Why Don't We Talk about Gun Control Anymore?
| Wed Apr. 18, 2007 1:48 PM PDT
Remember the Democratic Revolution of '06? It ended this week. The court just ruled against abortion rights and for a ban that tells doctors how to treat their patients. Monday, it became glaringly obvious, again, that gun control is the only reasonable position to hold, yet even the Democratic power centers in Congress oppose it: Dean, Webb (who needed to have his gun in the Senate) and Reid.
Looking at the MoJo Top Story box—when it was about gun control, that happier time of yesterday—I wondered why all of the stories except this one dated back to the '90s. Well, I'm here to tell you it's not our fault. It's because the Democrats dropped gun control like a hot potato in 2000. Many analysts blamed Gore's strong gun-control position in the Democratic primary for his loss to Bush in the general election. The Dems believed that swing-state voters were relatively pro-gun—which seems like a pretty inaccurate conclusion since the issue isn't banning hunting rifles but semi-automatic assault weapons.
But gun control is another one of those issues where the sane position is lost amid the ruckus the crazies make. Most Americans support gun control: In a recent Gallup poll, 49 percent of Americans said gun-control laws should be made stricter, and only 14 percent said they should be less strict. A Salon article explains the Dems' punt thusly: Robert J. Spitzer, author of "The Politics of Gun Control," says that "the typical gun control supporter is somebody for whom the issue is not a No. 1 concern, it's No. 6 or No. 8." Slate looks at it this way: The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence—the nation's gun-control lobby—donated $90,000 to pro-gun-control candidates in 2006. Pro-gun groups gave their candidates $3 million—33 times more.
The result? The federal assault weapons ban, passed in 1994, was allowed to expire in 2004. One of the guns Cho Seung-Hui used was in fact illegal under the assault weapons ban, and became legal again in 1994. And Slate reports:
The only meaningful federal restriction on handgun purchases, the Brady Bill, was considered a huge accomplishment when it finally passed in 1993 after a decade of lobbying. But thanks to the private-transfer or "gun show" loophole, about 40 percent of gun sales remain invisible to law enforcement, rendering the law's mandatory background checks easily avoidable.
Isn't it time we stopped allowing crazypantses like Wayne La Pierre to dictate our gun policy? After all, there are nearly 30,000 deaths from firearms a year in this country—2 to 3 times as many as in other developed countries.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
1. The existing laws we have did nothing to deter this from happening. Surprise! Criminals don't heed laws. How does penalizing law abiding citizens help anyone but the criminals? I'm sure it makes some people feel like they're doing good by passing more laws, but why don't we focus on fixing the root issue? instilling a value for human life and addressing why a minority of individuals would want to harm others?
2. Society as a whole is good. That's why society works. Sick individuals such as the one that committed the murders at VA Tech are the aberrations. By banning firearms you're presuming the majority guilty as a default.
3. The most basic of human rights is that of self-defense. A firearm is the most effective means to this end. Why would you abdicate your right of self-defense? It's a welfare mentality to believe anyone is going to look after your best interests better than yourself.
www.a-human-right.com/
4. Police are a service to the community and are under no obligation to protect individual rights/lives. See the following court cases... Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, Freeman v. Ferguson, Riss v. City of New York, Pinder vs. Johnson, etc., etc., etc.
5. If you truly want to get rid of guns you're looking at a police state. Russia had this and they still had violent crime. If we get a police state hopefully they'll be able to rid us of drugs and alcohol ? both major causes of death and violence in this country.
1. The existing laws we have did nothing to deter this from happening. Surprise! Criminals don't heed laws. How does penalizing law abiding citizens help anyone but the criminals? I'm sure it makes some people feel like they're doing good by passing more laws, but why don't we focus on fixing the root issue? instilling a value for human life and addressing why a minority of individuals would want to harm others?
2. Society as a whole is good. That's why society works. Sick individuals such as the one that committed the murders at VA Tech are the aberrations. By banning firearms you're presuming the majority guilty as a default.
3. The most basic of human rights is that of self-defense. A firearm is the most effective means to this end. Why would you abdicate your right of self-defense? It's a welfare mentality to believe anyone is going to look after your best interests better than yourself.
www.a-human-right.com/
4. Police are a service to the community and are under no obligation to protect individual rights/lives. See the following court cases... Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, Freeman v. Ferguson, Riss v. City of New York, Pinder vs. Johnson, etc., etc., etc.
5. If you truly want to get rid of guns you're looking at a police state. Russia had this and they still had violent crime. If we get a police state hopefully they'll be able to rid us of drugs and alcohol ? both major causes of death and violence in this country.
Take away the guns from minorities, and we would not have such a problem. The Democratic mayors of the large cities can not even handle the minoritiy gang problems. The illegals in the jails(accounts for 50% of the crime in CA) should be deported for starters, but that is not PC.
Why is it necessary to have guns to defend yourself? Aren't kitchen knives enough? Ok, I get the point of self defense but in my opinion there would be no need for guns for self defense if guns were banned.
Generally, I don't understand the US gun laws. it's perfectly clear that the freedom of owning guns is a very significant factor in crime. The more guns around in unresponsible hands, the bigger possibility to get your head blown off for no reason. Just look at the other countries, people manage without guns under their pillows. And I bet that has something to do with lower crime rates as well.
I'm just saying that is the freedom of having guns really worth it? Does it bring more good than bad with it? I really doubt that. Guns are made for killing. Nowadays, mostly for killing PEOPLE. I think there's something very wrong in the system if bearing guns is considered necessary needed.
We need teh open our eye's people.
Steve, what a biggot you are. If I remember correctly, in all of the previous American school massacres, the culprits were Caucasian males, not minorities. If by minorities you mean gangs, then your statement is ignorant because those two words are not interchangeable. Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Michael Carneal, Valery Fabrikant, Luke Woodham, Andy Williams, Evan Ramsey....i could go on and on. None of these students/killers are minorities. They are all white.
Gang bangers are 95% minorities. This is big time killing. These little school boys is small potatoes. The Mexican Mafia controls California prisons and they are going after the Black gangsters to kill them and their kin on the outside. If I was a bigot, I would set back and have my Jack Daniels from my porch and watch them kill each other. I say, take the guns away from both of them, but unfortunately the Democratic mayors really don't care about the killings. In Brazil, I hear the police know how to handle the gangsters.
Cars are much more dangerous. We are more afraid of the unusual than the usual. Pay attention when you drive and get off the cell phones. SUV's and Pick up trucks should be banned since they kill so many and are so dangerous, not to mention that they are killing the environment. Let us get our priorities straight.
National governments have killed over 50 million people in the 20th century. The major genocidal acts (committed by governments) of that century were directly preceded by gun confiscation. Advocates of tighter gun controls are greasing the track to a government that is less afraid of its citizens, and thus more brazen in its grabs for power. Banning guns invites tyranny.
Yes, guns are for killing -- killing people. We're all grown ups, and I think we can recognize that killing in self-defense (that is, NOT murdering), is a justifiable action. Disarming potential victims so that they are easy prey for criminals -- who get guns regardless of laws, since they, by definition, do not obey them -- is a harmful and evil route for a people to take.
Try this one on for size: Imagine the federal government published a publicly accessible directory of every citizen. This directory listed each person as a pro-gun, armed citizen, or an anti-gun defensless citizen. Would any of you anti-gun people object to this? If so, it merely demonstrates that you are comfortable enjoying the benefit of an armed populace, while condemning it from your moral pedestal of anti-gun rhetoric.
Stop being driven by emotion and fear. It's time to realize that guns are not a scary menace, but a tool to be used responsibly. Cars are a useful tool as well, and have every bit as much potential to kill people. In fact, they are involved in more deaths every year than guns are.
Law abiding citizens, the type that obey gun laws, are not the danger. These are the very people that need to be armed to protect themselves against criminals, both common and those disguised under color of law.
1. The existing laws we have did nothing to deter this from happening. Surprise! Criminals don't heed laws. How does penalizing law abiding citizens help anyone but the criminals? I'm sure it makes some people feel like they're doing good by passing more laws, but why don't we focus on fixing the root issue instilling a value for human life and addressing why a minority of individuals would want to harm others?
2. Society as a whole is good. That's why society works. Sick individuals such as the one that committed the murders at VA Tech are the aberrations. By banning firearms you're presuming the majority guilty as a default.
3. The most basic of human rights is that of self-defense. A firearm is the most effective means to this end. Why would you abdicate your right of self-defense? It's a welfare mentality to believe anyone is going to look after your best interests better than yourself.
www.a-human-right.com/
4. Police are a service to the community and are under no obligation to protect individual rights/lives. See the following court cases... Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, Freeman v. Ferguson, Riss v. City of New York, Pinder vs. Johnson, etc., etc., etc.
5. If you truly want to get rid of guns you're looking at a police state. Russia had this and they still had violent crime. If we get a police state hopefully they'll be able to rid us of drugs and alcohol both major causes of death and violence in this country.
Submitted by Robert VerBruggen (not verified) on Thu Apr. 19, 2007 8:19 AM PDT.
Might want to get your facts straight. First of all, it was a Glock 19, which is a 9mm pistol.
The Glock 19 is a very standard handgun and was not affected by the ban (definition of banned handguns here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_assault_weapons_ban#Definition_of_a...). Rather, as even the AlterNet post you link to says, the magazine was affected because it can hold 15 instead of 10 rounds (the 15-round magazine is not even the standard issue for the gun; he must have bought it separately: http://www.gunshopfinder.com/Glock/g19.asp).
Were the ban still in place, he would have had to carry one or two more magazines and slap them in a little more often (takes maybe 1-3 seconds). He probably could have done that in stride, walking between victims.
The shooter DID NOT use an "assault weapon," he used an ordinary handgun. The gun he used WAS NOT banned under the 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban." The lapsed ban on high capacity magazines did not "ban" their possession or sale, only their manufacture. They were widely available for sale during the entire period the ban was in effect.
The Glock 19 has a variety of magazine sizes available for it. 10 round, 15 round and more. Even assuming the shooter had 15 round magazines (pretty standard for 9mm), so what? The information about the shooting has made it clear he had several magazines on a vest while he was carrying out his rampage. Whether he used standard or high capacity magazines is irrelevant. As long as this murderer had brought along enough magazines to carry the ammunition he figured he needed for his plan, their capacity would not have mattered.
Maybe one of these days my liberal brethren will decide to learn something about guns before they start talking about them.
"Most of the gun crime is from minorities. Ban the guns from the minorities and most of the gun crime will go away."
This is a vile statement that I sincerely hope the vast majority of legal gun owners disagree with. I know all my gun-owning friends, including one who happen to be (gasp!) minorities, feel very differently about the matter.
Of course, I may be being gamed by a troll again.
Hey, while we're on the subject, let's talk gun control. This is a serious proposal that I think would be politically feasible:
Put all psychiatric diagnoses that carry a potential for harm to self or others into the same database that gun sellers use for background checks on potential gun buyers. Those who have said psychiatric diagnoses would be denied the ability to legally buy a gun.
A few thoughts:
Crimes like these are rarely heard of in countries like Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Northern Europe, Europe. The common denominator is strict gun laws. Other societies think we're crazy to freely allow guns over here, and they may be right.
One major problem has been the misinterpretation of the second amendment, and much has been written by constitutional scholars on this point. In the context when it was written, THE PEOPLE had a collective meaning, in other words, the nation. So the intended meaning of "the people have a right to bear arms" is simply that the nation has a right to maintain an army. To interpret THE PEOPLE as INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE is erroneous.
And, especially dangerous, given the virtual explosion(no pun intended) in the number and types of weapons now available in the modern age. But, the weapons industry has to have consumers for their products. So it's convenient to justify marketing their products to individuals, whereas these are weapons of warfare intended for armies.
Thanks for considering these thoughts.
RE: A few thoughts
Submitted by PuffingPatriot (not verified) on Mon Jun. 8, 2009 12:07 AM PDT.
The "militia" does not refer to the military (which is referred to as a "standing army" in the Constitution)...it refers to ALL people - every American is constitutionally part of the militia. That doesn't even make an ounce of sense to suggest that an army needs to have a 'right' to have weapons...how else then would they be an army?
You have a right to keep and bear arms, just as I do...whether you choose to exercise that right or not is up to you...I choose to exercise that right and I will rebuff anyone attempting to take that right from me.
Banning guns doesn't make anything safer...quite the opposite. Do you honestly believe that thugs, gangsters, and other criminals adhere to gun laws? Of course not...they're the ones that are committing the vast majority of crimes. Look at drugs - those are banned...yet most people can obtain them with just a simple phone call. The same can be done for guns...or anything else that is banned. When you start banning things, you only punish law-abiding people...or force them to become statutory criminals.
Comparing the US to other countries is a moot point as well. Japan, Austrailia, NZ, and Europe have different cultures than ours...and to be honest, I wouldn't want to live in those countries. I like being able to defend myself and not having to rely on a corrupt government's police force to 'protect' me.
I love people who think that a ban on guns will bring about a Utopian society of peace loving people that will not prey upon the weak. What if Virgina had passed HB 1572 that would have allowed law abiding students and teachers to arm themselves, if they carried a concealed weapon permit. A spokesman for VT even commented on the Bills failure in 2006, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." I wonder how safe everyone is feeling right now.
The fact remains that the "Assault" weapon ban was a failure because it did nothing to thwart crime. A suicidal killer is hard to stop regardless of their weapon of choice. Michael Moore is really not a good source of statistical information. Finally, the 2nd Amendment is there to not only protect us from bad people, but also bad government.
Anyway why does this country need to sell guns in the first place????? The main purpose of guns is to kill! AND NO HUMAN IN THIS WORLD HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL!!!!!! If the main purpose of guns is for defense why can't they use tranquilizers instead! That would save people and the world the mental agony that a person's mistake/misdeed may cause!!!! I mean you put a gun in a "mentally disturbed"(assuming he is mentally disturbed) person's hand and the whole nation is in tears as though something weird happened!?????
I don't think that anybody(ANY HUMAN) has the right to even hold a gun in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
even if they are the police!!.. Even if you are mentally sound... I mean if you accidentally pull the trigger what are you going to do if somebody gets hurt..? Cry later?????
Anyway, regarding Cho's silence and his reluctance to make friends I BET HIS PARENTS FOUGHT ALL THE TIME!!!
Most people who fit the "silent/quiet and don't have friends" description have BAD parents who fight all the time and humiliate their children and criticize their children for not meeting their extraordinary unreachable goals!
Sorry if I have offended anyone.. Its just that I've read so many comments on the web and NONE of them seem to address the actual problem. If I don't say anything.. its like just watching when you could have done something about it.
Hey think about it people. Drugs are illegal...yet the it still infiltrates our society...take guns away....what a ridiculous thought! The gangsters will still find a weapon. Take away others rights to own a gun responsibily to protect themselves, their family from these terds and scum of society. To take away our right to hunt our own meat versus buying the injected hormone and additive commerical meat at your nearest superstore! I think you all need to WAKE UP! We do have freedom of choice...the bill of rights was not for a government but for the individual people who reside within the government! You all need to wake up if you support banning all guns you are slowly taking away our rights, OUR FREEDOMS and allowing more government control...more laws....think about it....time to get your head out of your asses people!
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
http://www.turkokey.org
Submitted by okey oyna (not verified) on Thu Feb. 19, 2009 1:21 PM PST.
thanks
