The President called it " the worst day of his presidency".
This particular incident seems to have started a new conversation about gun control in this country. I'd like to gauge the Rice Community's attitude and opinions regarding this incident and to see if you think new and serious efforts toward gun control are A: Desirable. B: Possible. C: Helpful to avoid further incidents like Newtown

I know it's a terribly emotional subject.. Like discussing abortion or same sex marriage... But it seems to me that a serious discussion is warranted. And I'm sure that the people on this board can exchange ideas in a serious and respectful way.

This thread is probably better suited in the Quad.

(12-17-2012 09:56 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  This thread is probably better suited in the Quad.

Totally agree.

I'm not going to touch the politics of the issue, but as a starter, can we please stop calling any such new legislation "gun control". Tightening the purchasing process or banning semi-automatic assault rifles has nothing to do with controlling guns.

This is likely to be controversial, and I'll probably take some hits for posting, but I really think it needs to be said:

This was a terrible, terrible tragedy. I didn't have a personal connection to this one, but I did with Columbine. My ex-wife's cousin's kid was a soccer player and on his way to lunch when a teacher stopped him to talk about working on a special project. That conversation delayed him a couple of minutes, and as he approached the lunchroom, kids were running out. As an athlete he would have been in the target group, if he hadn't stopped to talk.

Dachau and Buchenwald were terrible tragedies, too. And a precursor to those tragedies was disarming the populace. If you think I'm being overly dramatic with that analogy, you have the right to think so. But the Second Amendment, and more properly the contemporaneous writings discussing the issue in greater detail, make it clear that the founding fathers were deeply concerned about the same slippery slope that I am citing.

I don't know the answer. I think there are some steps that can reasonably be taken. I think it makes sense to have a shooting license, similar to a driver's license, that provided you couldn't purchase or possess guns or ammo without meeting certain standards including safety training, a test, and a background check. As an avid hunter, I'd really like to know that the person in the next deer stand or duck blind has some clue what he/she is doing. I do not see any justification for the gun show exemption, which as I understand it would become pretty much moot with the license requirement. Someone has proposed requiring insurance as a condition for owning a gun or having a license. I'd favor something like a 10-year tack on to any sentence where a gun is used to commit the crime.

But none of these things would have prevented Newtown or Gabby Giffords or Columbine or many other such incidents. And if the plan is simply to pass ever stricter gun laws until this stuff stops, then it's not going to stop, and that will drive us down that slippery slope, which unfortunately does end at Dachau and Buchenwald.

So, the best approach is probably reasonable gun restrictions, and I would consider the ones I listed above as reasonable, and perhaps others, coupled with 1) simultaneous efforts to address the other root causes such as our treatment of mental illness and the glorification of violence in our entertainment, and 2) a recognition that we're never going to achieve perfection in this area, and any effort to achieve perfection would require trampling on liberties that best not be disturbed.

We have exactly one state--Louisiana--where the rate of gun deaths exceeds 20 per year per 100,000 population. That is too high. But it also means that, on average, I'll die of a gunshot wound every 5,000 years. All hyperbole aside, I'm pretty sure there are several more serious risks that we should probably address first.

Supporters of gun rights frequently make the statement that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. What scares me more is the prospect that if guns are outlawed, only cops and soldiers will have guns.

Absolutely no one is advocating that guns should be outlawed. No one; not even those on the far left. However, nothing you say in your above thinking provides any rationale whatsoever for allowing the lawful purchase of semi-automatic guns or assault rifles. I fail to see how banning such weapons-- which have no place in hunting or protecting oneself and family-- impinges on the intention of the Second Ammendment. And let's not forget that when the Second Ammendment was written, the most powerful weapons available at the time was the musket.

(12-17-2012 10:33 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Absolutely no one is advocating that guns should be outlawed. No one; not even those on the far left. However, nothing you say in your above thinking provides any rationale whatsoever for allowing the lawful purchase of semi-automatic guns or assault rifles. I fail to see how banning such weapons-- which have no place in hunting or protecting oneself and family-- impinges on the intention of the Second Ammendment. And let's not forget that when the Second Ammendment was written, the most powerful weapons available at the time was the musket.

Leaning your way on this one Walt when it comes to banning assault rifles and determine the line on semi-automatics (or an outright ban). As well, I would also add that the "jumbo" clips for some of the weapons that would remain legal also need to be looked at.

In tune with looking at gun control from this tragedy, we also need to look at how we treat those with mental illness in America to make sure they get the care they need.

(12-17-2012 10:38 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 10:33 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Absolutely no one is advocating that guns should be outlawed. No one; not even those on the far left. However, nothing you say in your above thinking provides any rationale whatsoever for allowing the lawful purchase of semi-automatic guns or assault rifles. I fail to see how banning such weapons-- which have no place in hunting or protecting oneself and family-- impinges on the intention of the Second Ammendment. And let's not forget that when the Second Ammendment was written, the most powerful weapons available at the time was the musket.

Leaning your way on this one Walt when it comes to banning assault rifles and determine the line on semi-automatics (or an outright ban). As well, I would also add that the "jumbo" clips for some of the weapons that would remain legal also need to be looked at.

In tune with looking at gun control from this tragedy, we also need to look at how we treat those with mental illness in America to make sure they get the care they need.

+1, D1...but unfortunately the mental illness issue is a MUCH, much tougher nut to crack since the definition of "mental illness" is ambiguous and hard to define (as opposed to assault weapons)...and someone may not have been classified as being mentally ill until he/she has killed himself and/or others. No question, we should provide more funding for those with such illnesses to be properly treated. However, as a first step, let's remove the possibility that they can get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. That's doable, and it's not ambiguous in any way. Nor does it impact those who own guns for protection or for hunting purposes.

(12-17-2012 10:49 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 10:38 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 10:33 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Absolutely no one is advocating that guns should be outlawed. No one; not even those on the far left. However, nothing you say in your above thinking provides any rationale whatsoever for allowing the lawful purchase of semi-automatic guns or assault rifles. I fail to see how banning such weapons-- which have no place in hunting or protecting oneself and family-- impinges on the intention of the Second Ammendment. And let's not forget that when the Second Ammendment was written, the most powerful weapons available at the time was the musket.

Leaning your way on this one Walt when it comes to banning assault rifles and determine the line on semi-automatics (or an outright ban). As well, I would also add that the "jumbo" clips for some of the weapons that would remain legal also need to be looked at.

In tune with looking at gun control from this tragedy, we also need to look at how we treat those with mental illness in America to make sure they get the care they need.

+1, D1...but unfortunately the mental illness issue is a MUCH, much tougher nut to crack since the definition of "mental illness" is ambiguous and hard to define (as opposed to assault weapons)...and someone may not have been classified as being mentally ill until he/she has killed himself and/or others. No question, we should provide more funding for those with such illnesses to be properly treated. However, as a first step, let's remove the possibility that they can get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. That's doable, and it's not ambiguous in any way. Nor does it impact those who own guns for protection or for hunting purposes.

Oh I agree. It will be very hard to do. But, we need to look at it.

(12-17-2012 10:33 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Absolutely no one is advocating that guns should be outlawed. No one; not even those on the far left.

Not yet, at least.

Quote:However, nothing you say in your above thinking provides any rationale whatsoever for allowing the lawful purchase of semi-automatic guns or assault rifles. I fail to see how banning such weapons-- which have no place in hunting or protecting oneself and family-- impinges on the intention of the Second Ammendment. And let's not forget that when the Second Ammendment was written, the most powerful weapons available at the time was the musket.

Depends on whether the slippery slope exists or not. Suppose we outlaw semi-automatic guns and assault rifles. Suppose tragedies like this continue--either with semi-automatic rifles obtained illegally or with other weapons. Keep in mind that in a gun-free zone like a school, a rifle does not have to be semi-automatic to give you sufficient advantage to kill 20 or more people--particularly if it takes 20 minutes for the police to get there.

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.

Your argument is dependent on the assumption that an assault weapons ban or other measures you advocate would put an end to this. I reject that assumption.

Is there any reason to expect such a ban to work better than the prohibition of alcohol worked or the prohibition of drugs is working now? Would we see something analogous to what we've seen in those areas, or in other countries (like Mexico) with very stringent gun laws? Would we replace random crazies with armed gangs operating outside the law? Would we be any better off if that happened? I'm not saying it would happen, but I'm by no means convinced that it wouldn't.

If I thought it would work, I'd certainly consider it. But I don't think it will work. I don't think anything that deals with guns only and does not address the other root causes has a chance to succeed. And I think the price of failure if we head down this track is ever more stringent restrictions--until we have put Dachau and Buchenwald, or widespread armed lawlessness, into play.

Perhaps you could describe a different end game from your approach, and how you see us getting there.

(12-17-2012 10:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 10:33 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Absolutely no one is advocating that guns should be outlawed. No one; not even those on the far left.

Not yet, at least.

Quote:However, nothing you say in your above thinking provides any rationale whatsoever for allowing the lawful purchase of semi-automatic guns or assault rifles. I fail to see how banning such weapons-- which have no place in hunting or protecting oneself and family-- impinges on the intention of the Second Ammendment. And let's not forget that when the Second Ammendment was written, the most powerful weapons available at the time was the musket.

Depends on whether the slippery slope exists or not. Suppose we outlaw semi-automatic guns and assault rifles. Suppose tragedies like this continue--either with semi-automatic rifles obtained illegally or with other weapons. Keep in mind that in a gun-free zone like a school, a rifle does not have to be semi-automatic to give you sufficient advantage to kill 20 or more people--particularly if it takes 20 minutes for the police to get there.

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.

Your argument is dependent on the assumption that an assault weapons ban or other measures you advocate would put an end to this. I reject that assumption.

Is there any reason to expect such a ban to work better than the prohibition of alcohol worked or the prohibition of drugs is working now? Would we see something analogous to what we've seen in those areas, or in other countries (like Mexico) with very stringent gun laws? Would we replace random crazies with armed gangs operating outside the law? Would we be any better off if that happened? I'm not saying it would happen, but I'm by no means convinced that it wouldn't.

If I thought it would work, I'd certainly consider it. But I don't think it will work. I don't think anything that deals with guns only and does not address the other root causes has a chance to succeed. And I think the price of failure if we head down this track is ever more stringent restrictions--until we have put Dachau and Buchenwald, or widespread armed lawlessness, into play.

Perhaps you could describe a different end game from your approach, and how you see us getting there.

Sorry, but I don't see the slippery slope here with regards to assault weapons. Sure, a ban will not stop them from being acquired illegally. However, it does make such acquisition that much more difficult....and, in the case of the mentally ill (who are not usually not hardened criminals or members of street gangs), dramatically reduces the risk that such weapons will get in their hands.

You've got to start somewhere. And, IMO, that slippery slope argument (with the insinuation that at some point we could be calling for a ban on all handguns) is preposterous....and one heck of a stretch.

(12-17-2012 10:38 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 10:33 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Absolutely no one is advocating that guns should be outlawed. No one; not even those on the far left. However, nothing you say in your above thinking provides any rationale whatsoever for allowing the lawful purchase of semi-automatic guns or assault rifles. I fail to see how banning such weapons-- which have no place in hunting or protecting oneself and family-- impinges on the intention of the Second Ammendment. And let's not forget that when the Second Ammendment was written, the most powerful weapons available at the time was the musket.

Leaning your way on this one Walt when it comes to banning assault rifles and determine the line on semi-automatics (or an outright ban). As well, I would also add that the "jumbo" clips for some of the weapons that would remain legal also need to be looked at.

How would any of that prevent tragedies like this from happening?

And if it turns out not to prevent them, what do you do next?

(12-17-2012 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 10:38 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 10:33 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Absolutely no one is advocating that guns should be outlawed. No one; not even those on the far left. However, nothing you say in your above thinking provides any rationale whatsoever for allowing the lawful purchase of semi-automatic guns or assault rifles. I fail to see how banning such weapons-- which have no place in hunting or protecting oneself and family-- impinges on the intention of the Second Ammendment. And let's not forget that when the Second Ammendment was written, the most powerful weapons available at the time was the musket.

Leaning your way on this one Walt when it comes to banning assault rifles and determine the line on semi-automatics (or an outright ban). As well, I would also add that the "jumbo" clips for some of the weapons that would remain legal also need to be looked at.

How would any of that prevent tragedies like this from happening?

And if it turns out not to prevent them, what do you do next?

I understand your point in your response to Walt, but it isn't the armed gangs marching into schools or movie theaters and mowing down people. It is the random crazies.

And no, I'm not sure it prevents them entirely. But I think it decreases the odds of them occurring. And that's a start.

Then what is your solution to keep these weapons out of the wrong hands?

(12-17-2012 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 10:38 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 10:33 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Absolutely no one is advocating that guns should be outlawed. No one; not even those on the far left. However, nothing you say in your above thinking provides any rationale whatsoever for allowing the lawful purchase of semi-automatic guns or assault rifles. I fail to see how banning such weapons-- which have no place in hunting or protecting oneself and family-- impinges on the intention of the Second Ammendment. And let's not forget that when the Second Ammendment was written, the most powerful weapons available at the time was the musket.

Leaning your way on this one Walt when it comes to banning assault rifles and determine the line on semi-automatics (or an outright ban). As well, I would also add that the "jumbo" clips for some of the weapons that would remain legal also need to be looked at.

How would any of that prevent tragedies like this from happening?

And if it turns out not to prevent them, what do you do next?

Again, no one is claiming that any type of ban on assault weapons will prevent them from being purchased...but it would most definitely dramatically reduce the risk and frequency of such senseless mass killings...and I really don't think that's debatable.

(12-17-2012 11:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Sorry, but I don't see the slippery slope here with regards to assault weapons. Sure, a ban will not stop them from being acquired illegally. However, it does make such acquisition that much more difficult....and, in the case of the mentally ill (who are not usually not hardened criminals or members of street gangs), dramatically reduces the risk that such weapons will get in their hands.
You've got to start somewhere. And, IMO, that slippery slope argument (with the insinuation that at some point we could be calling for a ban on all handguns) is preposterous....and one heck of a stretch.

OK, so what happens when we ban them and things like this continue to happen? As I said, you don't need assault weapons to kill 27 people in an otherwise gun-free zone in 20 minutes.

What do you do next? And what do you do when that doesn't work? What's you end game and how do we get there?

Seems to me there are only three possible outcomes:
1) We decide to live with some level of risk and go no further
2) We start with an assault weapons ban, and keep ratcheting the screws tighter and tighter on legal gun owners, until we have disarmed the population and things like Dachau and Buchenwald and Mexico are on the table
3) We take a multi-faceted approach, doing the kinds of things I mentioned above with guns, plus addressing other issues like mental health and the culture of violence

I'm not opposed to doing something, but I am opposed to depriving liberties for no good purpose.

(12-17-2012 10:49 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 10:38 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 10:33 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Absolutely no one is advocating that guns should be outlawed. No one; not even those on the far left. However, nothing you say in your above thinking provides any rationale whatsoever for allowing the lawful purchase of semi-automatic guns or assault rifles. I fail to see how banning such weapons-- which have no place in hunting or protecting oneself and family-- impinges on the intention of the Second Ammendment. And let's not forget that when the Second Ammendment was written, the most powerful weapons available at the time was the musket.

Leaning your way on this one Walt when it comes to banning assault rifles and determine the line on semi-automatics (or an outright ban). As well, I would also add that the "jumbo" clips for some of the weapons that would remain legal also need to be looked at.

In tune with looking at gun control from this tragedy, we also need to look at how we treat those with mental illness in America to make sure they get the care they need.

+1, D1...but unfortunately the mental illness issue is a MUCH, much tougher nut to crack since the definition of "mental illness" is ambiguous and hard to define (as opposed to assault weapons)...and someone may not have been classified as being mentally ill until he/she has killed himself and/or others. No question, we should provide more funding for those with such illnesses to be properly treated. However, as a first step, let's remove the possibility that they can get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. That's doable, and it's not ambiguous in any way. Nor does it impact those who own guns for protection or for hunting purposes.

Since the 60's the mental health infrastructure has been dismantled. The abuses that occurred in inpatient mental health hospitals were horrific. Today most mental health care is in community centers and former psychiatric patients live on the streets instead of being committed.

This was done to protect the individual at the expense of the community.

this was done because the mentally ill have very little in terms of political capital to lobby for their needs.

We need to invest in mental health care and work to prevent these violent expressions.

I do not think we can afford the cost, both economic and political.

I do not think we can afford not to.

In the Va Tech massacre, Cho managed an even higher body count, with only handguns. For a psycho rampaging through a school on lockdown, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. The type of gun is as irrelevant to the solution as the clothes the perp is wearing. Heck, in the Japan school massacre, the guy killed eight with nothing but a kitchen knife.

As someone said, gun control is an easy "fix," which is why politics focuses on that. Addressing what's wrong with society is much harder, which is why the politicians wish to distract with a gun- control debate. Solves nothing but satisfies the need to "do something."

(12-17-2012 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Sorry, but I don't see the slippery slope here with regards to assault weapons. Sure, a ban will not stop them from being acquired illegally. However, it does make such acquisition that much more difficult....and, in the case of the mentally ill (who are not usually not hardened criminals or members of street gangs), dramatically reduces the risk that such weapons will get in their hands.
You've got to start somewhere. And, IMO, that slippery slope argument (with the insinuation that at some point we could be calling for a ban on all handguns) is preposterous....and one heck of a stretch.

OK, so what happens when we ban them and things like this continue to happen? As I said, you don't need assault weapons to kill 27 people in an otherwise gun-free zone in 20 minutes.

What do you do next? And what do you do when that doesn't work? What's you end game and how do we get there?

Seems to me there are only three possible outcomes:
1) We decide to live with some level of risk and go no further
2) We start with an assault weapons ban, and keep ratcheting the screws tighter and tighter on legal gun owners, until we have disarmed the population and things like Dachau and Buchenwald and Mexico are on the table
3) We take a multi-faceted approach, doing the kinds of things I mentioned above with guns, plus addressing other issues like mental health and the culture of violence

I'm not opposed to doing something, but I am opposed to depriving liberties for no good purpose.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I believe in the 2nd amendment and the protection it provides. However, I don't believe putting some type of assault rifle ban in place will be causing great harm against gun owners.

(12-17-2012 11:11 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  In the Va Tech massacre, Cho managed an even higher body count, with only handguns. For a psycho rampaging through a school on lockdown, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. The type of gun is as irrelevant to the solution as the clothes the perp is wearing. Heck, in the Japan school massacre, the guy killed eight with nothing but a kitchen knife.

As someone said, gun control is an easy "fix," which is why politics focuses on that. Addressing what's wrong with society is much harder, which is why the politicians wish to distract with a gun- control debate. Solves nothing but satisfies the need to "do something."

And we are fortunate he wasn't better armed.

But I agree, there are other issues at play that are more difficult to deal with and thus probably won't be.

I'm no expert in this area, but I'm always suspicious of government answers to problems which make us feel better but don't really make a difference and wind up having unexpected results. And I'm usually on the opposite side on other issues from those who are most vociferous in their support of gun control. Let me ask this - can those who support gun ownership limitations also address the culture of violence in movies, video games and other forms of entertainment? Many video games now consist of treks through danger where obstacles are mowed down by powerful weaponry. Have we raised a generation that is just too de-sensitized to taking life?