(12-17-2012 09:05 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  And finally, to return to your example of cars, most people who die in car accidents are in cars. They've accepted some level of risk by being in that car. I shouldn't have to assume the risk for your gun ownership.

Pedestrians, bicylists and passengers in other vehicles are injured by people in OTHER cars.

I shouldn't have to assume the risk of someone getting behind the wheel drunk. The risk is in how the gun or car is used.

(12-18-2012 10:58 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 09:05 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  And finally, to return to your example of cars, most people who die in car accidents are in cars. They've accepted some level of risk by being in that car. I shouldn't have to assume the risk for your gun ownership.

Pedestrians, bicylists and passengers in other vehicles are injured by people in OTHER cars.

I shouldn't have to assume the risk of someone getting behind the wheel drunk. The risk is in how the gun or car is used.

And that is why that activity is illegal.

(12-18-2012 09:47 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 09:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 09:10 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  A couple questions back at you...
1. Why would "law abiding citizens" ever have a rational and justified need for such assault weapons or hand guns with 20/50/100 round clips?
2. Though "criminals" (street gangs) who would still likely be able to get their hands on such weapons will continue to cause bedlam on the streets of our inner cities, do you honestly think it is these "criminals" who are the ones involved in these senseless mass killings at schools, movie theatres and shopping malls?

Fair enough.

1. As long as they are law abiding, what difference does it make? I have all sorts of things that I don't need, and I bet you do too. Given a choice between the risk of being one of 350 or so people killed each year with assault weapons, or the risks associated with allowing government to dictate what I need and don't need, I'll take the former all day.

2. The "criminals" are involved in far more shootings and killings of any nature and crimes of any nature than the nutcakes who do mass shootings. We have 11,000 homicides a year and 19,000 suicides. I'd rather focus on ways to make those numbers get smaller than worrying so much about the relatively tiny subset represented by nutcase mass killings. Yes they're horrible. But if we ended them completely (and I'm under no illusions that an assault weapon ban would end them, or even reduce them significantly), and in return the number of killings and other crimes committed by "criminals" stayed the same, or even went up, have we accomplished anything useful?

I'm absolutely in favor of reducing the number of gun deaths. I would favor those policies which promise the maximum reduction in number of deaths for the minimum reduction in liberty. I don't think an assault weapons ban meets that test. I would expect it to offer a minuscule reduction in deaths for a significant invasion of liberty.

You said in an earlier post something to the effect that such a ban would absolutely help without imposing material harm on gun owners (I'm paraphrasing, if that misstates your meaning, I apologize, but I don't think it does). I disagree, on both counts. I think it offers minimum help for unwarranted intrusion. I've outlined other approaches that I think would offer much more improvement for much less intrusion.

1. licensing shooters and gun owners the way we do drivers
2. ending the gun show exemption (which becomes more realistic once the licensing is in place)
3. a cooling off period for purchasing a gun
4. potentially requiring gun owners to obtain liability insurance
5. a 10-year tack on sentence for any crime using a gun

I will say that I think it is high time for gun owners and their advocacy groups to realize that something needs to be done and come up with some rational alternatives. If NRA lent its support to any of the measures above, they would pass in a heartbeat. And the result would be far more beneficial than what we'd get from an assault ban.

Otherwise we risk ending up with something irrational. Worse, when that doesn't work, what will we do next? Additional irrational responses to try to solve the problem will just lead us to what is a very real and very slippery slope.

Again, IMO, the credility of your argument goes out the window when you call the ban of assault weaponry from law-abiding citizens as "a significant invasion of liberty". You've got to be kidding. And as others have pointed out, that "slippery slope" argument is increasingly baseless as even the most ardent, far left gun control advocates (e.g., Bloomberg) have never suggested anything but the ban on assault weaponry and semi-automatic handguns with 50/100 clip rounds.

Walt, there are lots of people and groups, in my lifetime, who have advocated for hand gun control and bans, precisely because a Saturday night special only has one purpose - to kill another person.

Your argument that it's only about assault rifles is a fantasy. It may be for you, and for some percentage of folks. But there is a non-insignicant portion of the population that goes further on the issue than you claim.

(12-18-2012 11:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 10:58 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 09:05 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  And finally, to return to your example of cars, most people who die in car accidents are in cars. They've accepted some level of risk by being in that car. I shouldn't have to assume the risk for your gun ownership.

Pedestrians, bicylists and passengers in other vehicles are injured by people in OTHER cars.

I shouldn't have to assume the risk of someone getting behind the wheel drunk. The risk is in how the gun or car is used.

And that is why that activity is illegal.

As is murder using a gun, except in self-defense. Taking away alcohol or cars would eliminate or reduce dWI deaths. Taking away guns would do the same for gun related deaths.

They are analogous. I'm not arguing for prohibition. or getting rid of cars. I'm pointing out that folks pushing gun control are selective in what they go after.

(12-18-2012 10:27 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Quite honestly, I trust the government far more than I would trust an individual citizen who felt the need or desire to purchase an assault-type weapon. Seriously.
As for the rest of your response, sorry, but we're just talking in circles if you honestly believe a ban on assault weapons is a significant invasion of one's personal liberties. What about one's right for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", which is taken away whenever such senseless killings take place. And, again, IMO, your slippery slope argument is a joke and is totally baseless since no one-- not even the most far left, most ardent gun control advocates-- have ever suggested anything more than a ban on assault-type weaponry.

That's not true at all. The Heller & McDonald cases were about near-complete bans on handguns for private citizens in Washington, DC (also very restricive regulations on long guns) and Chicago. And many on the left still consider the 2nd Amendment to only protect a person's individual right to serve in a militia. If that is the case then any weapon could be banned.

Assault rifles, which is a completely arbitrary designation based primarily on cosmetics, are already banned in Connecticut. The weapon used in this attack was not classified as an assault weapon and was perfectly legal under both Connecticut law and the expired federal assault weapon ban. Your post is actually an example of the slippery slope in action. What starts as banning assault rifles soon becomes banning assault-type rifles. As Steven Herce notes, why would it be expected to stop there?

I'm pretty sure it wasn't your question, but here are several accounts of the role that guns played in the civil rights struggle.
http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/GunsVersusKKK.htm
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html
http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/09/ci...ed-self-de
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch..._page=true

(12-18-2012 11:14 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 10:58 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 09:05 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  And finally, to return to your example of cars, most people who die in car accidents are in cars. They've accepted some level of risk by being in that car. I shouldn't have to assume the risk for your gun ownership.

Pedestrians, bicylists and passengers in other vehicles are injured by people in OTHER cars.

I shouldn't have to assume the risk of someone getting behind the wheel drunk. The risk is in how the gun or car is used.

And that is why that activity is illegal.

As is murder using a gun, except in self-defense. Taking away alcohol or cars would eliminate or reduce dWI deaths. Taking away guns would do the same for gun related deaths.

They are analogous. I'm not arguing for prohibition. or getting rid of cars. I'm pointing out that folks pushing gun control are selective in what they go after.

The intention of drinking and driving isn't to kill someone, but generally to get home from a bar or to go to another one.

However, when using a gun to commit murder, the intention is to murder. Very few point to gun mishandling as a reason to ban certain types of firearms, and IMO, that would be much more analogous to drinking and driving.

People should be debating whether the utility provided by large magazines and semi-auto rifles is great enough to warrant the risks posed by people owning them. Obviously the utility of vehicles is great enough to overcome the risks.

(12-18-2012 09:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 09:10 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  A couple questions back at you...
1. Why would "law abiding citizens" ever have a rational and justified need for such assault weapons or hand guns with 20/50/100 round clips?
2. Though "criminals" (street gangs) who would still likely be able to get their hands on such weapons will continue to cause bedlam on the streets of our inner cities, do you honestly think it is these "criminals" who are the ones involved in these senseless mass killings at schools, movie theatres and shopping malls?

...

I'm absolutely in favor of reducing the number of gun deaths. I would favor those policies which promise the maximum reduction in number of deaths for the minimum reduction in liberty. I don't think an assault weapons ban meets that test. I would expect it to offer a minuscule reduction in deaths for a significant invasion of liberty.

You said in an earlier post something to the effect that such a ban would absolutely help without imposing material harm on gun owners (I'm paraphrasing, if that misstates your meaning, I apologize, but I don't think it does). I disagree, on both counts. I think it offers minimum help for unwarranted intrusion. I've outlined other approaches that I think would offer much more improvement for much less intrusion.

1. licensing shooters and gun owners the way we do drivers
2. ending the gun show exemption (which becomes more realistic once the licensing is in place)
3. a cooling off period for purchasing a gun
4. potentially requiring gun owners to obtain liability insurance
5. a 10-year tack on sentence for any crime using a gun

I will say that I think it is high time for gun owners and their advocacy groups to realize that something needs to be done and come up with some rational alternatives. If NRA lent its support to any of the measures above, they would pass in a heartbeat. And the result would be far more beneficial than what we'd get from an assault ban.

Otherwise we risk ending up with something irrational. Worse, when that doesn't work, what will we do next? Additional irrational responses to try to solve the problem will just lead us to what is a very real and very slippery slope.

Owl69, I know we've been going at it for a while, and I think we both recognize we're talking to each other from opposite ends of the political spectrum, but I actually really agree with the majority of your list of 5 actions. (And this is why I'm so enjoying this conversation, too.) On this issue, we're actually surprisingly close on preferred policy. We're clearly coming from two very different places on perception of, for lack of a better term, "gun culture", but on policy we're pretty close. Your list is a little more than I'd ask for in some respects, and a little less in others.

I think your licensing and cooling off periods are spot on. For me, the one thing that is missing is a registration of the actual guns. I just don't see how you prevent legitimate owners and purchasers of guns from transferring guns to illegitimate owners without some sort of gun registration so the guns can be traced back to the original owner. Your thoughts?

I hadn't thought of the liability insurance angle, but it's a good thought.

I'm wary of the sentencing enhancement. If it's a potential sentence enhancement, I'm ok with it. If it's a mandatory enhancement, not so much. Mandatory sentences are such a blunt instrument, and too frequently they make a bad situation worse.

Yes, I'd prefer it if there weren't guns like the AR-15 with large capacity magazines out there, but if there was a more comprehensive focus on responsible, accountable ownership, I could live with that. Yes, it would be great if there could be some mental health component like my "yellow flag" idea, so that mental health professionals are alerted if specific people are trying to obtain guns. But if Washington passed your ideas, along with a robust gun registration system, that would pretty much be my ideal policy choice. And if Washington passed your ideas without the gun registration, I'd be a bit disappointed but still pleasantly surprised that they could even do something even remotely rational when it comes to guns.

Chapel Hill, I am totally opposed to registration of guns themselves. That's the point at which I think the infringement on liberty goes too far--the point that is too far down the slippery slope. Once the registration list exists, then it becomes a very simple matter to disarm the populace, and that's how you end up with Dachau and Buchenwald. That's also precisely the move that violates exactly what the founders had in mind. And other than giving prosecutors an easy scape goat after a crime has been committed, I'm not sure what value it adds. Anything toward crime prevention is negligible. And there are just too many draconian enforcement scenarios. No, IMO that's one step too far down the slippery slope that you say does not exist.

As for the sentencing, I would expect it to be used kind of like the way prosecutors use the hate crime provisions today. My own experience defending drug cases has convinced me of the lunacy of mandatory sentencing. I would make it something that can't be paroled; that makes a lot more sense for using a gun than for using a joint.

One other comment. One argument used in favor of restricting 2nd amemdment rights is the "militia" clause in the amendment. But if the rationale for the amendment is the need to provide a militia, then wouldn't military arms like assault weapons be precisely what the founders sought to protect?

Interesting article by a well-regarded legal mind regarding gun control and the 2nd Amendment:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-17...laims.html

(12-18-2012 10:29 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 10:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 09:47 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  And as others have pointed out, that "slippery slope" argument is increasingly baseless as even the most ardent, far left gun control advocates (e.g., Bloomberg) have never suggested anything but the ban on assault weaponry and semi-automatic handguns with 50/100 clip rounds.

That in no way makes the slippery slope argument baseless. It actually makes it more valid in a way. What are "far left gun control advocates" going to want if we ban assault rifles and it proves ineffective (as I believe it will)? Are they going to say, "Oops, we made a mistake, let's undo this," or are they going to say, "We need to ban more." For that matter, what do you expect their position to be if the ban does work? How about, "We told you so, now we need to ban more." And that's the slippery slope. It's a slippery one, not a precipitous one. And what you are citing is proof that we don't have a precipitous cliff, not that we don't have a slippery slope.

The slippery slope is like the old saying about the frog in boiling water. In that analogy, you're confusing turning up the heat all the way with turning it up gradually.

Right, and you can use your slippery slope argument to debate the merits of any law or policy whatsoever. Why don't we go back 150 years to the wild west with no laws whatsoever.

Actually, there were laws. That's why men like Wyatt Earp were hired - to enforce the laws.

But let's go back just 100 years, to the point where a U. S. Congressman warned that if we pass this 2% income tax, someday it might rise to 5% or even more. Nobody was proposing a 39.6% tax then.

I think the slippery slope is a poor image. It is more of a staircase, and the next step is always a small one.

(12-18-2012 10:27 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Quite honestly, I trust the government far more than I would trust an individual citizen who felt the need or desire to purchase an assault-type weapon. Seriously.

You trust the government that sold these same weapons to Mexican drug cartels to make decisions on what you need and don't need? That is trust indeed.

Remember the bayonet I used to have? I didn't need it. And it had no other use than to be shoved into the guts of a man. I just liked owning it. Should the government have come to me and said, "You don't need this, and someday you might go crazy and use it, so we are taking it to keep the country safe"?

I used the example of not needing five TV sets, and somebody correctly noted that they are not used to kill. But I wasn't listing them as examples of things that kill, but as examples of things we have that we don't need, and therefore as things that can be taken from us if the government starts decinding what one needs and what one doesn't need. Is the government going to come to us and say, "You don't need all these things, so we are taking some and redistributing to people who do need them"? Not in 2013. Not in 2014. Probably not in my lifetime. But someday? maybe. It is a short jump from deciding that some things are not needed to deciding that other things are not needed, to deciding one more thing is not needed. Right now, RVs and TVs are not on the list for need based allowability, but the principle is being set. There is a lady about ten miles away who is downsizing into a 10,000 sq. ft. house. She lives alone. does she "need" that? Think Dr. Zhivago here.

I would like to take the word "need" out of the discussion. The only need that should be relevant is the need of the public vs. the rights of the individual. I think Owl69's program would balance these very well.

Going in a bit of a different direction, and throwing it out there for discussion as an alternative to tighter restrictions on assault rifles/high capacity magazines/guns in general that were instantly being bandied about after the shootings, what about requiring all school teachers to take concealed gun classes AND CARRY them. That could be a bigger deterrent to school shootings than trying to disarm unknown shooters before they decide to enter a school. If a shooter figured he could get off two or three rounds before being shot himself, he might decide on a different target or give up the plan altogether. And if he didn't isn't it better to have 2 kids and the killer shot than 25?

I love that we do this...

I made a comment, very clearly stating that I couldn't prove what it said, but I read... and now people have quoted me as having claimed it as fact. The guy made the claim... and he has data to support it. If he manipulated the data, fine... that's what people trying to prove points do. If someone thinks their side isn't manipulating the data, they're wrong.


How about this...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...ta-table-8

FBI.gov data on murders, 2007-2011.

Roughly 14,000 per year total and declining
Roughly 9,000 per year by guns and declining
Roughly 350 by rifles (OF ANY KIND) and declining

There are 10-30mm assault rifles (depending on how you categorize them) and they are a small number compared to all other rifles... so while there were 350 murders by rifle, certainly SOME portion of that was by something other than an assault rifle. iirc, the DC Sniper didn't use an asault rifle. So all of this arguing over Assault Rifles means we are going to take the rights away from 10-30mm people, to prevent some fraction of the 350 or roughly 4% of GUN murders. I'd easily argue that handguns are used more in other crimes than rifles as well, but I digress.

Even if we wrongfully assume that every single rifle murder is by an assault rifle, we're talking about 4%.

I wish I could find the number, but again, I've read and it makes sense that only a very small fraction of murders are committed by people with registered, legal weapons. So only 4% of murders by assault rifles... and something WELL north of 50% of murders (I've READ well over 90, but surely manipulated somewhat) by people who didn't legally own them.

The problem is not assault rifles (something less than 4%)... therefore the solution isn't to ban assault rifles.... it's people who illegally posess (and use) handguns (something north of 50%).

(12-18-2012 12:14 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  I'm wary of the sentencing enhancement. If it's a potential sentence enhancement, I'm ok with it. If it's a mandatory enhancement, not so much. Mandatory sentences are such a blunt instrument, and too frequently they make a bad situation worse.

What is the difference between this proposal and the hate crime enhancement? Real question.

(12-18-2012 12:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Chapel Hill, I am totally opposed to registration of guns themselves. That's the point at which I think the infringement on liberty goes too far--the point that is too far down the slippery slope. Once the registration list exists, then it becomes a very simple matter to disarm the populace, and that's how you end up with Dachau and Buchenwald. That's also precisely the move that violates exactly what the founders had in mind. And other than giving prosecutors an easy scape goat after a crime has been committed, I'm not sure what value it adds. Anything toward crime prevention is negligible. And there are just too many draconian enforcement scenarios. No, IMO that's one step too far down the slippery slope that you say does not exist.

As for the sentencing, I would expect it to be used kind of like the way prosecutors use the hate crime provisions today. My own experience defending drug cases has convinced me of the lunacy of mandatory sentencing. I would make it something that can't be paroled; that makes a lot more sense for using a gun than for using a joint.

One other comment. One argument used in favor of restricting 2nd amemdment rights is the "militia" clause in the amendment. But if the rationale for the amendment is the need to provide a militia, then wouldn't military arms like assault weapons be precisely what the founders sought to protect?

So how do you solve the straw buyer problem? If only the "right" and "responsible" gun owners can purchase guns, what's to stop them from then turning around and giving/selling guns to those that shouldn't have them? And why would it be easier to disarm the populace if they register their guns if you already know who the gun owners are? That's what's standing between us and concentration camps? At the end of the day, voting is what matters in a democracy, not gun ownership.

As for citing the militia thing, let's put this first in a historical context. The US had no standing army when the Constitution was written. The system of federalizing state militias was how the US organized its defense until 1903 when the National Guard came about and somewhere in this time period a formal standing army was formed. So unless you're in the National Guard, you're not in a militia. Period. But you can see how back when the Framers wrote the Constitution, and they were using this system of calling up informal militias and the most advanced personal weapons in the world were also the same rifles people used to hunt game for their table, that the 2nd Amendment actually makes sense as it's written.

So, if the rationale behind the 2nd Amendment is the need for a militia, the government provides one. It's the National Guard. And they do have military arms as it turns out.

But your last question seems to imply that you think that what the 2nd Amendment is really saying is that all citizens should be ready to have to defend the nation and join a militia at any moment, and by the way, this militia is totally BYOG. And the Framers totally anticipated the sort of weaponry we'd have today, even considering that the repeating rifle wasn't invented until almost 80 years after the Constitution came about. Then under your logic, what's the Constitutional limit on personal ownership of weapons? A giant truck bomb could be a totally useful defensive weapon against an invading force.

Actually, Doc... MY question is how he got into the school at all.

Every school I've been in has a security guard and a "register visitors" policy. This guy comes onto campus with 4 guns and just walks into a classroom?

I don't know if you are being serious about your suggestion, but if so, wouldn't a tazer be as effective and less risky?

(12-18-2012 01:25 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  So, if the rationale behind the 2nd Amendment is the need for a militia, the government provides one. It's the National Guard. And they do have military arms as it turns out.

The government at the time of the Revolution ALSO provided a militia. They wore red coats.

A Militia of the people, not of the government.

I get that this is an outdated concept in terms of how to fight a government, but if you owned 200 acres of land on the southern border and were constantly being "invaded" by drug dealers with weapons banned in this country, would you be willing to wait for the National Guard to arrive to protect your family? What if your government didn't want a large military presence near the border for fear of being seen as "anti-immigrant"?

(12-18-2012 01:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 01:25 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  So, if the rationale behind the 2nd Amendment is the need for a militia, the government provides one. It's the National Guard. And they do have military arms as it turns out.

...

A Militia of the people, not of the government.

...

That sounds nice and patriotic-y, but do you have any evidence of that point of view? Even during the Revolution, this militia was paid and paid for by the Continental Congress.

(12-18-2012 01:19 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  Going in a bit of a different direction, and throwing it out there for discussion as an alternative to tighter restrictions on assault rifles/high capacity magazines/guns in general that were instantly being bandied about after the shootings, what about requiring all school teachers to take concealed gun classes AND CARRY them. That could be a bigger deterrent to school shootings than trying to disarm unknown shooters before they decide to enter a school. If a shooter figured he could get off two or three rounds before being shot himself, he might decide on a different target or give up the plan altogether. And if he didn't isn't it better to have 2 kids and the killer shot than 25?

I think this is a bad idea and should never happen.

Yes, perhaps there are those who would think, "Oh, all the teachers have guns, so I shouldn't commit my mass murder spree there." And you would reduce the number of murders at school, but they would potentially be committed somewhere else.

The main reason I think this is an awful idea is that you would be placing a massive amount of guns in school. These schools are filled with children who are not fully mentally developed yet, who have undiagnosed mental health issues, etc. Think of the potential issues created from children who lash out in a fit of unpremeditated rage and get a hold of the lone gun in the classroom, a gun that normally wouldn't have been there.

You also would put them into the hands of teachers, not law enforcement officers. Sure, you could train them, but think of how many teachers there are in the US. It would be a nightmare to ensure that EVERY teacher was a competent gun handler. I may trust a teacher to teach my future children, but I don't know if I'd want them carrying a gun at all times.

I'd rather drive down the road of less guns, rather than more guns.

If reducing the total number of gun-related homicides in the U.S. is the goal, maybe the connection between guns and illegal drugs should be considered.