that the gov't should not be speaking to what someone can/cannot do?

If it's the later, do you also support the decriminalization/legalization of drugs?

Or is this wading into water that's too deep?

With respect to the first question, neither. It is a literal reading of the Second Amendment, not a broad one, the words are pretty explicit and straightforward, and the authors made it pretty clear what they intended. And I don't believe that the government should never interfere in an individual's rights, but I do believe that such interferences should minimal and the cost/benefit analysis supporting them should be strongly favorable. In the case of an assault weapon ban, I think the costs might be small but so are the benefits. To do enough gun control to have a material impact would require impairing rights on a much greater basis too. And I'm skeptical about where that may lead us.

I'm a strong believer that without the Seond Amendment, the rest are worthless.

I'm a believer in the 2nd Amendment as well. However, I'm also a believer of the historical context of when the Amendment was written.

Banning automatic assault rifles seems like such low-hanging fruit that I can't imagine that it's not worth trying. I saw two different representatives from gun groups on the news shows yesterday that were asked the direct question "Tell me why private citizens should be allowed to purchase automatic assault rifles?" Both directly sidestepped the question completely. I have yet to hear an argument that makes sense to me. Maybe somebody can fill me in?

The bottom line that I hear is that "well... if our government turns against us then we need to be armed." I just don't get that point of view.

(12-17-2012 01:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  For those who do not support a gun ban because it infringes upon one's liberties. Is this due to a broad reading of the 2nd amendment or because you believe that the gov't should not be speaking to what someone can/cannot do?

If it's the later, do you also support the decriminalization/legalization of drugs?

Or is this wading into water that's too deep?

With respect to the first question, neither. It is a literal reading of the Second Amendment, not a broad one, the words are pretty explicit and straightforward, and the authors made it pretty clear what they intended. And I don't believe that the government should never interfere in an individual's rights, but I do believe that such interferences should minimal and the cost/benefit analysis supporting them should be strongly favorable. In the case of an assault weapon ban, I think the costs might be small but so are the benefits. To do enough gun control to have a material impact would require impairing rights on a much greater basis too. And I'm skeptical about where that may lead us.

I'm a strong believer that without the Seond Amendment, the rest are worthless.

"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."

Many would argue that a literal reading states that one must be in a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms.

Gun owners (and their allies) often cry "right! right!" when the issue of gun control comes up, but I'm of the firm belief that such a right, nearly unique in its breadth in the developed world (along with our level of gun violence), should come with significant obligations and limits. If I were King of America, here's how I would shape gun control policy:

1. Require all guns to be identifiable and registered to a specific owner, just as cars are.
2. Require anyone purchasing or receiving ownership of a gun to undergo a background check for each individual transaction.
3. Ban large capacity magazines.
4. Ban semi-automatic long guns. (And here's where I admit I'm no expert on guns. Herce mentioned a semi-automatic shotgun - it wouldn't be my intention to ban such a gun. I'm guessing it can't fire rounds at the same rate as, say, an AR-15.)
5. Again, not a gunsmith, but the "kits" to convert semi-automatics to fully automatic should be banned, or perhaps guns can be re-engineered to prevent such tampering.
6. Streamline the reporting of convictions/mental health holds/restraining orders to the national gun check database. (I think I'm missing the official name of that. Also, the DOJ has already started this process.)
7. Improve the access to mental health services in this country. (Not to touch another political hot wire, but I suspect ObamaCare might be a big help in this regard.)
8. One idea that I haven't seen elsewhere is for mental health professionals to be able to flag a patient so that the professional is notified if a patient attempts to purchase weapons. This wouldn't necessarily prevent approval from happening, but if a therapist is aware of a patient trying to gain access to weapons they can at least follow up with the patient, and they may be better able to assess whether their patient is a threat. My guess is that the U. of Colorado would have handled James O'Keefe differently if they knew he was on a weapons purchasing spree.

Numbers 1 and 2 just seem like common sense to me. Numbers 3 though 5 would be a heavier lift, politically. But for the guns/features affected by 3-5, I've yet to see legitimate, utilitarian purposes associated with them. In fact, I've heard of only two potential uses: shooting them at the target range, and dark fantasies of having to kill off federal agents. If someone has to reload a little more often at the firing range or can't plan WWIII against the feds, I don't think it'll be the end of freedom as we know it. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

(12-17-2012 11:51 AM)07owl Wrote:  I do feel less safe knowing random guy on the highway has a pistol in his glove compartment and who knows what in his house. I'm certain guns come in handy in self defense sometimes, but I can barely recall hearing about any of those from my gun owning friends or in the news. Much more often you hear of accidental shootings of family members or people getting jumpy too quickly. I was once robbed at gunpoint, and I can only imagine how much worse the situation would have been if I had a gun on me.

(12-17-2012 12:02 PM)07owl Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:59 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  I have an acquaintance who strongly believes that guns should not be regulated at all--even assault rifles. His argument is that a day is coming when Americans will have to fight the government because the government is slowly taking away our Constitutional rights, and we cannot afford to let today's government take away our ability to fight back in the future. I think he's paranoid, but I post his opinion here because (a) it is the extreme view on one side of the argument and (b) I don't think his view should be dismissed without reflection.

My personal feeling is that guns are tools, not causes. Mental illness is the cause. The Columbine killers made bombs. If they didn't have guns, perhaps they would have made more bombs and/or larger bombs. But that raises another issue: To what extent should the government be monitoring the mental health of its citizens?

I would feel a lot more comfortable if your friend didn't have a gun

Amen to both of 07Owl's comments.

Waltgreenburg is also along the lines I am at this point.

I am also glad to see mental illness being discussed more in the wake of this, not just here but in general.

(12-17-2012 02:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  "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."
Many would argue that a literal reading states that one must be in a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms.

And I would strongly suggest that anyone who argues this should take a remedial English course.

(12-17-2012 01:58 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 01:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  With respect to the first question, neither. It is a literal reading of the Second Amendment, not a broad one, the words are pretty explicit and straightforward, and the authors made it pretty clear what they intended. And I don't believe that the government should never interfere in an individual's rights, but I do believe that such interferences should minimal and the cost/benefit analysis supporting them should be strongly favorable. In the case of an assault weapon ban, I think the costs might be small but so are the benefits. To do enough gun control to have a material impact would require impairing rights on a much greater basis too. And I'm skeptical about where that may lead us.
I'm a strong believer that without the Seond Amendment, the rest are worthless.

I'm a believer in the 2nd Amendment as well. However, I'm also a believer of the historical context of when the Amendment was written.

And exactly what is impacted by the historical context, and how?

(12-17-2012 02:05 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  Gun owners (and their allies) often cry "right! right!" when the issue of gun control comes up, but I'm of the firm belief that such a right, nearly unique in its breadth in the developed world (along with our level of gun violence), should come with significant obligations and limits. If I were King of America, here's how I would shape gun control policy:
1. Require all guns to be identifiable and registered to a specific owner, just as cars are.
2. Require anyone purchasing or receiving ownership of a gun to undergo a background check for each individual transaction.
3. Ban large capacity magazines.
4. Ban semi-automatic long guns. (And here's where I admit I'm no expert on guns. Herce mentioned a semi-automatic shotgun - it wouldn't be my intention to ban such a gun. I'm guessing it can't fire rounds at the same rate as, say, an AR-15.)
5. Again, not a gunsmith, but the "kits" to convert semi-automatics to fully automatic should be banned, or perhaps guns can be re-engineered to prevent such tampering.
6. Streamline the reporting of convictions/mental health holds/restraining orders to the national gun check database. (I think I'm missing the official name of that. Also, the DOJ has already started this process.)
7. Improve the access to mental health services in this country. (Not to touch another political hot wire, but I suspect ObamaCare might be a big help in this regard.)
8. One idea that I haven't seen elsewhere is for mental health professionals to be able to flag a patient so that the professional is notified if a patient attempts to purchase weapons. This wouldn't necessarily prevent approval from happening, but if a therapist is aware of a patient trying to gain access to weapons they can at least follow up with the patient, and they may be better able to assess whether their patient is a threat. My guess is that the U. of Colorado would have handled James O'Keefe differently if they knew he was on a weapons purchasing spree.
Numbers 1 and 2 just seem like common sense to me. Numbers 3 though 5 would be a heavier lift, politically. But for the guns/features affected by 3-5, I've yet to see legitimate, utilitarian purposes associated with them. In fact, I've heard of only two potential uses: shooting them at the target range, and dark fantasies of having to kill off federal agents. If someone has to reload a little more often at the firing range or can't plan WWIII against the feds, I don't think it'll be the end of freedom as we know it. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

Thank God you're not King of America, and I will hope and pray that you never become so.

(12-17-2012 02:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 01:58 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 01:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  With respect to the first question, neither. It is a literal reading of the Second Amendment, not a broad one, the words are pretty explicit and straightforward, and the authors made it pretty clear what they intended. And I don't believe that the government should never interfere in an individual's rights, but I do believe that such interferences should minimal and the cost/benefit analysis supporting them should be strongly favorable. In the case of an assault weapon ban, I think the costs might be small but so are the benefits. To do enough gun control to have a material impact would require impairing rights on a much greater basis too. And I'm skeptical about where that may lead us.
I'm a strong believer that without the Seond Amendment, the rest are worthless.

I'm a believer in the 2nd Amendment as well. However, I'm also a believer of the historical context of when the Amendment was written.

And exactly what is impacted by the historical context, and how?

Well, when it was written, bearing arms meant muskets and other muzzle loaders. Weapons have changed just a bit since then.

(12-17-2012 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 02:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  "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."
Many would argue that a literal reading states that one must be in a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms.

And I would strongly suggest that anyone who argues this should take a remedial English course.

You're right that the text reads: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

But since there is a preface of: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." I would assume that this needs to be taken into consideration as well.

It is not hard to argue a literal reading includes comprehending that the preface demands that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is directly connected to maintaining a "well regulated militia" that must be kept for the "security of a free State."

But alas, I am no Constitutional scholar.

(12-17-2012 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 02:05 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  Gun owners (and their allies) often cry "right! right!" when the issue of gun control comes up, but I'm of the firm belief that such a right, nearly unique in its breadth in the developed world (along with our level of gun violence), should come with significant obligations and limits. If I were King of America, here's how I would shape gun control policy:
1. Require all guns to be identifiable and registered to a specific owner, just as cars are.
2. Require anyone purchasing or receiving ownership of a gun to undergo a background check for each individual transaction.
3. Ban large capacity magazines.
4. Ban semi-automatic long guns. (And here's where I admit I'm no expert on guns. Herce mentioned a semi-automatic shotgun - it wouldn't be my intention to ban such a gun. I'm guessing it can't fire rounds at the same rate as, say, an AR-15.)
5. Again, not a gunsmith, but the "kits" to convert semi-automatics to fully automatic should be banned, or perhaps guns can be re-engineered to prevent such tampering.
6. Streamline the reporting of convictions/mental health holds/restraining orders to the national gun check database. (I think I'm missing the official name of that. Also, the DOJ has already started this process.)
7. Improve the access to mental health services in this country. (Not to touch another political hot wire, but I suspect ObamaCare might be a big help in this regard.)
8. One idea that I haven't seen elsewhere is for mental health professionals to be able to flag a patient so that the professional is notified if a patient attempts to purchase weapons. This wouldn't necessarily prevent approval from happening, but if a therapist is aware of a patient trying to gain access to weapons they can at least follow up with the patient, and they may be better able to assess whether their patient is a threat. My guess is that the U. of Colorado would have handled James O'Keefe differently if they knew he was on a weapons purchasing spree.
Numbers 1 and 2 just seem like common sense to me. Numbers 3 though 5 would be a heavier lift, politically. But for the guns/features affected by 3-5, I've yet to see legitimate, utilitarian purposes associated with them. In fact, I've heard of only two potential uses: shooting them at the target range, and dark fantasies of having to kill off federal agents. If someone has to reload a little more often at the firing range or can't plan WWIII against the feds, I don't think it'll be the end of freedom as we know it. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

Thank God you're not King of America, and I will hope and pray that you never become so.

Because his proposal was so outlandish? Which of these points is so completely offensive to you to merit such a response?