(12-18-2012 01:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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.

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.

People always assume that the government in place today will be exactly like the government in place tomorrow and that because we live in a democracy, individual rights will be preserved.

Venezuela had the oldest South American democracy, and to some extent they still do. (I've long held that democracy only works well when you have a large, majority middle class, or at least where the majority of people have a standard of living that is acceptable or provides hope that it can be acceptable to that person through legitimate means (education, work, etc) - - in other words you have skin in the game (i.e. the government)).

Since Chavez has come to power, not only have industries been unilaterally nationalized, but people have had real property and houses confiscated and redistributed.

Population growth in Caracas (compare the City in the 1950's to present day) with the shift from a middle class majority to a majority underclass has shifted the standard of living and increased crime exponentially since the 1970's.

People don't need guns here because we're America and we can't be like Iraq (which was the most advanced Islamic country under Saddam), or Syria, or Venezuela, or Mexico . . . . . could we?

Well not in 2012. But as posted here, when income tax was initiated, no one envisioned the tax rates we have now.

I would be curious as to what percentage of the Board thinks that the overall standard of living in this country will be better or worse than today in 30 years?

And I'm not talking about the standard of living for Rice graduates, I'm talking about the population as a whole.

(12-18-2012 01:25 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  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.

The second part is not true, regardless of how many periods you use. If you are not in the National Guard you are not in the organized militia, but the general militia is something else entirely. Depending on your particular characteristics you may or may not be part of the general militia. And the Second Amendment does not refer to an organized militia, just a well-regulated one.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/312

(12-18-2012 02:46 PM)jh Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 01:25 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  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.

The second part is not true, regardless of how many periods you use. If you are not in the National Guard you are not in the organized militia, but the general militia is something else entirely. Depending on your particular characteristics you may or may not be part of the general militia. And the Second Amendment does not refer to an organized militia, just a well-regulated one.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/312

So does this mean people 46 and over have no constitutional right to guns?

News story on the increase in gun sales after the tragedy.

I wonder if it is a nationwide thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...qkHUvv14#!

(12-18-2012 02:59 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 02:46 PM)jh Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 01:25 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  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.

The second part is not true, regardless of how many periods you use. If you are not in the National Guard you are not in the organized militia, but the general militia is something else entirely. Depending on your particular characteristics you may or may not be part of the general militia. And the Second Amendment does not refer to an organized militia, just a well-regulated one.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/312

So does this mean people 46 and over have no constitutional right to guns?

I'm not sure where you would get that from. It just means they aren't part of the general militia. That has nothing to do with whether or not a person has a right to bear arms. The Second Amendment protects an individual right, not a collective one. And it's the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to be in a militia.

Your reading would have the odd property of allowing Congress to determine by statute who has a constitutional right. I'm pretty sure that's not the way things work.

(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.

But the definition of drunk has changed, from .15 to .12 to .10 to .08. I bet that when the .15 was enacted and some people were saying slippery slope, one defense was that nobody was asking for .08. I doubt that that will be the end of it.

(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?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50239735

(12-18-2012 03:49 PM)jh Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 02:59 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 02:46 PM)jh Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 01:25 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  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.

The second part is not true, regardless of how many periods you use. If you are not in the National Guard you are not in the organized militia, but the general militia is something else entirely. Depending on your particular characteristics you may or may not be part of the general militia. And the Second Amendment does not refer to an organized militia, just a well-regulated one.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/312

So does this mean people 46 and over have no constitutional right to guns?

I'm not sure where you would get that from. It just means they aren't part of the general militia. That has nothing to do with whether or not a person has a right to bear arms. The Second Amendment protects an individual right, not a collective one. And it's the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to be in a militia.

Your reading would have the odd property of allowing Congress to determine by statute who has a constitutional right. I'm pretty sure that's not the way things work.

I was being half-facetious by asking that. Of course, our nation has a long history of giving rights to only certain people, so it wouldn't be outside the realm of imagination.

And this individual right is a pretty new one, at least as recognized by the courts (this Times op-ed was a decent read): http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinio...ef=opinion

Since people have been comparing gun deaths and motor vehicle deaths:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...least.html

Shows a graph of gun deaths/motor vehicle deaths vs time.

Gun deaths have increased very slowly, but steadily since 1999. Motor vehicle deaths started to drop greatly in 2006 and they are now very close.

Draw what conclusions you want, I just wanted to post the info.

(12-17-2012 10:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So then what do you do? I don't see a next step, or a step after that, which doesn't lead to the slippery slope.

Could you expand a bit on what your concerns are about weapons bans leading to the slippery slope?

In my mind, we've been firmly planted on that slippery slope my entire life -- that is, there are many classes of arms that I do not legally have the right to bear.

(12-18-2012 04:01 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  I was being half-facetious by asking that. Of course, our nation has a long history of giving rights to only certain people, so it wouldn't be outside the realm of imagination.
And this individual right is a pretty new one, at least as recognized by the courts (this Times op-ed was a decent read): http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinio...ef=opinion

Our nation does, but our Constitution doesn't.

There is virtually no evidence that the Second Amendment was ever considered to be a collective right until the 1820s (at the earliest). And while Heller was the first time it was recognized as an individual right, to my understanding the court has never held it to be a collective right.

(12-18-2012 03:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50239735

Was not aware of that! Thanks for the link. Anybody else have any thoughts on this approach? Right? Wrong? Part of a bigger plan? I'm just throwing this out there off teh top of my head and am looking for discussion!

(12-18-2012 01:48 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  

(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.

And without being a particularly well-informed historian (certainly, my degree isn't in it - I'm an engineer), I have read enough about the era to know that local militias were common throughout Colonial times. Many men kept their musket in the house, and they could be called on at any time for any situation. Remember Paul Revere? Not exactly a well-formed (or trained) militia, but protecting local interests - he was calling them out to oppose the British troops.

And the armies started to get raised from there. That's what you're talking about, once the armed insurrection became a full-on conflict. And eventually were held together by the pay coming from the Continental Congress - when it could come. The armies almost fell apart a couple of times when finances were tight.

And then think in terms of the post-Revolution time. Even around when the Bill of Rights was adopted. And the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania. A local militia did stand up to what it thought was illegal taxation - and got put down pretty strongly by the federal troops. Militias were a very informal and local thing in those Colonial times. And these are just a couple of the examples I can easily think of.

Three points that I don't think have come up (although this thread's moving pretty quickly) -

1) Simply pointing out that there are more car deaths than gun deaths is irrelevant. Cars and assault weapons have completely different purposes and uses, and completely different social utilities. Therefore, it's not about which has higher costs, but which has costs exceeding its utility.

2) As for slippery slope arguments, I recall several anti-gun publications predicting blood running in the streets after the assault weapons ban was lifted in 2004, saying that we'd all soon be able to buy machine guns and other military-grade weapons (not the best source, but here's a transcript from the Sept 13, 2004 episode of NewsHour with Jim Lehrer talking about it). Seems like we're closer to that side of the slope than whatever side (if any) leads to Nazi concentration camps.

3) I don't buy the argument that limiting assault weapons, by itself, has to have a "meaningful impact" on reducing the number of gun deaths. I'm perfectly fine with it being one of a number of discrete strategies, that, combined, have a meaningful impact. So yeah - reducing the culture of violence in TV and media? I'm on board with that (even though I expect that any government effort in that respect would draw several first amendment objections). Enhanced background checks and expanded waiting periods? I'm on board with that, too. Banning assault weapons with minimal social utility and high social cost? Sounds good to me. [/u]

(12-18-2012 01:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  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?

I'm sure there will be a fuller report eventually, but I'm pretty certain he didn't just walk into a classroom. There is the automatically locking front door that has been mentioned in multiple reports - it's not clear if he arrived before or after the lock kicked in.

There's also reports that certain rooms (the music room) were locked down due to previous gunfire, and he tried to get into them, but couldn't, and eventually made his way to at least one more room for shootings.

The timing is not clear on when the principal, vice principal, and school psychologist were shot. However, given what has been shared so far, it sounds like some special education/IEP type conference (given the presence of the psychologist) was probably going on with the parent in question in the office area, and it would seem like it happened fairly early in the assault, like the shooter started shooting up the hall.

That's what I've been able to piece together so far. Not sure if he shot his way through the door or not (if it were locked). Would be hard to believe that he got through the door if it were unlocked and he didn't raise a flag with someone in the office watching the door, given he was carrying a rifle.

(12-18-2012 01:48 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  

(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.

But the Continental Congress was not our government. Our government at the time was the British government. The Continental Congress was akin to the Texas Secession people in the view of "our government".






To many other comments on here....


Like it or not... the right to arms is specifically protected by the Constitution. It doesn't say I have to have a reason, in fact, it says you have to have due process to take that right away from me. Passing a law to take away my rights isn't due process for a Constitutional right. Amending the Constitution is.

Laws banning assault rifles SOUND good, but really accomplish very little. Why would we focus so much attention on something that accomplishes so little?

Put some numbers to the facts...

assume for a moment that the number of murders by people who own their guns legally is constant. I've heard bigger numbers, but let's say it's 20% by legal owners, and 80% by illegal owners.

Forget the Constitutional issue for a moment...

If you ban assault rifles and are 100% effective, you eliminate some fraction of 350 deaths (350 by all rifles... no idea how many were "assault" rifles)
If you are only 50% effective in reducing gun violence by stricter enforcement of existing laws, you eliminate 0.5 X 0.8 x 13,500 or 5,400 deaths.

The fact that there are only 350 deaths by all rifles when you consider that there are between 10 and 30mm assault rifles, and probably twice that many "regular" rifles means that MILLIONS of guns are owned and operated every year with no incident.

How can someone argue that we should only ban assault weapons when 90% of the deaths are by handguns? Hence the "slippery slope" isn't all that slippery. It's REALLY the camel's nose in the tent.

If you REALLY want to have an effect, The answer is to eliminate the cause of 80% or more of all gun violence... ILLEGAL owners. To bring it full circle, ILLEGAL owners are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Very few legal gun owners would object to you taking guns away from criminals, rather than turning law abiding citizens into ones with the stroke of a pen.

(12-18-2012 05:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 01:48 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  

(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.

But the Continental Congress was not our government. Our government at the time was the British government. The Continental Congress was akin to the Texas Secession people in the view of "our government".






To many other comments on here....


Like it or not... the right to arms is specifically protected by the Constitution. It doesn't say I have to have a reason, in fact, it says you have to have due process to take that right away from me. Passing a law to take away my rights isn't due process for a Constitutional right. Amending the Constitution is.

Laws banning assault rifles SOUND good, but really accomplish very little. Why would we focus so much attention on something that accomplishes so little?

Put some numbers to the facts...

assume for a moment that the number of murders by people who own their guns legally is constant. I've heard bigger numbers, but let's say it's 20% by legal owners, and 80% by illegal owners.

Forget the Constitutional issue for a moment...

If you ban assault rifles and are 100% effective, you eliminate some fraction of 350 deaths (350 by all rifles... no idea how many were "assault" rifles)
If you are only 50% effective in reducing gun violence by stricter enforcement of existing laws, you eliminate 0.5 X 0.8 x 13,500 or 5,400 deaths.

The fact that there are only 350 deaths by all rifles when you consider that there are between 10 and 30mm assault rifles, and probably twice that many "regular" rifles means that MILLIONS of guns are owned and operated every year with no incident.

How can someone argue that we should only ban assault weapons when 90% of the deaths are by handguns? Hence the "slippery slope" isn't all that slippery. It's REALLY the camel's nose in the tent.

If you REALLY want to have an effect, The answer is to eliminate the cause of 80% or more of all gun violence... ILLEGAL owners. To bring it full circle, ILLEGAL owners are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Very few legal gun owners would object to you taking guns away from criminals, rather than turning law abiding citizens into ones with the stroke of a pen.

You're right that an assault style weapons ban would make a minor dent in total gun deaths. But I believe that the purpose of banning these styles of guns is not to have a major dent in the TOTAL gun deaths in the US. Instead, it is trying to stop, or make a major dent, in the number of mass killings.

The people that are for this are willing to trade the utility of these guns for the potential benefit, as small as it is.

RiceLad15 Wrote:  Instead, it is trying to stop, or make a major dent, in the number of mass killings.

It wouldn't accomplish that, either. But for politicians wanting to appear pro gun control, it's a relatively easy gun-control law to pass since few gun owners are assault rifle owners, and every politician knows that people object less if not directly affected by the new law.

(12-18-2012 06:12 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

RiceLad15 Wrote:  Instead, it is trying to stop, or make a major dent, in the number of mass killings.

It wouldn't accomplish that, either. But for politicians wanting to appear pro gun control, it's a relatively easy gun-control law to pass since few gun owners are assault rifle owners, and every politician knows that people object less if not directly affected by the new law.

Hence the slippery slope argument. They really don't want THIS law, but passing THIS law makes all OTHER laws easier to pass.

BTW, because 9 round glocks are so easy to carry multiple weapons and/or multiple clips, I'm not so sure it really stops the mass killings either. If you're locked in a classroom with 25 kids and you want them dead... the difference in time to use a single shot derringer and an AR-15 probably isn't enough to matter... certainly not 2 9 shot glocks and a couple extra clips or a .38 and a speed loader.

Look, I understand the slippery slope argument, but I just don't buy it for a few reasons.

1) If we use that line of thinking then taxes never would have fallen once they started growing, libel/defamation laws would have morphed into monsters, etc. The slope is as slippery as the population allows it, and IMO, you have enough support from the right AND left for keeping hunting privileges and moderate self protection privileges intact.

2) Not a great argument, but still, sometimes this "slippery slope" isn't awful (see gay marriage, civil rights, women's suffrage, etc.) and we don't know what sort of affects these laws would have.

I'm sure there are instances in the last 40 years that show a negative correlation with gun restriction, but I've only seen positive results from the articles I've read (Australia and UK). The thing with macro solutions like this is that there are so many confounding factors that you don't know what will happen. If you go about making laws in a smart and thoughtful way you can work to avoid the potential of the slippery slope anyways and you allow yourself to make changes when/if they are appropriate.