(12-17-2012 03:15 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  And yes, the left may be more trusting of the government than the right. But that doesn't mean it's an absolute trust. For me, it's a recognition that our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Government employees are us. Just as prone to mistakes as anyone else. Being hired by the government doesn't make suddenly make someone "the other", as many people on the right seem to believe. Nor does it suddenly imbue them with nefarious intentions. In fact, government employees generally have less incentive to screw you over than those in private industry (see: your friend Bernie Madoff).

Madoff is hyperbole. I'll grant you that. But I would trust the Koch brothers ahead of the politicians I listed.

But I don't buy the rest of your argument. I have never been in a sitaution where a private businessman was engaged in screwing somebody over just because he could. I have been aware of multiple situations where government bureaucrats and politicians were doing precisely that, and made no secret, even boasted, about their motivation. One reason businessmen don't is because they can't. They can take money, but that's about the limit of their powers. Government employees can. And do.

Might be best if this guy didn't have 47 guns in his house.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/...wife?lite=

(12-17-2012 03:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 03:15 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  And yes, the left may be more trusting of the government than the right. But that doesn't mean it's an absolute trust. For me, it's a recognition that our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Government employees are us. Just as prone to mistakes as anyone else. Being hired by the government doesn't make suddenly make someone "the other", as many people on the right seem to believe. Nor does it suddenly imbue them with nefarious intentions. In fact, government employees generally have less incentive to screw you over than those in private industry (see: your friend Bernie Madoff).

Madoff is hyperbole. I'll grant you that. But I would trust the Koch brothers ahead of the politicians I listed.

But I don't buy the rest of your argument. I have never been in a sitaution where a private businessman was engaged in screwing somebody over just because he could. I have been aware of multiple situations where government bureaucrats and politicians were doing precisely that, and made no secret, even boasted, about their motivation. One reason businessmen don't is because they can't. They can take money, but that's about the limit of their powers. Government employees can. And do.

Business leaders' power is not limited to taking money, it's just motivated by that. See lobbying, using political graft, etc...

(12-17-2012 04:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Business leaders' power is not limited to taking money, it's just motivated by that. See lobbying, using political graft, etc...

Of course, the reason that money is involved in influencing the direction of politics is that politics is so heavily involved in influencing the direction of money. Reduce the latter and you'll reduce the former -- in fact, reducing the latter is the ONLY way to reduce the former.

Really good..and respectful discussions.

This is a difficult problem to solve. But, I truly think that at this point there is an honest effort beginning to address the problem..although it has multifactorial roots.

I think the average person is tired of the carnage. And I think we will probably start to see legislation introduced that covers some of the items that have been discussed above..assault weapons, large clips and magazines, etc. And I think that this is just the beginning..This nation is changing pretty rapidly. It is more urban and more multi-cultural than ever before. I live in West Texas. And I have no doubt that the traditional attitudes regarding hunting, gun ownership, gun collecting are not dying..yet. But, just as the arguments against same sex marriage and marijuana criminalization are dying away, the "don't give an inch" arguments of unfettered gun ownership are dying, too. Literally. In a generation or two the people in the three branches of government will be the kids in school now. Much fewer of them will have been brought up in a hunting and gun tradition. It won't be politically dangerous to argue against fire-arm bans or stricter licensing, etc.

I don't know what the laws will be 50 years from now. But I'll bet the average citizen won't be able to purchase assault weapons. And it might be almost impossible to buy any sort of weapon. Not saying that it's right or wrong..but time and demographics are working against the gun lobby.

It will be proven that the shooter in Connecticut was mentally ill just as so many other mass shooters over the years. Everytime it happens the general commentary flows along the lines of, "yes, he was mentally ill but this wouldn't have happened if he hadn't been able to get his hands on guns." Then we start down this path of which guns are OK and which aren't.

But for some reason, we don't try to outlaw bathtubs after Andrea Yates drowns her children. And, we don't make subway riders wait on the surface street until the train fully stops when some nut pushes an innocent cummuter in front of a moving train. And, we don't demand every freeway entry ramp have blow-out strips to prevent a depressed mother/father from driving her/his minivan full of kids the wrong way into traffic.

Much of the discussion rings hollow for me because buck shot from a breach load shotgun would kill a first grader just the same as a round from the biggest, baddest assault rifle. Sorry, I don't mean to sound flippant.

I don't have a clue what the solution is. I can't even offer a starting point. I would probably stop short of where Owl 69 ends in his slippery slope argument but, if you look at what he is saying and most of the rest of us, and the slippery slope is a very valid point. Owl 69 acknowledges no one needs a rocket launcher (or whatever you mentioned specifically). Others mention not wanting to infringe on hunting weapons. In our friendly message board discussion we are already headed down the proverbial slippery slope.

I am a gun owner. I don't currently, on account of having young children at home, use guns for home defense. I may one day. I may not. I would like to have that option. I can't conceive ever wanting a fully automatic assault rifle on hand but I sure want to be able to legally have something more powerful than a BB gun or, God forbid, have to defend my family with a baseball bat against an armed intruder.

(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?

Isn't that intuitively clear (as a door knob)? Again, back when the Second Ammendment was written, not only was the musket the most advanced and powerful weapon known to man, but there was a very real threat from outside militias. BTW, the writers were proud slave owners and readily endorsed many, many things that are no illegal and unacceptable behavior. It's a totally different world we live in today.

But does that rationale apply to the whole Bill of Rights, or only the Second Amendment?

(12-17-2012 05:17 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Isn't that intuitively clear (as a door knob)?

Nope. Not at all. Your argument seems to be, "Things are different now, therefore this needs to change." I get that things are different now, but it does not necessarily follow that therefore this needs to change. If you want to make your case, then you need to build a better chain of causation.

Quote:Again, back when the Second Ammendment was written, not only was the musket the most advanced and powerful weapon known to man,

It wasn't, the cannon was. But if it were, that would mean that the founders intended for citizens to have unfettered use of "the most advanced and powerful weapon known to man."

Quote:but there was a very real threat from outside militias.

But that wasn't the reason for the provision. At least, not according to the people who wrote it, based on their contemporaneous writings.

Quote:
BTW, the writers were proud slave owners and readily endorsed many, many things that are no illegal and unacceptable behavior. It's a totally different world we live in today.

Wouldn't that reasoning invalidate the rest of the constitution, too, and not just the Second Amendment?

Probably just best to agree to disagree on this one.

(12-17-2012 04:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Business leaders' power is not limited to taking money, it's just motivated by that. See lobbying, using political graft, etc...

So your examples are instances where businessmen use money to induce those politicians, and more especially those bureaucrats, whose motives you think are as pure as the driven snow, to do sleazy and immoral and unjustifiable acts. Don't look now, but I think you just proved my point.

(12-17-2012 01:44 PM)Owl-88 Wrote:  

(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.

And yet, the Newtown school had one of the strongest school measures that I have ever heard of in a suburban school that wouldn't appear to be facing significant threats, in that the front door automatically locks at a set time each morning and must be opened from the inside. (Presumably, the other doors are locked from the outside, like most schools seem to do nowadays.) Short of posting armed officers (which did happen in my local elementary school today - they usually only have a rotation come through), they would appear to have thought ahead for school safety.

I'm sure there are other measures, and some wouldn't be horribly expensive. But just thought I'd point that one part out (though I'm not sure if that lock had triggered by the time this went down - the last story I read suggested he came in around the time the front door lock would normally kick in).

(12-17-2012 05:08 PM)Steven Herce Wrote:  It will be proven that the shooter in Connecticut was mentally ill just as so many other mass shooters over the years. Everytime it happens the general commentary flows along the lines of, "yes, he was mentally ill but this wouldn't have happened if he hadn't been able to get his hands on guns." Then we start down this path of which guns are OK and which aren't.

But for some reason, we don't try to outlaw bathtubs after Andrea Yates drowns her children. And, we don't make subway riders wait on the surface street until the train fully stops when some nut pushes an innocent cummuter in front of a moving train. And, we don't demand every freeway entry ramp have blow-out strips to prevent a depressed mother/father from driving her/his minivan full of kids the wrong way into traffic.

Much of the discussion rings hollow for me because buck shot from a breach load shotgun would kill a first grader just the same as a round from the biggest, baddest assault rifle. Sorry, I don't mean to sound flippant.

I don't have a clue what the solution is. I can't even offer a starting point. I would probably stop short of where Owl 69 ends in his slippery slope argument but, if you look at what he is saying and most of the rest of us, and the slippery slope is a very valid point. Owl 69 acknowledges no one needs a rocket launcher (or whatever you mentioned specifically). Others mention not wanting to infringe on hunting weapons. In our friendly message board discussion we are already headed down the proverbial slippery slope.

I am a gun owner. I don't currently, on account of having young children at home, use guns for home defense. I may one day. I may not. I would like to have that option. I can't conceive ever wanting a fully automatic assault rifle on hand but I sure want to be able to legally have something more powerful than a BB gun or, God forbid, have to defend my family with a baseball bat against an armed intruder.

You bring up some good points - some I agree with, others not so much. I'll respond to two, though. First, if this shooter was just armed with a breach loading shotgun, do you think the fatality count would be so high, especially considering he killed himself as soon as he heard first responders? Do you think there might have been even the chance of an opportunity to rush the shooter when he had to reload after every other shot? And again, none of the potential solutions people have talked about here would prevent every murder/attack. The point is to make them less likely and less deadly.

The second point I'd like to make is to push against the notion that any change to the status quo is moving down the slippery slope. That would be to argue that our current situation is optimal. And I just don't see how over 31,000 American deaths in 2009 from firearms is an optimal situation. Some here would hint that if they can't have an AR-15, suddenly our democracy would be in peril. But why can't they acknowledge the huge cost of their position? Why can't the NRA bring themselves to admit that, yes, we can manage firearms in a safer, more reasonable manner? Think of how our country has been reshaped for the last decade after 19 clowns hijacked some planes and killed 3,000 Americans on one occasion. And how we have ignored 10 times those deaths every year since. Why don't I worry about a slippery slope in this case? Because I have yet to see one poster here advocate for the banning of handguns or hunting weapons. People will always have guns in this country. The questions here are twofold: how careful should we be about who gets access to them and what level of lethality should we allow our citizenry to possess in their weapons? Could the pro-gun groups agree to a kind of policy tradeoff? They can have their AR-15's, but in exchange we need to have a strict policy of having guns registered to their owners, the owners must undergo extensive safety training, and must be periodically re-certified and re-registered every few years? Or, alternatively, we could continue with our fairly lax registration standards, but ban the most lethal of guns. (Yes, I know, all guns are lethal. I'm simply referring to the rate at which they can kill people.) But I reject that any change to the status quo is a slippery slope. And I'll take the gun rights advocates far more seriously when I see suggestions from them on dealing with gun violence that don't simply involve calling for more guns in our society.

I play poker every Wednesday in a semi-pro game in a neighboring county. We generally get 10-12 players weekly from a pool of about 25-30 regulars and occasional newbies. Everybody there, including me, are gun owners. Many are gun collectors. One is a gun dealer.

Players often bring in their guns to show others, discuss, and sometimes get help or advice. last week we had an AK-47, a .357, and a shotgun brought in. Some of you guys may think this is a recipe for disaster - a poker game with guns on the table. Truth is, I feel perfecxtly safe there, a lot safer than I would trying to cross a picket line. Why? Because these guys aren't psychos, they aren't crazy, and if some psycho crazy were to force his way in, we sure as heck would not have to stand around waiting our turn to be killed.

Every time there is one of these shootings, it ends as soon as other people with other guns arrive. Either the shooter kills himself or he surrenders, or he runs away.

I am on the downhill side of my 60's. I don't remember any shootings like this when I was a kid, and there sure were a lot of guns around. I have racked my brain trying to figure the difference betwwen then and now. i can only think of two things different. Back then, a lot of the "odder" people ended up in institutions. Maybe in 1952, Adam lanza would have been in one of those. Probably Loughner would have been. And back then, the TV and movie fare was much more sanitized - nothing like the video games and realistic shows we have now. No Dexter, no Grand Theft Auto, and all the gunfights were between recognizable good guys and bad guys.

The other thing that bothers me is the mention of "need". "No, OO, you can't have an AK-47 because you don't need it". But we all have lots and lots of things we don't need. Who needs a motor home? who needs 5 TV sets? Who needs a five bedroom house? And who decides what we "need"? I used to have a WWI bayonet. Did I need it? Heck, no. Should I then have been denied the right to own it, since i had no need to bayonet anything and maybe some guy in new jersey used one to kill somebody?

Your 5 TV sets can't kill a bunch of people in the span of a few minutes.

As Chapel Hill has put much more eloquently than I could, we have to stop thinking in terms of absolutes and start thinking of policy tradeoffs and optimality--as we do with almost every other subject, including even the First Amendment (which is not absolute by any stretch of the imagination). We have to stop thinking that guns are somehow inviolate and holy and treat them like most everything else. I see people refer to guns as a tool; I get that argument. But if sledgehammers were directly involved in 31,000 deaths last year (or whatever the number was), I don't think we as a people would shy away from talking about how to tackle the sledgehammer problem. Again, to quote Chapel Hill, the situation has not reached the point of optimality, at least in my opinion.

Not to derail the conversation on guns, but I HIGHLY recommend reading this story. A story like this is indirectly familiar to me - hopefully, few of you have seen something similar, but I am afraid it is just common enough.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16...11009.html

Not saying this is what Adam Lanza's family faced, but this is all too realistic for what some families face with mental illness - and not just children, either.

While I haven't read all 90 something posts in their entirety, I'm convinced that as with most debates, we immediately go to the obvious bones of contention and avoid the 90% we agree upon

Certain people shouldn't posess firearms. I think we ALL agree on this. These laws are already on the books but rarely enforced. Why? Because the number of people caught with illegal guns who don't do bad things with them is pretty small, so we ignore them, and for the larger number of people caught with illegal guns who DO bad things with them, the gun punishment is a rounding error to the other crime. In Germany, the sentence is 5 yrs and +/- 100k for having an illegal gun, or allowing someone to use your gun. I imagine most petty criminals would do without them if we enforced such a penalty. I think it would be easy to put in a stepped penalty... 5yrs and 100k for an illegal pistol. 20 years and 500k for an assault rifle. If you owned an assault rifle, and if someone got it, YOU were fined and put in jail, I'm betting you'd sell it or lack that sucker away tight, right? Sure, we would still have the issue of the mentally ill, but there is no perfect solution. Passing a background check should involve some HIPPA protected information. You don't want to sign a waiver so they can look at the records? Fine. No permit.

With that simple enforcement/penalty on existing laws, I think you've solved the vast majority of gun crimes.

For those that think the 2nd Amendment is antiquated, I'd argue the abortion question. Right now, the basic tenant of the right to an abortion hinges on the conflict in rights between the citizen mother and the unborn child. The fulcrum has been determined to be "viability". At THAT point, the rights of the unborn child become a state interest, and the mother no longer has total control over those decisions. Suppose that science created an artificial womb and that ANY fetus past 4 days was now "viable" (making the current definition "antiquated"). Focusing strictly on the requirement of the state to protect the right to life of the unborn and now scientifically viable fetus... would you support allowing the state to take away the mothers right to choose at 4 days?

The bottom line is, there is a level of "need" necessary to pass a law. There is a completely different level of "need" to alter the Constitution. 11,000 deaths is tragic, but it does not warrant taking away the Constitutional rights of 300mm people. If we can make that 11,000 number 1,000 by simply enforcing laws already on the books and stiffening penalties WITHOUT arguing about the Constitution... then we should do that first.

I can't swear this is true, but I read that since 1950, all but ONE shooting (Gabby Giffords) that killed more than 3 people in the US was in a "gun free" zone. Even the Batman killer, there were numerous theaters showing the movie closer, but THIS one was the only one that had a "gun free" sign. I don't say that to argue there shouldn't be gun-free zones. I say it to point out that mass murderers intentionally seek out unarmed people... and our solution is to disarm more people?

Finally, to the "musket" comment being the height of death... Untrue. The Cannon was. It was much less accurate, but generally killed more people per shot. If you ban assaut rifles/high capacity clips, who is to say they won't just create "shrapnel" type proximity bullets? History suggests that is exactly the sort of thing that would happen.

Since 1950... only 1 killing outside of a gun-free zone.

(12-17-2012 06:31 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I see people refer to guns as a tool; I get that argument. But if sledgehammers were directly involved in 31,000 deaths last year (or whatever the number was), I don't think we as a people would shy away from talking about how to tackle the sledgehammer problem.

32,000 deaths last year by car... down from 45k/yr 30 years ago...
25,000 deaths by alcohol... EXCLUDING ACCIDENTS
80,000 deaths in total by alcohol (according to CDC)

Compare the number of people killed by illegal gun owners to illegal driver or illegal drinkers.

WHY are we going after among the smallest contributors to any of these numbers? Why are we going after LEGAL gun owners/holders who account for a small fraction of the offenses rather than ILLEGAL gun owners/holders.

(12-17-2012 05:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 04:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Business leaders' power is not limited to taking money, it's just motivated by that. See lobbying, using political graft, etc...

So your examples are instances where businessmen use money to induce those politicians, and more especially those bureaucrats, whose motives you think are as pure as the driven snow, to do sleazy and immoral and unjustifiable acts. Don't look now, but I think you just proved my point.

I never said anything about the motivation of politicians. That is as varied as the motivation of business people as well.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.

(12-17-2012 02:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  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.

Automatic weapons of virtually every type are already banned under federal and Connecticut law. Semi-automatic assault rifles are also illegal in Connecticut. The weapon used in this attack was not classified as an assault rifle under Connecticut law (and would not have been under the expired federal ban). Other than perhaps making it easier to conceal, none of the features that turn an ordinary rifle into an assault rifle would have helped him in his attack (unless the grenade launcher was actually operational).

http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearms.htm

(12-17-2012 06:06 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  First, if this shooter was just armed with a breach loading shotgun, do you think the fatality count would be so high, especially considering he killed himself as soon as he heard first responders? Do you think there might have been even the chance of an opportunity to rush the shooter when he had to reload after every other shot? And again, none of the potential solutions people have talked about here would prevent every murder/attack. The point is to make them less likely and less deadly.

Maybe, maybe not. If you had everyone lie face down on the floor and shot the adult first, I imagine you could kill just as many with that shotgun. I've read a couple of accounts that many of the kids were shot multiple times, up to 11 IIRC. If that's correct, then it sounds like the automatic feature was largely used to kill dead people deader rather than to increase the number of victims, probably an indication just what a nutcake we are dealing with.

Quote:The second point I'd like to make is to push against the notion that any change to the status quo is moving down the slippery slope. That would be to argue that our current situation is optimal.

The optimality of the current situation has absolutely nothing to do with the slippery slope. The slippery slope addresses the possibility that legislation now, even well-intentioned legislation, may lead to further legislation later that is not so well-intentioned, and may have perverse results. Once we open the door, we may slide down that slippery slope to a much worse situation than we had imagined initially. I think that's a real concern because I don't think the impact of, say, an assault weapons ban would be material, and if it doesn't have a material effect, what do you do then? Do you stop and say, oh well, we tried? Or do you try to add additional legislation? And if that additional legislation doesn't work, either, what then? That's the thought process that leads to the slippery slope, and it has nothing to do with whether the current situation is optimal. I don't believe the current situation is optimal, but that does not in any way affect my concern about a slippery slope.

(12-17-2012 06:31 PM)Barrett Wrote:  As Chapel Hill has put much more eloquently than I could, we have to stop thinking in terms of absolutes and start thinking of policy tradeoffs and optimality--as we do with almost every other subject, including even the First Amendment (which is not absolute by any stretch of the imagination). We have to stop thinking that guns are somehow inviolate and holy and treat them like most everything else.

No sure where Chapel Hill said this, but it's a good point. I would just want to caution to be sure to consider all the policy tradeoffs, and to get the right tradeoffs. If you say, "An assault weapons ban will stop incidents like this, and not impose any negative consequences," then it's a slam dunk, obviously. But I don't believe that states correctly the calculus on either side. I don't think a sledgehammer ban would stop the killing in your example.

I would say that we should try to identify the specific changes the would do the most to reduce the rate of gun deaths in exchange for the least negative consequences. And scored that way, I'm pretty sure an assault weapons ban would come in pretty low compared to other approaches. For one thing, stats on the spin room board indicate that assault weapons appear to have accounted for a grand total of about 350 out of 30 million gun deaths, so even eliminating those entirely would have an immaterial effect. For another, Connecticut HAS an assault weapons ban. And the record of gun bans generally is not one of great success. The Brady Bill appears to have had little effect. The Australian experience that was cited here earlier has been to continue virtually the same downward trend that was being experienced before. And Australia started with a much lower gun death rate before its ban than we have. Places like Mexico have seen crime go up under more restrictive gun laws. There is a tendency to work as well as prohibition in any other context--liquor, drugs. Particularly given that gun suicides outnumber gun homicides by almost 2 to 1, I would tend to think that the mental health situation would offer far more promise than a ban on assault rifles. And it would be hard to imagine that the much greater acceptance of violence in things like movies and TV and video games isn't having a much greater effect--although now you get into First Amendment rights that should rate the same protection as Second Amendment rights.

I don't have the answers. I think the effort should be to achieve the largest reduction in gun deaths in return for the smallest deprivation of liberty, and that any deprivation should fall disproportionately on bad actors rather than law-abiding citizens. And I don't think banning assault weapons will score high on that scale. I have laid out some specific ideas that I think would have more impact for less cost. I would hope for discussion along those lines.