I commend you for researching and examining the problem long enough to identify the links between anger, domestic abuse and violence, and gun deaths in America, and to come up with this small, plausible step toward a slightly saner, safer society.
It would, of course, be wonderful--and ultimately less expensive--to have a government that would invest enough in our families and children to prevent some of the emotional and mental damage that yields dangerously angry people and other scarred citizens who cannot contribute to our society but who weaken it instead. But until we can make that investment, we're stuck with regulating to limit the damage and with the very large bill for the damage, including more children who will grow up to repeat the cycle.
1
Perhaps there is some common ground with responsible gun owners, but that common ground doesn't include the NRA who DO NOT represent most of their membership. This is about money and profit. The NRA represents gun manufacturers and dealers. Period. Of course, every once in a while, in order to pay some attention to their "members", they regurgitate their official interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in order to make sure that the profits from gun sales continue to flow not only to the manufacturers and dealers, but to the NRA since they too receive money from the makers and sellers of firearms. The insatiable greed for more and more profit no matter who and what is destroyed in the process has also destroyed this country.
2
To say that there is common ground on gun control is sort of like saying there is common ground among people who take IQ tests. Yes, perhaps there is common ground; but the gun owners are all over on the stupid end of the scale. What else isn't new?
3
To paraphrase JFK, any problem wrought by man, can be solved by man.
If your problem is with guns, consider how the problem came to be. Guns are specifically protected by the constitution. The 2A was enshrined to provide the people a final chance to reclaim their freedom, if the government overstepped it’s constitutional limits. Today, nearly all countries deny or severely restrict gun ownership by civilians. Australia, Japan, Russia and North Korea to name a few. In these examples, the governed are at the mercy of the government.
The 2A was written to be broadly interpreted and broadly applied. This is probably why restrictive gun laws frequently fail when tested in the courts. The founders had no way to imagine the type of weapons around today. I’m sure the FF would agree, gun ownership comes with great responsibility.
If you want to restrict or eliminate the Second Amendment, the only fair way would be to amend the constitution. It will take a long time. It will take a lot of political courage. And, may well be impossible with today’s 24 hour news cycle and social media.
There are clear instructions in the US Constitution concerning the amendment process. The constitution has been amended 27 times. (10+17). Is it worth it? Depends. Slavery was abolished, women got the right to vote and presidential term limits have been adopted.
I’m curios why DJT haters have not taken up arms. Maybe, after The Blue Wave Of Not Happening, they’ll be even more woke.0745
Mike says "The 2A was enshrined to provide the people a final chance to reclaim their freedom, if the government overstepped it’s constitutional limits."
WRONG! We had no standing army and needed the State Militia for defense against rebellions such as the Whiskey Rebellion.
And that is one reason we can't stop the scared folk, they they have fallen again for the emotional manipulation just like they did with "WMD!".
@George
WRONG!
The amendments in the Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL Rights
The 2nd Amendment does NOT say the RIGHT OF THE MILITIA to keep and Bear Arms its say; "The Right of the PEOPLE to Keep and Bear..."
Its was essentially an adaptation of English Common Law
If the Gun Grabbers could just face the FACT that the Right of Self Defense is as basic a human right as any other then perhaps we could move forward...
But the Left Wing Fringe continues to insist on crushing the US CONSTITUTION as first step in any solution to any problem in this nation and that dog just won't hunt!
Your editorial is a step in the right direction but only a minute step.
Listening to the extremes on both sides ie arm all Americans on the right or disarm all Americans on the left are knee jerk reactions that will not solve the problem.
The extreme right foams over the second amendment but doesn't realize what we have in this country is the direct opposite of what James Madison and the founding fathers wanted ie a well regulated militia. We have 100k+ Americans killing and injuring each other every yr. with guns unique to our peer countries.
The extreme left rails against the NRA as the devil incarnate but says nothing about Hollywood putting out tons of R rated graphic violence gun films, games etc. especially directed against minority youth.
The only answer to our sickness is legality, regulation, responsibility and non promotion of the gun, like we used with cigs., drunk driving and other vices and dangerous objects.
If you want proof of it, just come to NYC where the gun deaths rate has been reduced to levels closer to a peer city in a peer country unlike in 1992 when NYC lead the nation in gun deaths.
It has been accomplished by a wave migration of immigrants from Western Europe, Asian and India that do not suffer from our cultural gun sickness that almost all second generation Americans do.
1
The debate is not about those who would disarm all Americans and those who want no restrictions. The debate is between enacting practical methods of improving public safety or doing nothing at all. There really is only one extreme. The other is a straw man.
But, in the event that disarming all Americans did come to pass, what it would mean is this: We the People, using the means provided in our constitution, had decided that that was indeed what We the People wanted.
Then there is changing the culture, which is different from enacting laws, although the two components of improving gun safety food off one another. Changing the culture so that there are fewer gun owners and fewer high-capacity weapons systems is a goal that has nothing to do with any phantom jack boots. Disseminating information about the the dangers posed by gun ownership is one way to do this.
It seems as though gun "rights" people, in addition to an inordinate fear of violent crime, are afraid of two things: the will of the people (democracy), and information.
childofsol...thank you for your reply. The answer is oh so simple, the rest of our peer countries have figured it out. The problem it is a cultural sickness in our country just like honor killings are in certain parts of the world or tainted water in other parts or genital cutting. The abuse of the gun by all sides for every reason is our cultural sickness.
The answer to non suicide guns deaths is simple. Legality, regulation, responsibility and non promotion of the gun. Every other peer countries follows this formula to some degree.
You don't even have to lesson the number of gun owners. Finland, Swiss and rural states like Wyoming enjoy this ie high gun ownership, low non suicide gun deaths.
Suicide gun deaths are a little different and harder to cure. There, availability of the gun is a high risk factor.
1
Yes, huuuuuge majorities of Americans, both GOP'ers and Dems, want better gun control:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/politics/bipartisan-gun-control-policies-m...
including 85% (!!) of gun owners:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/most-gun-owners-support-background-...
The problem is that GOP'er legislators will get primaried by the NRA if they vote for such legislation; in many many safely gerrymandered red districts, the only thing incumbents fear is being primaried.
Virtually unlimited funding under Citizens United and the McCutcheon decision from the Roberts SCOTUS are the reason legislators have such fears.
Follow the money.
Thanks a lot SCOTUS :(
2
The problem is in the details. The headlines look good but only cover a very general idea. It had been debated in SCOTUS where to draw the line when it comes to denying someone their Right(s). Felony? Yes. Misdemeanor? Not so fast, what kind of misdemeanor? What legal precedence would be set for future cases? How might the law be interpreted later and what legal challenges might come up?
The Lautenberg Amendment definition should be updated to be more inclusive and include a way to petition the courts to restore ones Right(s)...the courts could decide either way.
"Do something" is the second thing people plead or say after a mass slaying. The first thing is some mumbo-jumbo about "thoughts and prayers." We've done an awful lot of thinking and praying and nothing has happened except for more shooting and more death.
At the risk of being called a racist, if you want to solve the gun problem once and for all, make sure all the inner-city blacks have semi-automatics and are armed to the teeth, at which point the very scared lily white Republicans beholden to the NRA, and for whom "cold, dead hands" might be an imminent reality might actually do something.
1
I don't mind people owning guns, but when they do something stupid, like leaving it unlocked, loaning it to somebody, allowing it to be stolen, waving it in public, then they are unworthy of being trusted with a lethal weapon!
Remove guns from people who don't respect them. Or forget where their gun is locked up. Or let people who commit crimes to use them. Anything dumb, go to jail. Because I'm tired of innocent people getting killed by guns, and by people who do dumb things with guns!
1
Repeal the Second Amendment and permit our lawmakers to enact common-sense laws regulating the ownership, possession, and use of firearms.
1
Yes, by all means! Then, once that nasty problem is fixed, we can start hacking away at your 1st and 5th amendment rights, and progress towards the 4th, 14th, etc.
I've borne arms in defense of, among other things, your right to speak your opinion regardless of how noxious I may find it. Nothing in that service should be construed as supporting or encouraging ignorance. You could learn a lot about "common sense" by reading a pamphlet bearing that title authored by Thomas Paine.
Isn't that what a "well regulated militia" is?
1
If the 2A is repealed, states have their own version in their respective constitutions. And once you do, I pity the poor fools tasked with confiscating our firearms.
2
Read your own writing - can stop at your first paragraph...
"...their violence almost always began at home, with acts of domestic abuse...
So - why not implement a "broken windows" policy on domestic abuse, like Giuliani did to restore sanity in NYC, for street crime...
Prevent a/o punish the progenitor crimes of spectacular mass murder - and sexual harassment...
However - I kept reading, and saw this...
"...Wife beaters should not have guns,” said the measure’s main sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. “Child abusers should not have guns...
So - what can be inferred...
Is it OK for them to have knives or bats - and to stab or beat their spouse and children???
1
A well made appeal. And certainty correct about guns and domestic violence. Unfortunately this article doesn't broach the reason why such appeals fon'y lead to any action, or, at best, produce some weak, partial, temporary remedy which is soon undone: lobby corruption.
Unless lobbying with money is eliminated, these wonderful appeals will go nowhere, even if the majority of Americans support them, as the majority of Americans now support an assault weapons ban.
If the other guy does not have a gun, they're both 100% safe. If they both have guns, neither is safe. Therefore, guns make people unsafe.
Domestic and street gun violence is an psycho-social epidemic that can be fought only by draconian measures. However, I admire the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution and wish it to be expanded to the 34th:
"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, EVERYWHERE AND ALWAYS, shall not be infringed". The three words in caps, overlooked or omitted by the Founding Fathers, opened a legal loophole for the States and municipalities to restrict possession and carrying of arms.
Openly-carried blank and firearms are a powerful deterrent to criminals.
Before we do anything about guns, the first step is to make society less violent and violence less acceptable to Americans.
There may be better ways to do this but I'd start by banning the violence in movies. Just about every movie (like 70%) is about revenge - to legitimize extreme violence and allow you to root for the ex-special forces guy who hunts down and kills the biker gang who started it.
Hollywood movies and video games that profit from violence should be taxed at 95%.
Step two would be to demilitarize the police.
Step three, tax the gun and ammo makers and sue the NRA.
No need to ban guns.
You can not ban violence in movies and still have a First Amendment.
Can we please move away from the Hollywood movie talking point? Hollywood films are consumed by youth all over the world and yet is is only the US that has this problem. The very same goes for video game consumption where some of the countries with the lowest levels of gun challenges and violence have some of the highest consumption of youth video game consumption. Such arguments are merely a distraction while also highlighting how out of touch some are with the rest of the world.
As the editorial notes: "expanding the protections in the Lautenberg Amendment — a formula proven to prevent deaths while curbing the rights only of criminals"
This has to be the first time that the NYT has advocated for curbing the rights of criminals. Hopefully this isn't a one-off and we'll see increased emphasis on the rights of victims and less on the rights of criminals.
First, we need to know which members of Congress have received money from the NRA. Then we need to know which members of the Supreme Court have received money from the NRA, and, finally, whether our president has received money from this organization. It's quite obvious that people who receive such monies can not rule in favor of ordinary citizens who have been hurt by guns.
Then, just as cars must be registered, inspected, and insured EVERY YEAR, guns must be required to be subjected to the same requirements, since they kill the same number of, if not more, Americans than cars. In addition, we do not permit people to drive 100 or more mph on our streets and highways, so we also should not permit people to purchase guns which can shoot deer, wild turkey, or people with more than hundreds of rounds of bullets. Our members of the military may someday (let's hope not soon) need this ability, but our non-military people do not need to shoot this many bullets to kill a deer. However, as we all know, the current easy access to military style weapons have been responsible for the death of thousands of Americans each year.
Our current president should have no say in this discussion since he might try to make up for his draft - dodger status during the Vietnam era by supporting guns to make up for being afraid to serve in Vietnam.
Actually rifles are not the weapon used in the majority of murders; handguns are. So easy access to "military" weapons is not the cause for the deaths of thousands of Americans each year.
The Second Amendment is not about protecting my right to hunt deer.
There are roughly three times as many people killed in car accidents each year as are killed in homicides where guns are used.
Since there is no central registry that might let you know whether or how many guns a given person owns, you would also need to jettison the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to "inspect" (to what purpose exactly? ) a citizen's guns.
And lastly, no there is no federal law requiring that cars be inspected each year. That depends on the state. My state doesn't require that. And cars must only be insured if you intend to use them on public roads.
There is no common ground on guns. Here is where I stand. I'm dead set against gun ownership. However, I plan on doing nothing about it. I will vote for new amendment to repeal the second amendment and then we can get on to serious gun control. Wasting energy on gun legislation that the Supreme Court may overturn isn't worth the effort.
3
Aunt J’s. annual Christmas Card: “We are well here; Amy is still slowly improving, but I fear she will not ever regain the use of her left arm and hand." Amy was at her second day of community college, 19 ys. old, three years ago last September, when a disgruntled student came in and shot 20 people; killing half. Amy, in the classroom he let loose in, was shot in her left arm, right arm, left leg, right leg, and her head. 5 times. I saw Amy a couple months after the shooting. Unable to remember many facts of her young life, she struggled to locate certain words when she tried to talk. She still struggles. I looked at Amy's facebook page afterward - a beautiful, hopeful, young woman. Now reliant forever on her parents, her life changed for no explainable reason. Except one. The student’s easy access to a gun and fill it with bullets and anger. I have thought since soon, every American will know a victim of gun violence. How very afraid we all should be that at any moment a gun will change our lives forever; because there seems to be no stopping the greed and misinformation and fear that swirls around access to guns, and our government's refusal to curtail it. There will be more and more Amys; her story will be normal. Will be relatable to many throughout America, will be a story we have all heard or seen or experienced. We can't even promise her it will never happen to her again. Every shopping mall, Michael's parking lot, Home Depot, movie theatre. Everywhere.
Think about this. Who is more safe the person with a gun or the person without the gun?
2
Think about this? Why is it only in America that such a ridiculous binary reduction is employed?
A good person with a gun is not the answer. A good person with gun legislation is.
My family lives safely (without ever giving a thought to our good gun laws), 24hours a day, 365 days a year.
Think about that.
5
The person without a gun does not make a threat of deadly force at the twitch of a finger.
2
I was with you until the following:
"Finally, the police ought to be able to seize firearms when they know they’re likely to be turned on loved ones."
They "know"? Exactly how? And how "likely?"
There is far too much room in that recommended practice for its gross misuse. It opens the door to legalizing gun seizures for no reason other than the desire to rid the society of the obvious menace the mere existence of guns in private hands presents -- i.e., it opens the door to a defacto nullification of the Second Amendment by those who oppose it.
3
Texas Liberal: I think perhaps you misinterpreted. The article states "That would mean expanding the protections in the Lautenberg Amendment to include dating partners and family members beyond spouses and children, as well as those under a temporary protective order. In addition, the range of criminals barred from gun purchases should include anyone convicted of the crime of stalking. Finally, the police ought to be able to seize firearms when they know they’re likely to be turned on loved ones."
That paragraph talks about extension beyond a spouse to others, such as dating partners, but only those who have a record of domestic abuse, as mentioned earlier in the article, those under a temporary restraining order, or those convicted of stalking.
1
The part of the second amendment that gives the unarmed the right to vet the would-be armed, who might otherwise rob them of their property, has been utterly neglected in recent decades.
1
I don't see how the purpose of guns can be decoupled from that of any other tool. If it is designed to shoot people, it will be used for that purpose.
1
Put put a tax stamp on any weapon that accepts detachable magazines. It’s done with SBR’s and automatic’s. Make it small and grandfather existing ones with confiscation.
3
I think the NRA needs to be dismantled and reconfigured. They basically are an arms dealer and are filling the legislators pockets with money. The fact that legislators couldn't even agree on bump stocks was ridiculous. The NRA is cancerous and the effects of its influence have been felt with all the gun violence in this country. If you dismantle the NRA, stop their campaigns, stop their payoffs, stop their distribution channels, stop their lobbying, you get at the heart of the gun problem. If the legislators aren't getting payoffs from the NRA then they can vote on common sense and not their pocket books. It is very sad to say, it seems that basically all legislators have said yes to NRA money.
Obviously, this sounds practically impossible to do. To stem gun violence, you have to stem the propaganda machine, the gun distribution machine, the payoff machine and get legislators to focus on stemming gun violence not spending hours debating whether to keep or not bump stocks as legal which was ridiculous that it even was an issue.
1
If our country truly wishes to have a reasonable discussion about gun laws, it requires the acknowledgment and conscious dismissal of the chirping from the most extreme elements of our society. Anyone passionately arguing that there is no right to private ownership of firearms should not be at the table. Gun rights advocates insist that this view is pervasive amongst liberals, so removing the straw man fear of universal disarmament should get the ball rolling nicely. To the extent that anyone wants to ban all guns their arguments have been heard, mulled over and rejected in the courts of law and public opinion. Those holding the similarly extreme view that the Second Amendment is the one right in our country that is limitless in its scope and beyond all regulation and/or modern can leave the room as well. Even a casual glance through our nation's legal precedents reveals that there are absolutely no rights that exist without limit.
Not allowing the loudest and most unreasonable among us to dominate public policy would only be the first step, but until we commit to that common sense step, the more nuanced issues relating to gun rights/laws are doomed to failure. As some people (including myself) may already suspect, the loudest voices within the gun debate may be consciously TRYING to hinder any progress on the more difficult issues by continuously raising patently absurd arguments. A reasonable discussion requires reasonable participants.
3
One side is basically a straw man. Whenever people talk about universal background checks, gun registration, or banning high-capacity magazines, they are labelled as anti-gun, gun grabbers by the gun "rights" side. These are reasonable positions, shown to work in other countries, and have nothing to to with an individual's right to bear arms. It is established legal precedent that limits do exist, so there is nothing inherently anti-gun or anti-Constitutional about a high-capacity weapons ban, for example. Many of us who advocate improving gun safety through legislation and other means, are in fact gun owners. Yes, the other side is absolutely trying to hinder any progress on the issue.
1
So what will you gun grabbers give us gun rights supporters in return for universal background checks, registration, etc? Reciprocal carry? Let me guess, nothing. Which is why we will never compromise. We'd rather hold you on this ridgeline because once you get these, you'll just want more. California is an excellent example that we learned from.
3
@childofsol: There are people throughout this comment thread who are indeed talking about confiscation of all privately held guns. It's real to them.
When people say that only police or military should have weapons or that allegations of abuse should be enough to seize guns, you don't need to be Magnus Carlsen to see the end game.
An ever present danger, abusive partners/friends/extended families...with guns. Withholding the sale of guns from known abusers does not cover the real chance of somebody 'legal' to purchase a weapon, only to give it to his/her friend intent in abusing it. The common denominator remains the perverse unrestricted availability of weapons, for the benefit of the N.R.A. and gun lobby (greed seals the sale) and the complicit political republican prostitutes in congress, bought to look the other way.
When will you “do something” in this debate by limiting your push for ending the right of self-defense with a firearm of innocent people convicted under Lautenberg’s draconian gun confiscation for life, regardless of the degree of culpability or potential innocence. As you have reported for years, too many examples in our recent history keep coming to light of innocent people wrongly incarcerated for crimes that they did not commit. And there are other equally large numbers of men wrongly punished for life by vengeful spouses, both men as well as women deprived either of the right to vote or to defend their lives as a legal right.
Legitimate reasons exist for preventing people guilty of domestic abuse from access to a firearm, particularly when they threaten violence to a spouse after a court hearing or have a previous record of violence. But the Lautenberg legislation even applies to a conviction for one minor domestic felony, with a lifetime denial of the right to vote or to own a firearm. And that consequence of the law has to do with gun confiscation by degrees, limiting gun ownership and reducing the commerce in guns nationally.
The law thus goes well beyond its stated intent. Anti-gun advocates who argue that gun ownership does little to defend most gun owners or deter armed criminals, insist somehow that only armed police deter crimes. And yet the contradiction never seems obvious to them. Do something about that!
3
I don't agree to be governed to live under public policy that legitimizes any citizen fantasizing about shooting other citizens.
1
You have completely misconstrued the law, and are trying to reargue United States v. Brown, 235 F. Supp. 2d 931 (S.D. Ind. 2002)
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/235/931/2457...
In particular the Lautenberg amendment has NOTHING to do with the right to vote. Mr. Brown had in fact had his right to vote reinstated by Indiana! He argued that this made him except from the Federal law re guns ... and that's nonsensical and the court didn't buy it. But he had, and kept, his right to vote.
Mr. Brown's conviction was for domestic violence -- that is no "minor" thing. The maximum sentence is in excess of a year, and he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of a year, conditional on probation.
That sentence took away his gun rights, forever, nothing to do with the Lautenberg amendment.
Indiana did in fact give him back his voting rights, that was their choice. Some states are far less accommodating. Again that had nothing to do with the Lautenberg amendment.
Mr. Brown was then convicted for owning guns and "knowingly providing false information in connection with the purchase of the firearm on an ATF form 4473."
Again this had NOTHING to do with the Lautenberg amendment.
L. Harrison: Lautenberg doesn't have to deny any other Constitutional right other than the right to own a firearm for a precedent to be set to deny other Constitutional rights such as voting or freedom to express one's political opinions or practice one's religion.
Lautenberg here unconstitutionally denies the legitimate right of self defense with a firearm to people convicted and sentenced to one year and a day for domestic violence even when no firearm is used in the crime, nor when a firearm is not used to threaten the victim. Lautenberg thus denies legitimate self-defense of the felon or his or her family the right of gun ownership when his or her domestic violence conviction may be no more than a minor shove, a slap, or a push leaving no permanent or serious injury to the domestic partner as victim. No firearm needs be involved in a domestic incident for a judge to deny the person subject to a restraining order his or her gun ownership for life under Lautenberg. Since that law was enacted several states now deny voting rights to felons.
And anti-gun advocates know very well the classes of Americans thus denied the right to own a firearm under Lautenberg. Yet they seem to have no problem with that disproportionate effect of the law or its racially discriminatory outcome, even though judges daily vacate denials of gun ownership for other classes of Americans convicted of domestic violence, such as policemen, military personnel, etc, the majority of whom are white.
1
I'm sure that the NRA will view this once again as starting out on the proverbial slippery slope, their stale argument that they trot out perennially against any rational efforts to make things better. The only slippery slope is the one the NRA points towards just before they ask candidates or representatives how they intend to vote.
I think there needs to be a new strategy for confronting the NRA head on by continually highlighting the inadequacies of their philosophy for addressing a complicated and dangerous problem until their supporters are shamed into helping to effect sensible change. Any serious strategy probably needs more than that to overcome the inertia imposed by the NRA-created attitudes.
There is absolutely no constitutional impediment to regulating guns. The Heller and McDonald decisions of the Supreme Court made that clear. The NRA keeps suckering people into arguing about the meaning of the 2d Amendment, because it condemns the issue to a black hole, even tho there is nothing legally to debate.
The only impediment is the political will. As long as people keep election congress crittters who take money from the NRA, there will never be even the most reasonable form of legislation to regulate guns.
6
NOTHING AT ALL will happen until the Democrats have a majority in Congress. We have seen what happens with a GOP majority (i.e., nothing).
And any Democrats out there with a positive NRA rating (if there are any) need to be voted out ASAP in favor of those who aren't beholden to this godforsaken lobby.
Please, God, help us turn the tide in this country.
1
What most if not all those stories have in common? There was never a good guy with a gun to stop the bad guy with a gun.
1
Says the nation to the NRA
“What did you build with your guns today?
What did you build with your guns?”
2
Even the emotional power of this editorial fails to address the depth of the problem. Guns are killing machines. Carrying a loaded gun in public should be a crime, not a right. Hunting weapons should be licensed, registered and required to be kept in a secure place. Failing to do so should be a civil offense.
Conceding the broad right to carry a weapon tacitly concedes the right to use that weapon. Our culture fuels a toxic sort of male entitlement that encourages every grievance to inspire "getting even."
Focusing on preventing domestic abusers or any other specific group from gun ownership is like putting a bandaid on cancer. Until and unless we decide we do not want to be an armed nation, the watered down efforts at gun control will make little difference.
The NRA claims that we gun control advocates want to take away gun owner rights and confiscate weapons. And gentle, peaceful people are afraid to acknowledge that this is precisely what they want. I'm not afraid. That's precisely what I want. To make gun ownership rare, highly controlled, and gradually confiscate the arsenal that threatens our national well-being.
6
I am happy that you are honest about your desire to confiscate weapons.
I am also happy that you don't have the votes to put your preferred policy into place.
http://monsterhunternation.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
There are other areas that common ground could be found. Mental illness is commonly found tied to mass shootings. But advocates don't want that to be singled out. People on the do not fly list sounds reasonable but there is no way to easily correct a mistake like the same name. One of the real barriers is that the anti-gun crowd want a scorched earth approach that takes away gun rights and anything related to guns. Gun laws an be passed if the are focused. Doug Wilder proved that as Governor of Virginia in the nineties.we when he passed the laws on how many hand guns could be purchased at a certain time Before that, a person could buy as many as he wanted and then take them up to New York and sell them on the streets. Wilder's bill was focused. If that approach could be used on spousal abusers. or terrorist lists, or levels of mental illness, something could be passed
3
You might well ask why doesn't Congress do anything the American people want done? Because the American People aren't rich and don't offer them power. They are just people who want to live their lives in peace.
Unless the American People suddenly develop the ability to buy Congress and give them amazing power they are out of luck.
Long live the Oligarchy and good health to the Plutocracy.
Major social movements in the USA have always assumed that you do not wait for a top-down approach: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2010/04/14/759... .
Much as we might want to see some stronger moral stance from our national representatives, their lack of such behaviors might be deemed predictable. The states are not helpless with respect to improving gun control: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/ . Change will be slower than many--than most--would like. But it is likely to come--in spite of the economic clout of single-issue organizations like the NRA and Gun Owners of America.
This is one of several reasons to get people out to vote in 2018 and 2020. We need a grassroots approach in so many areas.
You might get 80% approval from the country, from Democrats, and even a majority of Republicans, but you leave out the most important player in our country's gun debate, the NRA. This 'gun enthusiast" organization has morphed from a "hunting club" into one of the most "inside clubs" in DC. What they say goes. Protest, resist, mount marches and mourn babies, but nothing gets done without their approval. And they don't approve of background checks, restrictions on cop killing bullets or deadly modifications to assault rifles. In short, they are all in, they have the politicians in their pockets and have no need to negotiate. If I had that much power I wouldn't be so frightened of compromise but, then again, a person who would weaponize the smallest interactions by carrying a gun everywhere he goes, would seem to be frightened by everything.
Keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers is a laudable goal, but let's not pretend that is the sole answer. Just yesterday our local paper reported on the sentencing of a man for killing his ex-girlfriend and her two young daughters (ages 10 and 7.) The woman was stabbed to death and the girls had their throats slit.
The man was a felon and legally prohibited from owning a gun, although there are reports that he had one.
2
When it comes to suggesting to "Do something" that is an impotent cry of despair that lacks context and perspective with regard to gun control. Rather than gun control, controlling the number of Americans who die from gun shots must be the goal.
Doing something effective would mean addressing the reality that 2/3rds-21,000 of the 33,000+ Americans who die each year from gunshots are suicides and 80% of those are white men. Better mental health care aka depression, delusion, bi-polar, schizophrenia, malignant narcissism- is likely the most meaningful solution to limiting and controlling gun shot deaths in America. Indeed, that may also be the best effective path to dealing with some mass shootings and shooters.
Of the 1/3rd of the 33,000+ aka 11,000+ Americans who are homicide or accident victims in 95% of the cases the shooter and the victim are of the same color aka race. Indeed, they are way more often than not of the same socioeconomic educational class. Family and friend shootings are common and particularly volatile situations.
Mass shootings and stranger crime shootings are the minority. But reacting to those types of crimes dominates the mass media. While they are the most feared but unlikely scenarios for most Americans.
1
The connection between guns and domestic violence is beyond debate, which is why it is not a partisan issue. But then the Board introduces false and misleading information to suggest that domestic violence is connected to mass killings. It links its claim to an FBI report that defines mass killings as killings of 4 or more. However, at the low end -- 4 to 6 -- almost all supposed mass killings are misclassified acts of family violence, not what anyone thinks of as mass killings. The FBI, for some reason, omits from its definition the essence of mass killings--efforts to kill multiple individuals including non-family members. Using this common sense definition, mass killings have no particular relationship with domestic violence and this is well-known to those who study the subject.
The reason this it is important to get the facts straight is that domestic violence laws won't stop Las Vegas, and Newtown, and Orlando, none of which had anything to do with domestic violence. And the gun debate is so heated, it is important to get your facts right.
Congress doesn’t act because proponents of gun control long ago lost any clue of how to move representative bodies to socially useful actions. This is a liberal Democratic failing generally, but it’s most visible in the stridency of gun control activists such as Dianne Feinstein, who is regularly willing to sacrifice a foot of forward movement on the serially failed insistence that Congress move three miles instead.
I also believe that there is common ground to secure that first foot, then another, until we have rational gun control that is more effective than the license we have now yet minimally affects the rights of responsible Americans to own and use guns. However, I’m not at all sure that the current crusaders are fit champions of this resolve – they keep FAILING … so BADLY.
The distrust that exists, as well as the power of vested interests such as the NRA, are such that the first foot will be difficult to secure. Frankly, I believe that we can forget about it being secured by a Democrat: it will need to be done by a Republican, and s(he) may sacrifice a congressional seat to get the foot. But someone will need to fall on a sword, or America soon will suffer far greater ills from guns than a more ordered and disciplined “wild west” ever offered.
Expanding the “Lautenberg Amendment“ protections as described could be that first step. But keep Dianne Feinstein well away from the effort and look for a Republican champion with guts.
We have done a bad job with domestic violence in many ways, not just gun control. We need a new approach to domestic violence.
I've been inside that system. It is not a surprise that it does not work as intended. It is a very big problem with a very small budget and unrealistic ideas.
The mistakes swing both ways. That is because it is so underfunded and inexact.
People (mostly men, but many women too) are labelled domestic abusers without real hearing or investigation of facts. They just plead to get out of there, with the judge saying things like, "You don't want to abuse her do you? So why not accept an order not to abuse her." That conversation is a common event.
Meanwhile co-dependent victims at the most risk go to great lengths to back away from prosecuting such cases, and then themselves violate the orders meant for their own protection. But with the piece of paper in place, or refused, either way the "job is done."
We have a model that could work, used by many family court systems in child custody cases. It involves an independent court employee well known to the judge, who does an investigation and report to the judge. Then there is a worker who follows up (is supposed to anyway) on the order to make sure it is followed.
In child custody, there are usually attorneys on each side, and one side is motivated to help. We could do that with appointment of a guardian ad litem for victims at risk of their own co-dependency.
There are more options. They'd cost money.
6
There is common grounds on gun control from the majority of the American people and the legislators like the handouts from the NRA.
The NRA in a different county would be considered a terrorist organization.
2
The NRA is a terrorist organization because it supports unrestrained use of guns that leads to violence and disguises it as a struggle for individual rights when it's all about money, money, money and more money. Lies, falsehoods and one of the biggest con games and scams in US history. Just like Trump in the White House the NRA's senseless and brutal stand on guns anywhere at anytime is a lie and a fraud.
There is always a trade off between having your firearm ready to engage any perp seeking to harm you or your family, vs keeping your firearm tucked away in a iron safe with magazine out. I prefer carrying my G26 at all times, one in the chamber, safety lock on. It is small enough for easy concealment. At night its in my nightstand, one in the chamber, safety lock on. So far no issues.
1
So far no child or grandchild in your house. So far no guest returning late and surprising you. So far no theft of your guns. So far no impulsive desire to commit suicide. As for the would-be armed bad guys in the street or your house, they've got the drop on you, even when you are awake, and if you pull out a gun, they'll be even more likely to shoot at you.
1
So your argument is that he shouldn't have the right to defend himself and/or his family because something bad might happen?
No, it's not about the legality of gun ownership. Merely pointing out anyone who is concerned with the safety of themselves and those around them should reconsider having a gun in the house, because it makes them less safe.
Thank you for publishing this. How can it be that common sense is so radical? #guncontrolnow
2
The US needs new social norms. Some men have been conditioned to believe that real men carry guns.
We need from the NYT:
1) Always include as a main theme in editorials how the gun maker lobby pushes guns for all and pays our lawmakers to run for office.
2) Find, Interview and publicize examples of the majority of citizens and gun owners who FAVOR strong gun safety laws. And crucially, those NRA members who do too. Write a series with personal, concrete stories, showing why they disagree with NRA leaders who drive policy and donate big money for politics.
3) Richard Painter, the Bush WH ethics lawyer wrote a past NYT op ed --- “The N.R.A. Protection Racket”---that “if politicians don’t play ball, their donors threaten to run somebody against them in a primary”. Painter mentioned this on the Comedy Channel recently. Re run the op ed.
4) And the gun safety groups should get some famous people in sports and entertainment who will explain gun safety laws in ads and media interviews. And cite the gun lobby dominance. This could be very influential.
All the NYT morally outraged and rational editorials in the world won’t lead to change, unless you discuss big money politics setting norms and driving our laws---in guns and in most things. Keep showing cause & affect. The NRA—the enemy of public safety ---is strong due to our big money election system. Easy for them to just shift blame to angry, out of control people, while the dead/injured pile up.
One of the problems is also that many of the sitting judges have no clue about domestic violence. they don't know what it's like to be dragged by tour hair across the floor. In many cases there are judges have no reason that they would know...it's just not in their lives at all and what they don't know is that couples argue and disagree but what they not know is, how violent the arguments can get. A gun in the hands of an abuser is a death sentence, sometimes the law enforcement people are shot. Rage is powerful and should never be in the hands of any person who is that angry.
1
So far this year there have been 14,937 deaths by gun and 333 mass shootings (4 or more killed)*. Had enough yet? Ready to change something? No? Well then carry on.
*gunviolencearchive.org
7
The Lautenberg Amendment applies to "those convicted in the assault of a spouse or a child or under a permanent protective order." Your article seems to suggest that guns may be seized or forbidden from those not afforded any form of due process under law, such as: "the police ought to be able to seize firearms when they know they’re likely to be turned on loved ones." And how do they "know"? Is "stalking" a violent crime? Expanding the scope to include "dating partners and family members beyond spouses and children" would make it possible to falsely exploit gun law in family quarrels. Example: a woman who is an animal rights activist could make a false complaint against a brother-in-law who is a hunter, in order to deprive him of his guns so he cannot hunt.
1
"Your article seems to suggest that guns may be seized or forbidden from those not afforded any form of due process under law, such as: 'the police ought to be able to seize firearms when they know they’re likely to be turned on loved ones.'"
Because loved ones are the likely first victims in a domestic violence scenario--and the guns can be turned on them the moment the police leave! This is not hyperbole. I was once related by marriage to a mentally-ill gun "collector" who, in a fit of paranoia, grabbed one of his guns and stormed into the living room where his daughter was sitting. She called 911, and he threatened to shoot the police when they arrived. The police, thank god, had the authority to take his guns away from him that night. Due process came afterwards, when he was given an opportunity to retrieve his guns by showing that he was not a threat to his family or the police.
Put yourself in the daughter's place that night. Can you honestly say the police ought to have left you alone with my former relative, still armed and even angrier and more paranoid? "He may kill me now, but at least he was given due process." The truth, now, Charles. Really?
Years of talking to police as a reporter taught me that a domestic violence scene is one of the most dangerous calls they make. The perp is wound tight, the triggers are many, and if there is a gun in the house the perp is likely to be waving it around. Due process? No. Safety first.
Is "stalking" a violent crime?
YES.
1
In the instance "Bystander" cites, there was a 911 call, a threat to police, and a diagnosis of paranoia. That would constitute exigent circumstances for the police to confiscate guns. The N.Y. Times position seems to endorse police action even absent such conditions. When police respond to domestic violence calls, traditional police procedure appears to favor establishing total control over the scene, rather than working to deescalate the situation.
I couldn't read it all. Did it mention the law now in congress that would permit gun owners with conceal carry permits to bring their guns into states without those permissions? In New York, I would hope that they would not be allowed to leave the airports or trains stations or bus stations or their cars.
A very fine and poignant opinion by the Editorial Board that needs to be stated firmly. If we can’t agree in general on gun control, we can at least address the problem of victims of family violence.
Families become victims of opportunity for dysfunctional family members who have convenient access to guns. In fact, the shooter in the Sandy Hook school incident did commit family violence by killing his mother, who was a devoted gun owner. Her guns were available to him.
The Right Wing, which I admitedly love to hate, is extremely pro-family. Yet, it is extremly pro-gun. No dysfunctional family is going to remove the guns from its premises. It’s dysfunctional. I think that the Right could edge toward the Left in its desire to protect the family. It wants to eliminate reproductive choice, so it should realize that those resultant children should be protected from lethal family gun violence.
If the Right Wing is going to have guns everywhere, then it is faced with a conundrum: either it address the horrible, senseless violence that results, or it accept the random family violence that results from its support of universal gun ownership.
And nothing will be done as long as the NRA, the GOP, and thousands of Americans read the Second Amendment as an unqualified yes to gun ownership and conveniently forget about the well regulated militia in the first part of the statement. Even when their own are shot and seriously injured or even killed the GOP refuses to do anything but offer thoughts and prayers. If we want more done we have to elect officials who will do what we request instead of what the GOP does which is say they're sorry but there's nothing to be done because the Second Amendment is sacred.
Therefore our job is elect different representatives to DC and our statehouses. If we continue to vote in the same people we will get the same useless response. It's up to us to change the outcome of the equation.
19
Look closely at the Second Amendment with emphasis on the first clause. It calls out for a “Well-Regulated Militia.” Note not a well-regulated arsenal, but well-regulated people who are subject to civil authority. So, why not have the several states re-establish the citizen militia with pre-licensing requirements that militia members must be screened, trained, qualified and certified as well as attend regular drills before they can purchase any lethal weapon? Contact with others will reveal those with significant behavioral problems and the militia can seize their arsenal if/when a member either violates the law or shows signs of behavioral issues. In addition, the personal arsenals are subject to inspection and inventory. Any crimes committed with a weapon are tried under the UCMJ which has a much lower standard of proof than civil courts.
18
You have taken the language out of context. If it were only a well regulated militia, why would the amendment talk about the rights of the people? It is basic English. Diagram the sentence.,
4
Rights of "the people" is not the same as rights of "individuals". It is obvious that the authors were referring to an organized collective. If they intended no constraints on individuals bearing arms, why mention "well-regulated militia" in the first place? Freedom of speech does not give you the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. For the same reason it seems preposterous to assume that the founders implied that any Joe Sixpack with anger issues should be unconstrained in wielding more firepower than an entire 18th century platoon. Laws generally do assume a certain degree of common sense.
1
If you actually care about preventing domestic violence, why do I never see articles about alcohol regulation in this newspaper?
Alcohol is responsible for far, far, far more domestic violence than guns. Untold thousands of innocent women and children are beaten and abused and neglected by violent drunks in this country every single day. Once in a great while, the drunken abuser picks up a gun and shoots someone. Almost all the time, he doesn't.
Taking guns away from domestic abusers will save a few lives, and it should clearly be done. But why on earth would you obsess over one instrument sometimes used for physical abuse, and never even mention the poison that commonly fuels it?
Our political discourse is one of trendy fads and irrational fears and hot-button issues, rather than logical and moral consistency. Sad.
4
Working to solve one problem does not preclude efforts to solve others. This is not an "either/or" scenario. Yours is a logical failure.
4
As a single woman I would love to date...but I live in Texas where too many men, particularly Texan men, or Natives as they call themselves, White men, men above 40, own guns or have access to guns. Why would I want to date these guys? Like smokers they are crossed out of my list.
It is amazing how many dating sites now recommend that women ask men, on first dates, blind dates, internet dates and any date, whether they own guns, whether their family members do and if they have access to it (in their homes, from friends, etc.)...and then make an informed decision about whether to date these men or not.
I dislike smokers, and find smoking allergic to my health. I don't want to be a victim of first hand or second hand smoking, neither do most people. So...why would women want to be victims of possible domestic violence, or even break up violence, with men with guns?
All relationships, even among older couples, go through ups and downs while dating and in partnership. Imagine dealing with a guy who might use a gun in a middle of an argument or a break up or a bad patch in a relationship? Yucko!
Many American men with guns, or access to guns, are now deemed health risk to women, and very poor candidates for dating.
They are off my list...so who does that leave me with? I am attracted to younger men, but even young White men, or American men, in Texas make me nervous about their possible gun ownership.
I am going ethnic and international! :))
5
Perhaps you would be better served, and protected, by quizzing them on their temperament. Like "have you ever hit a woman? Have you ever been in a fight? Would you ever hit a woman? etc, etc.
So, maybe your new date doesn't have a gun, but he might punch you in the nose.
I can think of one recent incident in New Orleans where a young couple was attacked by a gang of armed thugs, fortunately the man had a gun and used it. The gang quickly left.
1
Past and present efforts to decrease gun violence by reducing access to guns have failed to a great extent because of the lobbying power (read $$$$) of the National Rifle Association. The NRA has effectively used fear of violence to motivate citizens, and fear of non-reelection to motivate legislators to make guns more available and easier to carry in more places. Instead of trying to work against the NRA citizens should demand that the NRA’s positions, supported by legislators, be carried even further.
It is time to demand an end to restrictions on open and concealed carrying of firearms into the halls of Congress and all federal legislative offices. So long as legislators have to power to enact legislation which isolates themselves from gun violence they will not experience the fear children in elementary elementary and secondary schools, students in colleges, patrons in movie theaters, fans at music concerts, firefighters, emergency medical workers, police officers on patrol and so many other citizens live with on a daily basis.
It is time to call out these hypocrites and let them live with the fear they have inflicted on so many from their sinecures. It is time for them to see that they can no longer be isolated from the fear that is the consequence of their acceptance of what is almost literally blood money.
7
I always remind the young women in my life to be extremely careful as to who they get romantically involved or partnered with. The fact that over 50% of murdered women is committed by their spouse or boyfriend is astonishing.
12
You got it Tim. I was surprised to hear how many parents in the West coast are telling their daughters either to not date men with guns or men from gun-obsessed communities (and States). Also, I actually met a Southern woman (from Texas) more than twenty years ago who moved to California explicitly to date nice Progressive men who don't own guns, or are against guns. I thought that was strange thing to move out of a State for. Now that I am in Texas, for the past year and a half, I can understand why she did what she did, and why I might be compelled to do the same thing (though I don't want to move again) as a single woman who wants dating, romance, love and partnership in her life...that is also safe and comforting. I have Southern women, White men and other Southern men say it is not all like that. If I have to believe it, I have to meet it, know it and date it safely...before I can agree with that. :))
3
Yet there are thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of women who have relationships with, are married to, people who own guns and have no fear and are not ever threatened with that gun.
No one in my extended family, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc (dozens) was ever shot yet all of those households had a gun, or guns, of some sort. But the NYT and other liberal news organizations never write inflammatory articles about them.
If you can't trust a person with a gun in a relationship then you shouldn't trust them at all because they can still stab you with a pencil in a fit of anger.
1
At first I though this was another article insisting that doing what progressives think right regarding guns was "common ground". I was surprised and pleased to find it was not. Of course criminals and those abusing people should not be getting guns legally. That said until everyone uses the databases properly, especially in adding people it will make little impact. We currently have some laws that don't work because some don't input data, some don't respond properly to information. Work on those things as well as this sort of law. And keep criminals off the street as long as possible, they kill and injure many more than say mass shooters.
You say there is common ground - there is no common ground on this at all. People think guns should not be in the hands of domestic abusers, but a good proportion do not think it is worth violating the Second Amendment to stop it. If you wonder why things "a majority of Americans" want don't happen, ask better questions.
1
I hope you make progress with this. I think you are overlooking a major problem, though, which is the enormous amount of (to my mind irrational) resentment and paranoia of the federal government which has developed.
I also suspect -- and this is based on reading studies of the psychological profiles of gun-owners -- that the ones who actually are most likely to be domestic abusers are also the ones who are most stridently against regulation. Even though this is only a fraction of the gun-owners, they account for a disproportionate amount of political force, and you will have to somehow overcome that.
There is a clear path to controlling guns from access to people with strong inclinations to use them against others, but those who fear gun owners as much as guns are making that path impossible to use. Instead there is a persist and emotionally driven effort to try to intimidate gun owners into surrendering their guns en masse, and to eliminate private ownership of guns without extremely restrictive conditions.
Gun owners are for the greatest proportion very responsible and considerate people who keep their guns secure from anyone who might misuse them. The focus needs to be upon controlling the minority who are not so careful and who should not have access to guns. To do that requires changing the laws to provide for universal registration and assurance that gun users are responsible, probably having licenses following training and background checks. Guns are a problem in urban areas not in rural areas, people who are clearly high risk need to be kept from guns. Those concerns need to be addressed, and good registration and licensing can help, a lot. But to make that possible all this talk that paints owners as potential killers and seeks to reduce semi-automatics and easy to use guns which have been legal for a century from private use just creates more barriers to really useful means of controlling guns. Everyone trusts that drivers with valid licenses who drive safely will only do harm except by accident, it needs to be the same regarding users of guns.
What path that is constitutional? There are some but requiring licenses won't ever be acceptable or constitutional.
The second amendment will need to be addressed to allow licensing but licensing would be the most effective way of assuring that gun users know how to use them safely and have not been legally restricted from using them. It's a short move from court orders to prevent people from legally purchasing them because of lack of mental stability or criminality to legally possessing them as they are already. As for gun safety, the right to keep and bear arms does not excuse recklessly allowing guns to be accessed by those who would misuse them nor to use guns with recklessness that endangers innocent people. Assuring that those who possess them can use the responsibly should not amount to depriving them of the right to keep and to bear them.
1
There is already licensing. In California for example, law enforcement must approve a CCW license. And just to puchase a handgun, a California resident must have a handgun safety cerrtificate and complete a safety demonstration.
Nothing will get done until the 1% is directly, adversely affected.
Until then, we’re all sitting ducks, since there is profit to be had in the crazy-making that is unfettered gun ownership. Once that profit goes, so will the NRA. Any wonder Republicans don’t want universal health care, and have banned the words “evidence-based” and “science” from the CDC?
Perhaps someday, in the meantime, gun afficianados will wake up to the fact that the problem isn’t gun control, but the increasing numbers of today’s responsible gun owners who are tomorrow’s domestic terrorists.
14
So corrupt people are owned by the 1%. Not around here.