(12-18-2012 04:48 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  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.

OK, the utility of owning vehicles is worth the associated death rate. The utility of something you own, versus something you don't and the other guy does, is always going to come down on the side of what the individual feels they need. If public transportation were adequate, you could argue otherwise (as the argument that police and the state can protect you, you don't need the gun).

But throwing that aside, and acknowledging you won't get rid of cars (and I wasn't advocating that, but making a point).

Forget cars. What's the utility of alcohol consumption? Compared to the lives lost? Not just in car accidents, but bar room fights, alcohol induced assaults, etc?

Not advocating prohibition. But the argument that it failed is based mostly on violence between criminals and criminal activity, not on the impact of Prohibition on drunk driving, liver disease, alcoholism.

What about the utility of cigarettes? If you outlaw them, you'll save innumerable lives.

Well, that's an individual choice? Uh, nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known to man. Cigarette makers are perfectly aware of that, and know that all they need is to get someone to try smoking for a short period of time and they've got a customer for life.

(12-18-2012 07:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

None of your examples involve writing laws denying Constitutionally guaranteed rights... in fact, most of them arguably EXPAND constitutionally guaranteed rights

That is absolutely the difference.

If you decide something ISN'T a guaranteed right, then it never comes back. You can't just expand the law back and give you back inalienable rights... you can merely choose not to take the right away, for the moment.

I generally agree with your last comment... so why don't we start with emulating a place like Germany, who imposes strict punishment, like 5yrs in jail and 100k fines for unlawful posession... or allowing someone to posess your guns... whether used in a crime or not. a) fewer "petty" criminals would carry guns, and b) those that legally own them would be much more careful. If you want to impose stiffer penalties for "worse" guns, then that would be acceptable, because people who have guns unlawfully can be denied their Constitutional rights... all without denying lawful posession by millions of law abiding Americans.

I also generally agree with the lack of mandatory sentencing, because there are always things we didn't foresee, but clearly our current punishments are insufficient. Make it stiff, and then allow courts to specify extenuating circumstance so that the judges are "on the record".

(12-18-2012 10:21 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 04:48 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  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.

OK, the utility of owning vehicles is worth the associated death rate. The utility of something you own, versus something you don't and the other guy does, is always going to come down on the side of what the individual feels they need. If public transportation were adequate, you could argue otherwise (as the argument that police and the state can protect you, you don't need the gun).

But throwing that aside, and acknowledging you won't get rid of cars (and I wasn't advocating that, but making a point).

Forget cars. What's the utility of alcohol consumption? Compared to the lives lost? Not just in car accidents, but bar room fights, alcohol induced assaults, etc?

Not advocating prohibition. But the argument that it failed is based mostly on violence between criminals and criminal activity, not on the impact of Prohibition on drunk driving, liver disease, alcoholism.

What about the utility of cigarettes? If you outlaw them, you'll save innumerable lives.

I don't disagree with any of your points.

(12-18-2012 04:48 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  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

OK, say you get your assault weapon ban, and in six months some nut with 2 Glocks and a .38 goes into a day care and kills 20 3-year-olds. What will be the reaction of the legislators?

A. We've done all we could.
B. We didn't ban enough guns.

I think B.

(12-18-2012 10:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 07:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

None of your examples involve writing laws denying Constitutionally guaranteed rights... in fact, most of them arguably EXPAND constitutionally guaranteed rights

That is absolutely the difference.

If you decide something ISN'T a guaranteed right, then it never comes back. You can't just expand the law back and give you back inalienable rights... you can merely choose not to take the right away, for the moment.

I generally agree with your last comment... so why don't we start with emulating a place like Germany, who imposes strict punishment, like 5yrs in jail and 100k fines for unlawful posession... or allowing someone to posess your guns... whether used in a crime or not. a) fewer "petty" criminals would carry guns, and b) those that legally own them would be much more careful. If you want to impose stiffer penalties for "worse" guns, then that would be acceptable, because people who have guns unlawfully can be denied their Constitutional rights... all without denying lawful posession by millions of law abiding Americans.

I also generally agree with the lack of mandatory sentencing, because there are always things we didn't foresee, but clearly our current punishments are insufficient. Make it stiff, and then allow courts to specify extenuating circumstance so that the judges are "on the record".

I've been in agreement with the majority of your posts on this subject, including this one.

Enforce penalties. Make them stiff.

And if someone accidentally shoots someone or their gun accidentally shoots someone, take away their ability to own a gun. Licenses are for responsible people. There was the sad case (more than 10 years ago) of someone trying to shoot their gun on New Years Eve (in the country). Gun jammed. As he walked in his house, he was (stupidly) hitting the butt of his gun with his hand. It discharged, killing his child in the next room. I feel horrible for the guy, seriously. But I made the argument in a discussion at work that he should have all his licenses revoked as he clearly couldn't handle a weapon safely. You'd have thought I had asked for a life sentence. . . . .

But here's the problem you'll run into. And it's a big part of the current push to pass legislation.

In the case of mass murders, or rage induced murders, the end result is the shooter often passes judgement on themselves and ends their own life. (If I had $10 for every time I hear the words 'murder-suicide' on the news or read it in the paper, I could pay for a vacation)

There's no one left to punish. They 'win'.

And in a case like this one in Connecticut, even if the guy were caught on the spot alive, there is no way to possibly enact enough punishment to line up with the damage inflicted.

(As a father of 3, I can tell you that as the Channel 13 news alerts flashed across my phone Friday, and the death toll moved from 2 to 12 to 28, with the latter two indicating multiple, and then large numbers of small children as victims, my reaction was quite visceral. I was genuinely nauseated in a way that Columbine and VaTech couldn't come close to matching. If I were a parent of a victim, and the killer were alive, I think Yamamoto's apocryphal Pearl Harbor quote about an act that will 'fill him with a terrible resolve' would apply in a very personal way. And here as a strong believer in turning the other cheek, and being commanded to forgive in all circumstances, I am admitting to base emotions and reactions that I know to be wrong, but am powerless to do anything but fight back. I doubt that I'm alone in those in those feelings on this board, much less in the general population).

So we're all rightfully outraged. Unfortunately, we don't stomach outrage without an outlet on which to vent very well.

The need to exact justice and release the anger and frustration is high. People who recognize that fact can take advantage of it (or will try to), if they are smart.

Nate Silver strikes again.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com...-is-sharp/

Takes a great and very interesting look into gun ownership in the US and provides some insight in how gun owners are distributed.

It wasn't shocking that there is a difference in the % of gun owners who identify Rep/Dem, but I was surprised at the disparity (56%/31%; 42% overall). The other thing that was interesting was that for Republicans the chances you own a gun doesn't change to much with age, but for Democrats the older you are, the more likely you are to own a gun. Silver suggests that this trend may only exacerbate the partisan divide in the future.

I'm continually impressed at NAte Silver's ability to convey statistics in a way that is straightforward, informative and interesting.

(12-18-2012 07:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

So what happens if we impose an assault/automatic weapons ban and it is ineffective (which I expect)? Do we say, "We tried and it didn't work," or,"We didn't try enough so we need to expand the ban?" And in the unlikely event that it does work, don't we probably say, "Hey that worked well, more will be better?" Either way is the slippery slope.

Quote: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.

But we know where gun control leads at the end of the slope. Disarm the population, then suspend elections, then massacre dissidents. There's a reason why Dachau and Buchenwald happened in a country with extremely strict gun laws. There's not a benign pot of gold at the end of the slope.

Quote: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).

Not exactly. Australia has seen a decline in gun crimes, but only at the same rate as was being experienced before the gun laws. So it's hard to attribute much to the gun laws. And per an article I saw today, UK has seen an 89% rise in gun crime in the last decade. Now, that percentage is so high because the denominator was pretty low to begin with, but that only highlights the fact that both UK and Australia were far less violent cultures than the US before they enacted gun laws. Cultures that are inherently much less violent than ours tend to enact strict gun laws and remain less violent than we are. It's not like Australia and UK were experiencing violence at anything like our level, enacted gun laws, and saw a precipitous drop. Mexico has very strict gun laws too. How's that working for them. I'm pretty sure violent crimes are up across the board since enacting those laws. And I would much rather take my chances with a lone crazy than with an organized mob that operates beyond the law.

If the record of gun control legislation were what Walt described above--a serious reduction in deaths with no negative impact on liberty--then I would take a different position. But that's not the record, at least not uniformly.

Quote: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.

You trust our politicians and bureaucrats to achieve this? Seriously?

I do think there are smart and thoughtful solutions, just like with health care. But just like health care, count on our politicians and bureaucrats to take the slippery slope toward ever more government intrusion rather than the path toward smart and thoughtful solutions. Because that is how they get more power. And unanticipated negative consequences be damned.

One thing that I find interesting that I've not seen mentioned. As a white US male, my chances of being shot are about 6.3 per 100,000--roughly comparable to those in western Europe--slightly higher than most countries, lower than a few, but overall in a comparable range. The big differences in our shooting rates are among the African-American and Latino populations. I can't attribute that to racism, although I'm sure someone can figure out how. But that suggests to me that it's more social and cultural than guns. I would really be interested in research on this issue, if anyone knows of any. I do think efforts to address the social and cultural issues will bear more fruit than trying to attack the guns themselves as the problem.

I think I've mentioned that I know several people who own the kinds of weapons you are talking about banning, most owning several. With one possible exception, they're all kooks. But not scary kooks. They're all pretty strong law and order types, and any kind of crazy mass killing is the absolute last thing I would expect. And that's important because the folks who knew any of these mass killers have indicated that they knew something was not right. Some of you have expressed concerns about people like that having access to such weapons. I'm glad they do. I may need them to protect me some day, and that's the only way that I would ever expect their gun ownership to impact me.

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

Sorry to interrupt your strawman construction project, but no, that's not what I think.

(12-18-2012 01:25 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  So how do you solve the straw buyer problem?

Do you really think registration will stop the "straw buyer" problem? Seriously? And aside from ATF, just how many "straw buyers" do you think are out there? It's not like every gun sale is to a straw buyer, or like there are many straw buyers who don't do so with full awareness of what they're doing and why. Is it going to scare them off that they have to register the purchase? If I'm predisposed to commit a crime, I'm probably well past the stage of considering the punishment.

Quote: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?

Maybe because that's not what "right" and "responsible" people do?

Quote:And why would it be easier to disarm the populace if they register their guns if you already know who the gun owners are?

Knowing exactly what guns they have simplifies the process greatly. If I find five guns at your place, how do I know I got them all? I'm not totally comfortable with the liberty angle of licensing gun owners. But it's a tradeoff situation, and I think the good outweighs the bad.

The other problem with registration is that it creates a "guilty until proved innocent" situation. If a gun registered to you is used in a crime, the burden is pretty much on you to prove that you didn't do it. That's a total violation of the principles upon which our entire system of jurisprudence is based. I would call that a major liberty issue.

Also on the liberty issue, if you don't have a problem with the concept of giving the government the power to say, "You don't need that, therefore you can't have it," then we probably are not going to find much common ground. I value liberty far more than safety or security.

Quote: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.

Once they take the guns, nothing prevents them from taking the vote. That's been the history. Of course, as long as our leaders are benign, no problem. How comfortable would you be if Bush and Cheney had disarmed the American people, so that they had all the guns?

(12-18-2012 04:48 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  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.

Utility is relative to the alternatives. Cars have high utility in most of the country precisely because most of the country has chosen to build infrastructure that makes cars a necessity. In places where policy provides alternatives, cars don't have nearly as much utility.

You're right that it's about cost-benefit analysis but that analysis has been sorely lacking here. Some want to prevent tragedies like this by banning "assault" weapons and beefing up background checks, which I'm not ideologically opposed to, but which completely ignores that Connecticut already did both of those things. So based on this anecdote, the benefit of those proposals is zero.

(12-19-2012 04:09 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 04:48 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  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.

Utility is relative to the alternatives. Cars have high utility in most of the country precisely because most of the country has chosen to build infrastructure that makes cars a necessity. In places where policy provides alternatives, cars don't have nearly as much utility.

You're right that it's about cost-benefit analysis but that analysis has been sorely lacking here. Some want to prevent tragedies like this by banning "assault" weapons and beefing up background checks, which I'm not ideologically opposed to, but which completely ignores that Connecticut already did both of those things. So based on this anecdote, the benefit of those proposals is zero.

The problem with the Connecticut laws is the ridiculously strict and absurdly narrow definition of "assualt weapons" which are banned (thanks to pressure from the NRA). Sorry, but how can an AR-15 not be considered (under law) an assault weapon?

Owl69, I still have issues with the slippery slope argument and that "we know where gun control leads at the end of the slope. Disarm the population, then suspend elections, then massacre dissidents. There's a reason why Dachau and Buchenwald happened in a country with extremely strict gun laws." I'm not a history major, but I'm pretty sure a lot of this had to do with massive economic woes, a propaganda campaign, etc. Sure, there's a chance that if all citizens had guns that there would have been some sort of armed rebellion, but that isn't guaranteed. (I'm completely OK with being wrong on this, but I did pretty well in history in high school, haha).

Plus, the idea that if X then Y, isn't true here. You're right that gun control leads to a disarmed population, because well, that's the furthest it can go in controlling guns. But to suggest that if the population is disarmed THEN the rest of that WILL occur isn't true. Correlation doesn't mean causation. If that was the case, I could look back to WWII again and suggest that invading another country leads to a world war. Well, I believe we invaded a couple countries in the last decade and no world wars were started. As I stated before, we have created libel laws, but no one is walking around handing out tickets for cursing in public (or not using the three sea shells... please, someone get that reference).

Also, in regards to the chance that assault rifles bans don't work, there isn't enough support from either side to move much further in the direction of disarmament if the ban is ineffective. Enough on the left believe that there is a constitutional right to bear arms, but just not ALL arms, that I don't think in the near future there will be enough political support to ban hunting rifles or most hand guns. And when there isn't political will in the US, things won't get done.

I think the big disagreement we have (I don't advocate complete gun control and I'm not even staunchly in favor of an assault rifle ban, I'm just definitely not AGAINST it) is how we view government. I have some trust that the people in gov't aren't there to try and eventually become Supreme Dictator of the United States, and it seems that your stance is to put no trust in them. You're right that there isn't a great chance that they create a beautifully crafted law that balances all sides of the issue (like mental health), but I'm willing to let them try.

Perhaps part of this disagreement stems from generational issues ( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/opinio....html?_r=0 ). Perhaps it doesn't, but that is obviously why we don't see eye to eye.

(12-19-2012 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Owl69, I still have issues with the slippery slope argument and that "we know where gun control leads at the end of the slope. Disarm the population, then suspend elections, then massacre dissidents. There's a reason why Dachau and Buchenwald happened in a country with extremely strict gun laws." I'm not a history major, but I'm pretty sure a lot of this had to do with massive economic woes, a propaganda campaign, etc.

"...massive economic woes, a propaganda campaign..."

Hmmm. Sounds familiar.

(12-19-2012 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think the big disagreement we have (I don't advocate complete gun control and I'm not even staunchly in favor of an assault rifle ban, I'm just definitely not AGAINST it) is how we view government. I have some trust that the people in gov't aren't there to try and eventually become Supreme Dictator of the United States, and it seems that your stance is to put no trust in them. You're right that there isn't a great chance that they create a beautifully crafted law that balances all sides of the issue (like mental health), but I'm willing to let them try.

Perhaps part of this disagreement stems from generational issues ( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/opinio....html?_r=0 ). Perhaps it doesn't, but that is obviously why we don't see eye to eye.

Trust should be earned by those in leadership positions, government or otherwise, not due or given by default.

Exactly what has Washington done recently to earn our trust?

(12-19-2012 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Owl69, I still have issues with the slippery slope argument and that "we know where gun control leads at the end of the slope. Disarm the population, then suspend elections, then massacre dissidents. There's a reason why Dachau and Buchenwald happened in a country with extremely strict gun laws." I'm not a history major, but I'm pretty sure a lot of this had to do with massive economic woes, a propaganda campaign, etc.

Plus, the idea that if X then Y, isn't true here. You're right that gun control leads to a disarmed population, because well, that's the furthest it can go in controlling guns. But to suggest that if the population is disarmed THEN the rest of that WILL occur isn't true. Correlation doesn't mean causation.

No it doesn't, and that's what I'm suggesting. So please suspend your strawman construction project. Not every gun control has led inevitably to tyranny; but an alarming number of tyrants have disarmed the populace to solidify their power. They do that because disarming the population makes it easier, and that makes it more likely. Probably not a problem as long as we have a benign government and none of those pesky economic woes or propaganda campaigns comes along. But how do we know government stays benign? And how do we know that we won't have serious economic woes?

Suppose Bush and Cheney had started disarming the population after 9/11. How would you have felt about that? What if they had done it when the economic meltdown started?

Quote:Also, in regards to the chance that assault rifles bans don't work, there isn't enough support from either side to move much further in the direction of disarmament if the ban is ineffective. Enough on the left believe that there is a constitutional right to bear arms, but just not ALL arms, that I don't think in the near future there will be enough political support to ban hunting rifles or most hand guns. And when there isn't political will in the US, things won't get done.

But this is exactly the slippery slope argument. If there isn't political will to do more now, then we do that now, and then we start to build the political will for the next step. And then the next. Maybe you don't understand what slippery slope means. The fact that nobody is openly calling for a total gun ban now doesn't mean that they don't want it. They're just going to push for this now, and then the next step.

Quote:
I think the big disagreement we have (I don't advocate complete gun control and I'm not even staunchly in favor of an assault rifle ban, I'm just definitely not AGAINST it) is how we view government. I have some trust that the people in gov't aren't there to try and eventually become Supreme Dictator of the United States, and it seems that your stance is to put no trust in them.

Again, let's halt the strawman building. I don't have zero trust in government. I just see no reason to trust government more than the private sector. I trust that not everyone in government wants to be Supreme Dictator of the United States. But I know that there are some people there who do, because I've had the conversation with them where they expressed that pretty much in no uncertain terms.

I think the difference in our viewpoints is that I have about 20 years of experience working for government and about 20 years of experience working in the private sector, so I've seen both sides. I've worked at all 3 levels of government--federal, state, and local--and I've worked as a consultant for, among many others, Enron. On balance, the folks at Enron displayed noticeably higher levels of both integrity and competence than did the folks in government. You're admittedly young and idealistic. Don't lose your idealism. But don't let it trump common sense, either.

It seems to me that liberal political thought starts with the idea that government really can make better decisions for us than we can make for ourselves. That notion is generally most strongly advocated, of course, by those who are seeking the power to make such decisions for us. I reject that proposition.

(12-19-2012 08:27 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  The problem with the Connecticut laws is the ridiculously strict and absurdly narrow definition of "assualt weapons" which are banned (thanks to pressure from the NRA). Sorry, but how can an AR-15 not be considered (under law) an assault weapon?

A valid point. Intuitively, I agree, the M4 is an assault weapon.

The problem is, "assault weapon" is more of an emotional term than a well-defined technical term. The law can't ban things based on what Walt and Gravy can agree to call them; it has to precisely define what is banned and what is not.

And no matter where the line is drawn, somebody will push the limit. Feinstein wants to (re-)ban magazines of more than ten. How many Newport lives would have been saved if Adam Lanza only had 10 rounds per clip? Nobody knows for sure, but I think the most likely answer is zero.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I think the Bushmaster market is creepy. I'm not fundamentally opposed to a ban on assault weapons, or a redefinition of the term. I'm just skeptical that it will actually help much. I think we are searching for an easy answer that isn't there.

(12-19-2012 03:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 01:25 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  So how do you solve the straw buyer problem?

Do you really think registration will stop the "straw buyer" problem? Seriously? And aside from ATF, just how many "straw buyers" do you think are out there? It's not like every gun sale is to a straw buyer, or like there are many straw buyers who don't do so with full awareness of what they're doing and why. Is it going to scare them off that they have to register the purchase? If I'm predisposed to commit a crime, I'm probably well past the stage of considering the punishment.

Quote: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?

Maybe because that's not what "right" and "responsible" people do?

...

Quote: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.

Once they take the guns, nothing prevents them from taking the vote. That's been the history. Of course, as long as our leaders are benign, no problem. How comfortable would you be if Bush and Cheney had disarmed the American people, so that they had all the guns?

First off, I'm going to say that this will probably be my last post on this thread. It's exhausting, and the conversation has turned into a too-many-headed-hydra to follow for days on end. (Not to say I haven't enjoyed it.) So feel free to have the last word on our convo, owl69, as I feel you've been my main sparring partner. I'm just going to make a few responses here.

As to the straw buyer thing, nothing we're talking about is going to "solve" the straw buyer problem. Or gun violence. We're simply looking to abate it, just as we've abated vehicular deaths. But if the police catch someone with an illegal gun, they should at least be able to trace it back to the previous legal owner. This just seems like common sense to me. You worry about taking guns from people. There may be times when that might be a good idea. Just yesterday in the Denver area we had a triple homicide - suicide. The attacker had a known history of domestic violence with one of the victims. Maybe he shouldn't have had a gun.

As to your assumption of "right" and "responsible" gun owners, you're making ex post judgments. Any gun permitting process that might exist doesn't allow such a luxury. You'd like to think that anyone with a gun permit is as sane and responsible as you undoubtedly are, but in reality, these background checks are really just asking, "Have you been convicted of anything or committed in a mental institution?" No permitting process that we've discussed on this board would have blocked gun ownership to the local suburban mom who just got arrested for threatening with a gun 4 middle school girls who she believed were bullying her daughter. It clearly didn't stop the man in Florida from obtaining a concealed carry permit who then went on to yell at some kids in a gas station for playing their radio too loud, "thinking" that he saw a shotgun, and then pumping 8 bullets into their SUV, killing one of the teens before he fled the scene and never reported the incident. Sadly, being a gun owner doesn't magically turn people into Hollywood versions of Wyatt Earp and Elliot Ness, level-headed and law-abiding paragons of responsibility. So this right should bring with it obligations, and these obligations should be significant enough such that the "right" people with the "right" reasons tend to be the ones willing and able to meet these obligations.

Finally, as to your correlation of freedom with gun ownership. Mature democracies rarely revert to something less than a democracy. And as I've mentioned before, a nearly gun-free society can overthrow an autocracy. I'm going to end this with a link to a graph of the top 10 rates of gun ownership by nationality. It's a pretty interesting mix of countries, and doesn't easily lend itself to your conclusions on this topic. And of the western-style democracies on the list that aren't the US, they have gun regulations that would probably have you squirming.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/...day-8.html

It's been fun!

My biggest problem with the assault weapon ban is that it has virtually nothing but symbolic effect. Very few of the gun deaths result from assault weapons now, and the number of those that would continue either with illegal weapons or with other weapons is not zero. If you plan to shot up a school and then kill yourself, whether your gun is legal is probably not a major concern.

And the symbolism is particularly dangerous because it has a strong chance to lock in the notion that outlawing a class of weapons is the way to go. So another class (handguns?) and another and another. Probably none of them having great effect, so there is still this huge problem to try outlawing one more thing at a time. And the incrementalist approach is the very definition of "slippery slope."

(12-19-2012 10:19 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Owl69, I still have issues with the slippery slope argument and that "we know where gun control leads at the end of the slope. Disarm the population, then suspend elections, then massacre dissidents. There's a reason why Dachau and Buchenwald happened in a country with extremely strict gun laws." I'm not a history major, but I'm pretty sure a lot of this had to do with massive economic woes, a propaganda campaign, etc.

"...massive economic woes, a propaganda campaign..."

Hmmm. Sounds familiar.

Yes, please compare our economic slump and "propaganda" to pre-Holocaust Germany, they're ssssooooo similar.

Until I'm carting around wheel barrows of money and seeing gov't posters and advertisements blaming a minority for that, I'm going to go about making more realistic, and less absurd comparisons.

(12-18-2012 11:31 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  But here's the problem you'll run into. And it's a big part of the current push to pass legislation.

In the case of mass murders, or rage induced murders, the end result is the shooter often passes judgement on themselves and ends their own life. (If I had $10 for every time I hear the words 'murder-suicide' on the news or read it in the paper, I could pay for a vacation)

There's no one left to punish. They 'win'.

And in a case like this one in Connecticut, even if the guy were caught on the spot alive, there is no way to possibly enact enough punishment to line up with the damage inflicted.

The same would be true if they did it with a glock, or a derringer and a propane tank. Nothing will EVER be perfect. There is no way to ensure that nobody intent on killing lots of people can't do it... depending upon what they are willing to do (die themselves) to accomplish it.

However... the things we agree on are pretty easy to implement, and would have limited push back, and don't involve taking away Constitutional rights. I could have the facts wrong in this case, but as I understand it, we could still punish the mother for allowing him access/not taking reasonable precaustions... particularly in that she apparently understood he was a risk. I don't ecpect people to be omniscient, but if you think your child has the potential to do you or others harm, you'd better be extra careful with giving him access to your weapons. Bottom line, I believe that the laws we're talking about would help limit the access of people "at risk" to guns... and make people who own them more careful.

(12-19-2012 12:09 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 08:27 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  The problem with the Connecticut laws is the ridiculously strict and absurdly narrow definition of "assualt weapons" which are banned (thanks to pressure from the NRA). Sorry, but how can an AR-15 not be considered (under law) an assault weapon?

A valid point. Intuitively, I agree, the M4 is an assault weapon.

The problem is, "assault weapon" is more of an emotional term than a well-defined technical term. The law can't ban things based on what Walt and Gravy can agree to call them; it has to precisely define what is banned and what is not.

And no matter where the line is drawn, somebody will push the limit. Feinstein wants to (re-)ban magazines of more than ten. How many Newport lives would have been saved if Adam Lanza only had 10 rounds per clip? Nobody knows for sure, but I think the most likely answer is zero.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I think the Bushmaster market is creepy. I'm not fundamentally opposed to a ban on assault weapons, or a redefinition of the term. I'm just skeptical that it will actually help much. I think we are searching for an easy answer that isn't there.

That's the biggest problem with banning qualities. The market will NOW be for a gun that skirts those laws. Not because they are trying to kill people, but because they are trying to "stick it to the man".

(12-19-2012 12:25 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  As to your assumption of "right" and "responsible" gun owners, you're making ex post judgments. Any gun permitting process that might exist doesn't allow such a luxury. You'd like to think that anyone with a gun permit is as sane and responsible as you undoubtedly are, but in reality, these background checks are really just asking, "Have you been convicted of anything or committed in a mental institution?"

Yes... exactly like innocent until proven guilty. The charge for specifically listed rights like these is, and should be much higher than for things like cars and cigarettes... and even abortions. In fairness, they don't just ask... they check.

Quote:No permitting process that we've discussed on this board would have blocked gun ownership to the local suburban mom who just got arrested for threatening with a gun 4 middle school girls who she believed were bullying her daughter. It clearly didn't stop the man in Florida from obtaining a concealed carry permit who then went on to yell at some kids in a gas station for playing their radio too loud, "thinking" that he saw a shotgun, and then pumping 8 bullets into their SUV, killing one of the teens before he fled the scene and never reported the incident. Sadly, being a gun owner doesn't magically turn people into Hollywood versions of Wyatt Earp and Elliot Ness, level-headed and law-abiding paragons of responsibility. So this right should bring with it obligations, and these obligations should be significant enough such that the "right" people with the "right" reasons tend to be the ones willing and able to meet these obligations.

No it doesn't, but an appropriate punishment would likely deter them. Someone who brandishes a gun might get a visit, or even potentially have their permit revoked.

The bottom line is, while these are tragic examples, they are a small fraction of the gun crimes. Why are we so willing to violate/amend the Constitution to accomplish so little?