Guns are the demon attendant upon the unholy pact this nation made by the ratification of its now-discredited Second Amendment. A legacy of inchoate violence, which culminated already in our incredibly violent Civil War and which has raged unabated throughout the "settlement" of our generous slice of North America, guns are the evil that many have willingly embraced. Entire regions of the US, including the state of Texas, live in a full-blown Fox-fed belief that Gummint in the form of the alien mulatto president will step in and remove their weapons and ammo, and are ready to start another civil war. In exchange for a sense of empowerment, the worship of these vile pieces of ballistic technology is one that will be associated forever with America, as we lift our voices in protest at even the prospect of containing their mindless onslaught.
3
I grew up without guns, still don't own or want one and live in a very safe place, generally speaking. But, I can't help noticing that when mass shootings happen anywhere - the killing of innocents usually goes on until someone with a gun shows up and disarms or kills the murderer (sometimes the killer commits suicide). Do your really think they would not have them if we don't make them hear. We have illegal fireworks and drugs here. I doubt it would be very different. Many of us heard of the recent story of the CNN anchor and reporter, who lived because they had a gun in a home invasion. Does anyone really think that if we didn't make guns they would not find there way into our society? If we keep them out with two or three times of the success we keep out drugs, there will still be millions in the country, just not owned by law abiding people. I know this. If I am ever in a situation such as a home invasion, particularly involving guns, I will be very sorry I don't own one. Wouldn't you? Or is it better to die or watch family die for the principle? Again - I don't own a gun and am certainly not a gun nut. It doesn't mean that I can't see the benefits of ownership (and proper training) or think everyone should feel the same way.
14
When cars require licensing and insurance why don't guns? We dont see people driving tanks on street because insurance is prohibitively expensive. Licensing and insurance with strict enforcement of law (clip size, make, background checks) are needed alongwith incentives for manufacturers as suggested by authors.
23
I believe one of the intents of the founders with regard to the right to bear arm was popular resistance against potential future government tyranny. I think that should be considered in setting any government gun policy.
The quote which follows is from James Madison, Father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
From Federalist 46: "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared", New York Packet Tuesday, January 29, 1788, [James Madison]
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm
"Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, ..."
The quote which follows is from James Madison, Father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
From Federalist 46: "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared", New York Packet Tuesday, January 29, 1788, [James Madison]
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm
"Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, ..."
10
You ignore the fact that the NRA and their cronies essentially value their "right" to carry guns and own them a great deal more than they value the lives of those murdered daily with firearms.
Our country is awash in murder and blood, just as it is awash in firearms. Our entire nation is held hostage by a small group of zealots and their enthusiastic promoters.
But just as the small and vocal Cuban-American minority finally had to stand down, just as the citizens of Northern Ireland finally had had enough, the much larger group of decent Americans who are willing to accept limits on gun ownership and the numbers of guns circulating in America- those people will prevail. Maybe not in my lifetime, but they will.
Our country is awash in murder and blood, just as it is awash in firearms. Our entire nation is held hostage by a small group of zealots and their enthusiastic promoters.
But just as the small and vocal Cuban-American minority finally had to stand down, just as the citizens of Northern Ireland finally had had enough, the much larger group of decent Americans who are willing to accept limits on gun ownership and the numbers of guns circulating in America- those people will prevail. Maybe not in my lifetime, but they will.
20
Several comments suggest that all governmental offices allow guns to be carried on the premises, that legislators are cowards for not passing laws to that effect. I would suggest taking that idea a step beyond "allowing" to "requiring" that every person with business to transact with the government carry in-hand a pistol, rifle or shotgun. Imagine the change in demeanor of the surly DMV clerk as one casually lays a .45 or 12-gauge on the counter. Or the county clerk whose religious scruples won't allow them to issue a marriage license to Tom and Bill or to Cindy and Maggie. Why, the economic boom in the nation's mortuaries, casket-makers and tombstone carvers, florists, sympathy card industry (writers, printers, distribution networks), forensic clean-up entrpreneurs, metal recyclers (used lead brings a pretty good price). The mind boggles. We could drive the GDP up 5%, maybe even double that, at least temporarily, until we run out of bullets, victims, or come to our senses. Nah, that'd never happen. The NRA would see to that. The mind does boggle, though.
12
There is a need for sensible gun legislation. Merely requiring purchasers to have a license demonstrating they have been trained will eliminate many senseless tragedies. All states should have a child protection law. We should change the focus from the instrument to the person.
The central problem with the gun control debate is the notion of banning. The country does not want a ban. Pre-Heller, banning was a possibility, and openly discussed by many people. Post-Heller, it's not going to happen, so the discourse has changed to "sensible regulation." However, the same people on the gun control side are in place, and privately, they will openly say they prefer total bans. This creates an atmosphere of distrust, that the gun control proponents are simply proceeding with a path of incremental legislation that will create a de facto ban. The proponents are largely technically misinformed, which creates the impression they lie. They cynically use tragedies to amplify the perception of the impact of the problem. They have therefore disqualified themselves from being treated seriously. And they have radicalized the gun community to a level that even moderate voices are shouted down.
This sort of change can only come from within the gun community: the gun control proponents have disqualified themselves. Don't hold your breath for any significant changes.
The central problem with the gun control debate is the notion of banning. The country does not want a ban. Pre-Heller, banning was a possibility, and openly discussed by many people. Post-Heller, it's not going to happen, so the discourse has changed to "sensible regulation." However, the same people on the gun control side are in place, and privately, they will openly say they prefer total bans. This creates an atmosphere of distrust, that the gun control proponents are simply proceeding with a path of incremental legislation that will create a de facto ban. The proponents are largely technically misinformed, which creates the impression they lie. They cynically use tragedies to amplify the perception of the impact of the problem. They have therefore disqualified themselves from being treated seriously. And they have radicalized the gun community to a level that even moderate voices are shouted down.
This sort of change can only come from within the gun community: the gun control proponents have disqualified themselves. Don't hold your breath for any significant changes.
9
Some gun enthusiasts sound as if they can't wait for a (lame) excuse to shoot somebody.
14
I've always assumed that Obama has been toothless in pushing for real change in our gun obsession because he and his family fear for their lives. There are so many out of control, paranoid gun owners that would stop at nothing to off them.
7
Even after this latest massacre not one member of Congress has risen to denounce current gun laws and accompanying prohibition for background checks.
Perhaps if all 'representatives of the public' who support the NRA and thus, by their silence, endorse these ongoing massacres, should be charged as accessories to murder. Include Wayne LaPierre in this group and require they all face criminal charges and be required to respond before a public forum.
All of these Congressional cowards need another Joseph Welch to shame them and ask if they have no sense of decency. But I wonder too if that will be enough to trump money and power.
Perhaps if all 'representatives of the public' who support the NRA and thus, by their silence, endorse these ongoing massacres, should be charged as accessories to murder. Include Wayne LaPierre in this group and require they all face criminal charges and be required to respond before a public forum.
All of these Congressional cowards need another Joseph Welch to shame them and ask if they have no sense of decency. But I wonder too if that will be enough to trump money and power.
10
Everyone calls for gun control to stop the violence, having no clue what they are asking for. The UK has twice the violent crime involving injury per capita than the USA. They don't have the means to defend themselves so they are just sitting ducks for anyone who wants what they have. I'm not saying I have all the answers but, lets start applying the laws we already have on the books before we start making more feel good laws. Criminals don't care about what laws you pass because they are CRIMINALS. Oh, and this smart gun tech has so many bugs it wasn't working half the time. Also, the added cost would have made it so only the well to do would be able to afford it. Just remember when 2nd's Matter, police are minutes away. (See what I did there?)
16
1. Manufacturers generally sell to distributors, not stores.
2. The ATF is charged with policing "bad" stores.
3. There are no accurate/reliable mental health screens.
4. "Smart" guns are unreliable and expensive.
5. This doesn't address the lives guns save. The elderly/weak/infirm can equalize the odds against younger/stronger threats.
6. In any case, gun deaths are significantly smaller than many other causes. Where do you want to make the investments to save the most lives?
2. The ATF is charged with policing "bad" stores.
3. There are no accurate/reliable mental health screens.
4. "Smart" guns are unreliable and expensive.
5. This doesn't address the lives guns save. The elderly/weak/infirm can equalize the odds against younger/stronger threats.
6. In any case, gun deaths are significantly smaller than many other causes. Where do you want to make the investments to save the most lives?
20
Fascination with guns raises more questions about mental health than it answers.
11
Guns should have owners and those owners should be made responsible for the use of those guns. If a person collects guns as some sort of hobby and is negligent in a manner which allows these weapons to be used by criminals they, the weapons' owners should be held equally responsible.
Similarly the weapons' manufacturers should pay a penalty every time one of their products is misused by a criminal. That would give them the incentive to market their killing devices more carefully.
Similarly the weapons' manufacturers should pay a penalty every time one of their products is misused by a criminal. That would give them the incentive to market their killing devices more carefully.
8
An interesting idea, but don't you think that the incredible amounts of weapons the US government buys might have something to do with this out of control obsession with weapons in this country?
5
The NRA cynically stokes an arms race between government and citizens ion the US.
11
I don't know if more guns cause more crimes. That's the very simple question that I think needs answering. Without any guns, there would be no gun crimes. I've never owned a gun or wanted to own a gun so zero guns would be fine with me. I do have a problem about linking guns to crime, though. Burglary tools are totally illegal. Yet there are way more burglaries than gun crimes every year. That suggests that making guns illegal or controlling them isn't going to help. I honestly don't know what to think. And I'm not the kind of guy whose convinced by emotional arguments screamed in my ear. I think there's a need for more facts and less screaming.
16
The second amendment says that a well organized militia can own "arms" (it does not specify guns), but it does not in anyway imply that an individual or the government can ignore basic safety pertaining to their use.
13
The 2nd Amendment says "well REGULATED militia"
The clause clearly indicates that we the people (and our government) have every right to REGULATE firearms as we see fit.
Devising regulations to keep guns out of the hands of domestic (and/or internationally "inspired" but local) terrorists would seem like the least we can do.
The clause clearly indicates that we the people (and our government) have every right to REGULATE firearms as we see fit.
Devising regulations to keep guns out of the hands of domestic (and/or internationally "inspired" but local) terrorists would seem like the least we can do.
16
The right to bear arms is a natural right, not one granted by the government. Our Constitution was amended to protect that natural right. If you'd like to test your regulations, just substitute the word speech for gun, and you will soon see the problem with regulating firearms. Some commenters advocate mandatory liability insurance for gun owners. How about mandatory liability insurance for free speech? Or licenses for practicing your religion? Or regulations about the kind of publications the press can publish? The right to bear arms is the right to resist tyranny with force of arms, and companion to the right of self-defense.
20
The right to bear arms responsibly is exactly what we need. As a true conservative, and not an extremist who flies a black flag, I support this columnist's very good ideas on reducing gun deaths in our country. There are indeed limits to free speech. Let's support the second amendment by instituting the measures these excellent writers have proposed. In freedom begins responsibility.
21
Funny how you talk about what Obama ought to do. How about holding the republican house and senate members and the republican governors responsible for a change. The presidency have only 1/3 of the power by design of the constitution. His power in this situation is limited to introducing bills into the congress. It they refuse to act then it's up to the sane members of the public to usurp the powers of the insane ones and elect a new congress.
23
Nothing will happen until the existing gun nuts in Congress get voted out, and they get elected by gun nuts. This is just a sad fact.
3
I am amazed by the demonstration of illogical connections and assumed outcomes presented by such a supposedly august group of writers.
While the reduction of accidental but even more so the gun related injury and death is the goal of all non criminals , including believe cutie not concerned gun owners , even a cursory thought on each of the proposed solutions shows how full of holes each is. To even attempt a try of one of them would be so costly and disruptive to only show that it doesn't work needs careful consideration.
While the reduction of accidental but even more so the gun related injury and death is the goal of all non criminals , including believe cutie not concerned gun owners , even a cursory thought on each of the proposed solutions shows how full of holes each is. To even attempt a try of one of them would be so costly and disruptive to only show that it doesn't work needs careful consideration.
Liberals love to complain about the "three-day rule" as if it were some sort of "loophole". They'd rather not have to admit that it really exists to block any DOJ "pocket veto" under which gun sales are frozen by them simply not completing the requisite background checks.
8
Blather. DOJ has no ability, by any law, presidential decision, or regulatory decision, to violate the SCOTUS-deemed "sacred" 2nd Amendment. What blather does is fog up reason or replace it with irrational rationalizations, a.k.a. the fantasies appropriate to certain hard-to-treat illnesses. You just want easy ownership of guns, right?
10
Well, liberals certainly complain when states try to apply the three day rule to waits for an abortion--which actually leads to a death! The hypocrisy of liberals is just stunning.
11
Why has it not occurred to the GOP that if they all just agreed to sensible gun control, we could have it? Congressional Republican and Democrats could agree to do something and just do it. The NRA's money is a drop in the bucket when you consider all the really big spenders (Kochs et al.)
Just do it.
Just do it.
6
The writer fails to explain how safety technology in guns will do anything to put a dent in gun crimes. The only thing that these technologies can do is to ensure that only the owner can fire the gun, and so it will only prevent guns that are stolen from their owners (and not from gun shops) from being used in crimes. And he provides no evidence or reason to believe that stolen guns make up a substantial portion of guns used in crimes.
In addition the reason that guns are not designed with these technologies is not because they have yet to be developed, and "tens of millions of research dollars" into developing them will not get them installed in guns that are sold.
The reason for this is that people do not want a gun in which their very life is dependent on some technology not malfunctioning, and gun owners have stated repeatedly that they will not buy these types of guns.
And the proposal to hold gun manufactures accountable based on the percent of their guns that are used in crimes makes little sense as well. Because all dealers sell guns from numerous manufacturers, so the only reason that more guns of one type are used in crimes than another is based on nothing more than the preference of criminals, which is not the fault of the manufacturer.
As to requiring of gun dealers not to sell a gun unless the FBI gives its approval to the sale, the FBI itself only looks into the matter for 3 days. Once 3 days have passed they no longer look into approving it.
In addition the reason that guns are not designed with these technologies is not because they have yet to be developed, and "tens of millions of research dollars" into developing them will not get them installed in guns that are sold.
The reason for this is that people do not want a gun in which their very life is dependent on some technology not malfunctioning, and gun owners have stated repeatedly that they will not buy these types of guns.
And the proposal to hold gun manufactures accountable based on the percent of their guns that are used in crimes makes little sense as well. Because all dealers sell guns from numerous manufacturers, so the only reason that more guns of one type are used in crimes than another is based on nothing more than the preference of criminals, which is not the fault of the manufacturer.
As to requiring of gun dealers not to sell a gun unless the FBI gives its approval to the sale, the FBI itself only looks into the matter for 3 days. Once 3 days have passed they no longer look into approving it.
13
Most Americans routinely accept that we live in the only country where accidentally bumping into someone on the street or being involved in a minor fender-bender carries the risk of your being shot and killed. It's part of what the right wing calls "American exceptionalism". I've been to a lot of places that are considered "dangerous" (Tunisia, Rio, Sicily, Burma), but parts of the US are the only places where I fear for my life.
The major conference in my field is in Texas next year, and I'll stay away. I've asked the conference organizers to include material on the website to make foreign visitors aware that they *must* have health insurance before coming to the US and that Texas is a stand-your-ground, open carry, concealed weapon state.
If financially successful foreigners begin to fear for their lives when considering travel to the US and choose to go elsewhere on vacations with their families, that can decrease the number of international tourists, who currently spend about $200B annually here. (See http://travel.trade.gov/)
Companies that are highly dependent on foreign visitors would then see the risk from our reputation as a dangerous place to visit, and might support gun control measures that would reduce the danger and address the fears of traveling to our high-risk cities and states. (Of course, there is also the possibility that these foreign visitors would use our lax gun laws to arm themselves, thus inventing the concept of "gun tourism".)
The major conference in my field is in Texas next year, and I'll stay away. I've asked the conference organizers to include material on the website to make foreign visitors aware that they *must* have health insurance before coming to the US and that Texas is a stand-your-ground, open carry, concealed weapon state.
If financially successful foreigners begin to fear for their lives when considering travel to the US and choose to go elsewhere on vacations with their families, that can decrease the number of international tourists, who currently spend about $200B annually here. (See http://travel.trade.gov/)
Companies that are highly dependent on foreign visitors would then see the risk from our reputation as a dangerous place to visit, and might support gun control measures that would reduce the danger and address the fears of traveling to our high-risk cities and states. (Of course, there is also the possibility that these foreign visitors would use our lax gun laws to arm themselves, thus inventing the concept of "gun tourism".)
7
I openly carry a side arm every day in Louisville, KY and I go about my life's business and bother no one. If I am attacked I will defend myself, If my family is attacked I will defend them. What people seem to not get is the gun doesn't go off without a person pulling the trigger, the evil is in the person not the gun. In countries that have completely outlawed guns for the public, people still get hurt and killed because evil people will use other means. A gun is a tool. If you get attacked you will call a cop with a gun. What if that cop is stuck in traffic? Will your attacker wait for the cops to show up? I think we all know the answer to this question!
17
Not even close to reality, this is the usual gun-nonsense (I just photographed and attended the CHAS, Canadian Historic Arms Society, and loved it, by the way -- it ended with Wild West actors making a sound plea to teach children and new gun-owners how to be safe.) Withoit
regulation, evaluation, and registration, open carry (your delight) turns into free-for-all public firing, a la Tombstone, the OK Corral, "High Noon", and cowboy B-movies. That and the tendency of owners to leave guns for kids and spouses to use means thatt today you are 17 times as likely to kill an innocent friend or relative as an intruder. Finally, every nation where guns are controlled, has a much lower homicide rate and an almost invisible mass-murderer incidence. Very hard, I guess, to impale 4 or 7 or 27 kids on a dagger or epee.
Sad how lies, exaggerations, and illogic flow from gun-owners when every criminologist, sociologist, and historian knows the truth. Remember, too, a robber with a gun is a pro, a man walking his doggie with a gun is an amateur. My Canadian friends are experts, with military trainers, gun safes, and NO carrying permits except for transport to shop or club. I have no gun but love history and technology.
regulation, evaluation, and registration, open carry (your delight) turns into free-for-all public firing, a la Tombstone, the OK Corral, "High Noon", and cowboy B-movies. That and the tendency of owners to leave guns for kids and spouses to use means thatt today you are 17 times as likely to kill an innocent friend or relative as an intruder. Finally, every nation where guns are controlled, has a much lower homicide rate and an almost invisible mass-murderer incidence. Very hard, I guess, to impale 4 or 7 or 27 kids on a dagger or epee.
Sad how lies, exaggerations, and illogic flow from gun-owners when every criminologist, sociologist, and historian knows the truth. Remember, too, a robber with a gun is a pro, a man walking his doggie with a gun is an amateur. My Canadian friends are experts, with military trainers, gun safes, and NO carrying permits except for transport to shop or club. I have no gun but love history and technology.
9
I am dumbfounded by the comments of so many people. You people think that background checks are a big part of the solution. OK. I was a parole agent for the California Department of Corrections for 23 years and if you knew anything about our laws a person with a felony conviction cannot purchase or be in possession of a handgun. If they violate? I would be seeing them again. So they don't even bother
But to put in perspective for those who think you can restrict the flow of guns this is a true story and hopefully they will allow it
I had a Crip from LA on my caseload. One of the most callous, violent guys in my career. His gang was outnumbered significantly by surrounding gangs and was in danger of losing their turf. So to level the playing field they decided to break into an armory and steal as many AR-15's as they could carry. They got between 40-50. Did I forget to mention the armory was across the street from a police station? The gang set up snipers on both sides of the street to pick off any police in the event they tripped the alarm. I verified this series of events with the LA County Sherriff. If they will go to this extent that they were willing to kill police if necessary do you think you will stop any of them if they want something?
They want gun control because it significantly lessens the chance of an armed confrontation and enable them successfully do what they set out to do. When will you people wake up? Gun control is not the answer!
But to put in perspective for those who think you can restrict the flow of guns this is a true story and hopefully they will allow it
I had a Crip from LA on my caseload. One of the most callous, violent guys in my career. His gang was outnumbered significantly by surrounding gangs and was in danger of losing their turf. So to level the playing field they decided to break into an armory and steal as many AR-15's as they could carry. They got between 40-50. Did I forget to mention the armory was across the street from a police station? The gang set up snipers on both sides of the street to pick off any police in the event they tripped the alarm. I verified this series of events with the LA County Sherriff. If they will go to this extent that they were willing to kill police if necessary do you think you will stop any of them if they want something?
They want gun control because it significantly lessens the chance of an armed confrontation and enable them successfully do what they set out to do. When will you people wake up? Gun control is not the answer!
17
Fact - we can not stop anything from going across the boarder into the U S
that includes drugs such as Pot, Cocain and Heroin
that includes people
that includes guns
Again facts about the government's purchasing power
the U S never buys from most gun makers,
Many compaies decline to sell to the government
Most gun makers are not located in the U S
All companies that make guns, make models the government never buys
so this band aid does nothing to stop gun makers from making non-smart guns
guns are on the streets because laws are not enforced,
the risk for having an illegal gun is not that high
not because dealers sold criminals guns
Chicago has no gun dealers but many gun laws and many deaths
Baltimore has many laws, and many more deaths
Yet states with the least laws controlling guns have less deaths
and no one is asking why that is so
maybe because it does not fit an agenda that has been sold to the uninformed
just like a black, mostly plastic but scary looking thing is automaticly and automatic weapon or an assult rifle
even though any educated soldier would decline to risk his/her life carrying one into combat
that includes drugs such as Pot, Cocain and Heroin
that includes people
that includes guns
Again facts about the government's purchasing power
the U S never buys from most gun makers,
Many compaies decline to sell to the government
Most gun makers are not located in the U S
All companies that make guns, make models the government never buys
so this band aid does nothing to stop gun makers from making non-smart guns
guns are on the streets because laws are not enforced,
the risk for having an illegal gun is not that high
not because dealers sold criminals guns
Chicago has no gun dealers but many gun laws and many deaths
Baltimore has many laws, and many more deaths
Yet states with the least laws controlling guns have less deaths
and no one is asking why that is so
maybe because it does not fit an agenda that has been sold to the uninformed
just like a black, mostly plastic but scary looking thing is automaticly and automatic weapon or an assult rifle
even though any educated soldier would decline to risk his/her life carrying one into combat
15
A majority of Americans favor some measure of gun control. The comments today offer many reasonable suggestions to further that cause. The primary obstacle to any change in the idiotic stance of many of our legislators is the NRA "grading" of their voting on any gun-related issue. Most of our Senators and congressmen are scared of a low NRA grade as their 2nd amendment-adhering constituents will likely vote accordingly.
It's time for the majority to seize on the NRA scores and promote the re-election of those with LOW NRA scores to combat the gun manufacturers desire to sell as many guns as possible, regardless of the human consequences. A low NRA score should be a proud accomplishment.
With the possible exception of some largely rural states, legislators would fall in line with the majority if their votes were driven by their congressman's voting for sensible gun laws. This "silent majority" needs to organize and be heard.
It's time for the majority to seize on the NRA scores and promote the re-election of those with LOW NRA scores to combat the gun manufacturers desire to sell as many guns as possible, regardless of the human consequences. A low NRA score should be a proud accomplishment.
With the possible exception of some largely rural states, legislators would fall in line with the majority if their votes were driven by their congressman's voting for sensible gun laws. This "silent majority" needs to organize and be heard.
7
Good ideas! Also the gun manufacturers could be pressured to prevent sales of the brands they manufacture at gun shows, just as antique dealers and collectors have been pressured not to sell anything made of ivory.
And I'd like to see a serious effort made to bring to the public's attention the fact that the present lack of any gun control means that terrorists, like Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez, who killed 5 Marines this week, and Dylan Roof, who killed the nine Christians and church leaders in Charleston, had no problem at all getting their hands on whatever lethal weapons they chose to use.
And I'd like to see a serious effort made to bring to the public's attention the fact that the present lack of any gun control means that terrorists, like Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez, who killed 5 Marines this week, and Dylan Roof, who killed the nine Christians and church leaders in Charleston, had no problem at all getting their hands on whatever lethal weapons they chose to use.
4
You need to wake up, you're dreaming. There ARE gun control laws already on the books. Background checks are done all the time when someone wants to buy a gun. I don't know where you get that there is a "present lack of any gun control."
Smart guns??????? So if I want a gun for any reason I have to buy one for every member of the family that might fire it. I see this as proliferation of guns. Not only a bad idea, a stupid one. Police officers find all kinds of cars and mobile devices involved in crimes. It would seem that the gun logic should be applied to any of these or similar objects.
Having often used NCIC as a tool I can tell you it is unreliable at best. The data is often wrong and thanks to those that run it convicted felons are often nowhere to be found on the database. It is not unusual for the entire system to go down on a fairly frequent basis.I know it is an old argument but the tools put in place should be made useful and then we could go from there. At one time I was against most fun control measures but time and dead bodies have made me alter my opinion somewhat. Background checks by individuals to individuals might be a good start. Certainly angry rhetoric by both sides will only be counterproductive, but hey that is what we do.
Having often used NCIC as a tool I can tell you it is unreliable at best. The data is often wrong and thanks to those that run it convicted felons are often nowhere to be found on the database. It is not unusual for the entire system to go down on a fairly frequent basis.I know it is an old argument but the tools put in place should be made useful and then we could go from there. At one time I was against most fun control measures but time and dead bodies have made me alter my opinion somewhat. Background checks by individuals to individuals might be a good start. Certainly angry rhetoric by both sides will only be counterproductive, but hey that is what we do.
5
How about adding an additional measure: the owner of a gun is responsible for any accidental or deliberate shooting of another person regardless of who the shooter was. Both the shooter and the owner share responsibility. That would help incentivize keeping weapons under lock and key. Too many are stolen or "borrowed" to commit crimes. The owners of these weapons are criminally negligent if they cannot prove that the weapon was secured.
12
As we do with cars, all guns should be registered by serial number and owner's name and contact information, and Social Security number. In order to purchase a gun, the buyer should be required to name the "well-regulated militia" they are a member, to comply with the 2nd amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
11
Try and look at it this way.
A well regulated library, being necessary to the literacy of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
Pretty easy to comprehend what the founders had in mind, no? Can't understand why gun grabbers have such as hard time comprehending this simple amendment.
A well regulated library, being necessary to the literacy of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
Pretty easy to comprehend what the founders had in mind, no? Can't understand why gun grabbers have such as hard time comprehending this simple amendment.
Despite any laws passed, eliminating unlawful transactions between individuals cannot and will not be eliminated. This criminal/illegal transaction of guns is colloquially termed "the black market."
"...Those engaged in underground activities circumvent, escape or are excluded from the institutional system of rules, rights, regulations and enforcement penalties that govern formal agents engaged in production and exchange. Different types of underground activities are distinguished according to the particular institutional rules that they violate..." (wiki)
While my politics lean towards fiscal responsibility, PHILosophy is a crutch. Why hasn't anyone else viewed this term as a potential micro aggression in the furtherance of racist attitudes?
"...Those engaged in underground activities circumvent, escape or are excluded from the institutional system of rules, rights, regulations and enforcement penalties that govern formal agents engaged in production and exchange. Different types of underground activities are distinguished according to the particular institutional rules that they violate..." (wiki)
While my politics lean towards fiscal responsibility, PHILosophy is a crutch. Why hasn't anyone else viewed this term as a potential micro aggression in the furtherance of racist attitudes?
1. Use a gun to commit a crime=death penalty.
2. All gun owners shall register with the Fed authority and purchase a $10M bond as liability insurance policy.
3. Any gun owner with a permit may be challenged in court by any citizen concerned about the sanity of the owner, to petition the court for revocation of said permit.
2. All gun owners shall register with the Fed authority and purchase a $10M bond as liability insurance policy.
3. Any gun owner with a permit may be challenged in court by any citizen concerned about the sanity of the owner, to petition the court for revocation of said permit.
2
"Third, rescue the federal government’s smart-gun research efforts from oblivion. Tens of millions of research dollars are needed to help get promising safety technologies to market."
It doesn't matter how much money you devote to R&D if nobody will buy the "smart gun." And nobody will buy it because nobody wants a gun that doesn't work when fractions of a second count.
If the authors are serious about developing smart gun technology, let's try this: the military and homeland security's next major firearms purchase will require a reliable smart gun technology, that doesn't rely on RFID or a similarly open communications loop (for security reasons). Then let the police and military work through the bugs. Then, once it's proven itself reliable, let civilians make their own choices.
It doesn't matter how much money you devote to R&D if nobody will buy the "smart gun." And nobody will buy it because nobody wants a gun that doesn't work when fractions of a second count.
If the authors are serious about developing smart gun technology, let's try this: the military and homeland security's next major firearms purchase will require a reliable smart gun technology, that doesn't rely on RFID or a similarly open communications loop (for security reasons). Then let the police and military work through the bugs. Then, once it's proven itself reliable, let civilians make their own choices.
5
In the political trade this article is what is known as a 'smoke screen.' There is not a single suggestion here that could pass muster in a democracy. If a majority of our political leaders have not the courage to set a national standard for appropriate business practices for the gun industry then there is no way a President can legitimately impose a personal preference on a subset of the American people who have not, as yet, broken any laws.
And while I am being flamed by the left I would like to point out that I would fully support any politician with the gonads who would pass strict gun control legislation much tougher than the writer is calling for. For we do have a gun problem in this country.
It is just not a problem I am willing to give up constitutional democracy over.
And while I am being flamed by the left I would like to point out that I would fully support any politician with the gonads who would pass strict gun control legislation much tougher than the writer is calling for. For we do have a gun problem in this country.
It is just not a problem I am willing to give up constitutional democracy over.
3
These are commendable and constructive suggestions.
Building on them, a stronger approach would be for the federal government to purchase arms ONLY from manufacturers that do not market guns to the private sector and especially to private citizens. That could be buttressed with tax incentives, such as income tax breaks.
A specific license could be required to do business with the government, with appropriate qualifying criteria. Enforcement could be accomplished through review of financial filings required of the manufacturers.
Obviously the monstrous gun problem in America is a many-headed hydra and this would choke off only one of its many complex dimensions. But it would be significant, and its effects would be swift.
Building on them, a stronger approach would be for the federal government to purchase arms ONLY from manufacturers that do not market guns to the private sector and especially to private citizens. That could be buttressed with tax incentives, such as income tax breaks.
A specific license could be required to do business with the government, with appropriate qualifying criteria. Enforcement could be accomplished through review of financial filings required of the manufacturers.
Obviously the monstrous gun problem in America is a many-headed hydra and this would choke off only one of its many complex dimensions. But it would be significant, and its effects would be swift.
2
As a supporter of effective gun control, and an electronic engineer and a software engineer with extensive experience, the one thing I can categorically state is that there is no such thing as a practical usable 'smart gun'. For most handgun owners the presumption is that they will be needed infrequently and in case of an emergency. Presumably the smartness will come from electronics. Electronics needs batteries. A significant percentage of guns with batteries will not be charged and usable in case of an emergency. Recognizing biometric features takes computing time. No matter how fast your draw is, if it takes 3 seconds for the smarts to boot, process, and authorize use of a gun, you have a useless gun. The more elaborate the smartness the higher the rate of errors in authorization.
A message to advocates of gun control. Forget the expectation that innovation and smartness will do the hard work. It won't. The measures that will work are restrictions on the sale, ownership, and use of guns. Political and social change is needed, not some vague belief in techno-magic to do the heavy lifting.
A message to advocates of gun control. Forget the expectation that innovation and smartness will do the hard work. It won't. The measures that will work are restrictions on the sale, ownership, and use of guns. Political and social change is needed, not some vague belief in techno-magic to do the heavy lifting.
97
We agree that biometrics are too sensitive but RFID is a simple off and out technology that has been around for thirty years..it works..As for batteries...it doesn't prevent us from buying and using our smart phones..Smart guns could save as many as 10,000 lives annually including half of the 19,000 people who attempt suicide with a third party weapon and many of the 10,000 children and teens who go to emergency with injuries from gun shots incidents
1
OR... make guns illegal as many other "civilized" countries have done!!
5
Like most gun control proponents, the authors of this latest piece still don't grasp that the root cause of violence in the US is not guns. It's people who use them in crimes, a small small fraction of the overall population.
Perhaps if young men growing up desperate and in poverty were offered more investment than Jesus, military recruitment, and a draconian regime of incarceration, we could reduce the problem of criminal violence.
Unfortunately, that involves investing time, money, and effort in impoverished boys, the last thing this incredibly classist, post-feminist man-hating society will do.
Perhaps if young men growing up desperate and in poverty were offered more investment than Jesus, military recruitment, and a draconian regime of incarceration, we could reduce the problem of criminal violence.
Unfortunately, that involves investing time, money, and effort in impoverished boys, the last thing this incredibly classist, post-feminist man-hating society will do.
6
One of the more inane suggestions I've heard from the gun grabbers.
This is the kind of thing that will happen and Obama knows it: http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3...
And This: http://www.naturalnews.com/039477_firearms_manufacturers_Police_Loophole...
And This: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/23/gaining-momentum-now-42-gun-c...
Let the government build its own guns without the help of industry.
CHECK, AND MATE!
This is the kind of thing that will happen and Obama knows it: http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3...
And This: http://www.naturalnews.com/039477_firearms_manufacturers_Police_Loophole...
And This: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/23/gaining-momentum-now-42-gun-c...
Let the government build its own guns without the help of industry.
CHECK, AND MATE!
2
No Crime, No Violence, No Profits...
The gun industry, like the financial industry, depends on state-backed taxpayer-funded sales. But both industries depend even more on illegal global enterprises like drug cartels, warlords, terrorists, tax evasion, human trafficking, etc.
To ensure their capital returns, both industries must generate ever increasing levels of violence and crime... their own version of polluting externalities. Gun violence, fear, and criminal sales are necessary to increasing gun profits, just as debt and crisis are necessary to banking.
Which is why the NRA and banking lobbyists resist any kind of rational sales accounting that might reveal the extent of profits based on, for example, drug cartels, terrorists, and paramilitaries.
The authors make good rational points, but capitalism is always irrational and extralegal. Americans should grow up. Instead of being "shocked, shocked" by our now weekly massacres, debt levels, and regular financial crashes, we should acknowledge that such dark "externalities" are essential to shareholder profits.
The gun industry, like the financial industry, depends on state-backed taxpayer-funded sales. But both industries depend even more on illegal global enterprises like drug cartels, warlords, terrorists, tax evasion, human trafficking, etc.
To ensure their capital returns, both industries must generate ever increasing levels of violence and crime... their own version of polluting externalities. Gun violence, fear, and criminal sales are necessary to increasing gun profits, just as debt and crisis are necessary to banking.
Which is why the NRA and banking lobbyists resist any kind of rational sales accounting that might reveal the extent of profits based on, for example, drug cartels, terrorists, and paramilitaries.
The authors make good rational points, but capitalism is always irrational and extralegal. Americans should grow up. Instead of being "shocked, shocked" by our now weekly massacres, debt levels, and regular financial crashes, we should acknowledge that such dark "externalities" are essential to shareholder profits.
7
Best quote on gun control ever:
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for on imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from man because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedies for evil except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty—so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator—and subject innocent people to all the vexations that the quality alone ought to suffer? Such things make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for the unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Cesare Beccaria — 1764
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for on imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from man because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedies for evil except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty—so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator—and subject innocent people to all the vexations that the quality alone ought to suffer? Such things make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for the unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Cesare Beccaria — 1764
9
False is the idea presented that is separated from its historical context and ideology. Cesare Beccaria was a jurist who opposed the death penalty, and advocated free education for the common man. He bemoaned the anarchy that prevailed in Italy of his time where travel without an armed consort between cities was a risky business. This is just another 'cowboys and Indians' argument for guns devoid of sense in a much more densely and preferably civilized world.
2
Great ideas! Let's hear from the White House about why this is not being done. The President has no more elections to run. He should be willing to apply his leverage to an industry with no regard for public health and safety.
12
In this country it's all about the money, and always has been. Withhold the money and watch the errant ducks fall into line. This article gets it right. Congratulations to these men of the cloth. Please keep it coming, gentlemen.
14
Some of these "gentlemen" may be women. Tsk, tsk!
The authors' proposal ignores the most obvious problem related to the annual carnage resulting from gun violence in the US. There are over 300,000,000 guns of all type and manufacture in circulation. Assuming 1% of these weapons are in the hands of violent criminals and/or the insane, we're looking at 3 million deadly weapons locked and loaded awaiting a victim(s). The opinion reads like a case study of locking the barn doors after the cows have headed for points north.
A modest proposal: pass draconian laws mandating severe prison terms for any crime where a gun was brandished or discharged. To accommodate the influx of new prisoners, release all current prisoners convicted of non-violent crimes, killing two birds with one shot.
Except for Bernie Madoff, he stays. -
A modest proposal: pass draconian laws mandating severe prison terms for any crime where a gun was brandished or discharged. To accommodate the influx of new prisoners, release all current prisoners convicted of non-violent crimes, killing two birds with one shot.
Except for Bernie Madoff, he stays. -
9
Repeal the 2nd amendment.
11
Good luck with that. You have a better chance of seeing lighting strike a great white shark during a solar eclipse. And even if you did, rights not enumerated in the constitution revert back to the states--most of which have their own version of the 2A in their respective constitutions. And finally, what about the 320 plus million guns out there? Give you a example--mine aren't going anywhere.
1
It is not the the manufactures that are the issue, but enforcement of current laws. Criminal and gangs, now mostly gang members are the ones are the receiver of the stolen property. FBI stats back this up. All dealers must be FFL licensed and must account for each weapon they sell or have in their possession. Every weapon sold the person must go through at least a federal background check. In Connecticut, they must also go through a state background check which includes mental health records. None of this stops the gang related violence. Hartford Connecticut just had their 18 murder of the year which is one away from the total for last year and has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. You cannot even buy ammo without an license. Once gangs realize that they can control the cities without worry of police intervention, they will become the controlling interest in the larger cities.
6
Maybe the solution has to do with the people who do the shooting, rather than the guns. Don't many of those who have committed acts of murder and terrorism have mental health issues, feel abandoned by society and are angry and want revenge? Aren't poverty, poor education and hopelessness what makes many people turn to crime and even vulnerable to radical groups like ISIS? Education and a more distribution of wealth would go a long way towards making people less likely to commit crimes. I think the point that there area already millions of guns in circulation makes limiting their sale or creating safety gadgets on the guns which are sold a fruitless way to approach the problem.
8
I have listened to all the rights about guns and the banal argument's that more guns would stop the killing. I believe the answer is in bullets lets come up with a hierarchy of tax on bullets if you are not a registered owner then buying bullets are taxed at 500%, if you own a semi automatic then it is 400% on bullets. you get the picture!!
3
Since I make my own, wouldn't affect me much. But then again, I believe the courts would see through this ploy as a way to restrict gun ownership and use. BTW, I think while you're at it, we should bring back the poll tax too and see if the courts will allow that too.
1
Question, do criminals buy bullets? Or do law biding citizens buy them to thwart criminals? Do criminals obey the tax laws?
How will this decrease usage by those who steal weapons in order to accomplish their crime?
Arm everyone and let God sort out the mess.. problem solved.
2
I would assume that those God fanatics: Christian God fanatics: Muslim
God fanatics : Hebrew God fanatics love to kill with guns ...feel justified
to kill, kill kill ....in their God's name.
This makes their God a liar...and their God insane.
Where is the Christian, Muslim, Hebrew and other good Gods of
Brotherly Love....well not anywhere in the factories of gun manufacturers
or the NRA...or the NRA lobbyists...or those who make themselves rich
by a military-industrial complex..
Where is the universal good God...what would Ghandi tell us...
"why can't we all ...get along"...well why...because of the propaganda of
a very false fanatical and greedy group of fanatics who by falsifying
the good Gods messages...of Love One Another...no one hears this message
from the halls of the US Congress or on the 2016 campaign trail...
Bad Media...lots of Main Street shootings...lots of killing...guns everywhere
that isn't in the instructions i.e. the New Testament; the Torah or the Koran..
is it...nope...!!!...Bad News is what is being printed now...provocative
opinions...but not the truth ....Guns are big business...and God hates Guns !!!
God fanatics : Hebrew God fanatics love to kill with guns ...feel justified
to kill, kill kill ....in their God's name.
This makes their God a liar...and their God insane.
Where is the Christian, Muslim, Hebrew and other good Gods of
Brotherly Love....well not anywhere in the factories of gun manufacturers
or the NRA...or the NRA lobbyists...or those who make themselves rich
by a military-industrial complex..
Where is the universal good God...what would Ghandi tell us...
"why can't we all ...get along"...well why...because of the propaganda of
a very false fanatical and greedy group of fanatics who by falsifying
the good Gods messages...of Love One Another...no one hears this message
from the halls of the US Congress or on the 2016 campaign trail...
Bad Media...lots of Main Street shootings...lots of killing...guns everywhere
that isn't in the instructions i.e. the New Testament; the Torah or the Koran..
is it...nope...!!!...Bad News is what is being printed now...provocative
opinions...but not the truth ....Guns are big business...and God hates Guns !!!
3
OK! Now that we have just heard from fanatical side who believe that they can speak for God, can we move on? I have read the Bible several times, and nowhere does it state that God hates guns. Try again, but factually.
If we are going to allow gun ownership, lets make it RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, there is such a rhetoric about "responsible" gun owners in already in place. If a gun is used in a crime in any fashion or in an "accident" in which someone is injured or killed, the owner should be prosecuted as if they deliberately committed the crime and the perpetrator prosecuted in the normal fashion.
Responsibility also includes providing for those who are injured. Require liability insurance on each weapon. The actuarial process of the insurance industry will provide a cash equation offering a fine grained control based on actual risk of types of weapons, storage facilities and practices, and the characteristics of the owner. Make ownership of an unregistered or uninsured weapon a felony with mandatory imprisonment.
Responsibility also includes providing for those who are injured. Require liability insurance on each weapon. The actuarial process of the insurance industry will provide a cash equation offering a fine grained control based on actual risk of types of weapons, storage facilities and practices, and the characteristics of the owner. Make ownership of an unregistered or uninsured weapon a felony with mandatory imprisonment.
1
"Make ownership of an unregistered or uninsured weapon a felony with mandatory imprisonment."
Yeah, that worked so well with NY's SAFE act where only 5% of so called "assault weapon" owners complied by registering their firearms. Most firearms owners would not comply with any mandatory program to register/insure weapons as the good citizens of NY and Connecticut have already demonstrated.
Yeah, that worked so well with NY's SAFE act where only 5% of so called "assault weapon" owners complied by registering their firearms. Most firearms owners would not comply with any mandatory program to register/insure weapons as the good citizens of NY and Connecticut have already demonstrated.
2
The bill of rights was added to the Constitution very early in our history, when we were an agrarian, frontier society.
Repeating, much less automatic, firearms were half a century or more in the future, even 'cap and ball' guns were yet to exist.
We had a tiny army, transportation that hadn't changed much since Biblical times, and were at near continuous war along the most inaccessible borders with the indigenous population.
And of course had just completed a long bloody war to gain our independence.
You bet militias were needed, these met regularly drilled together, and were ready to defend the local fort (settlement) at need.
None of this is true.
In the 'old' west where men were men, and we know from movies that everyone wore their 'Peacemakers' on their hips, people were 'self reliant' except for local law enforcement, Federal Marshals, the U.S. Cavalry, and 'most' people actually didn't carry guns all the time, in fact in the towns most often mentioned in the Hollywood myths, Ol' Wyatt, or Bat, or whoever, generally banned the carrying of firearms in their towns.
Now people say they need guns to protect themselves from Government, and from all those other people with guns(?????).
Who less should have such weapons than the obviously paranoid?
And believe it, if 'they' are coming for you in the night, your personal assault rifle will be of little use against their rocket grenades, and high caliber machine guns.
Repeating, much less automatic, firearms were half a century or more in the future, even 'cap and ball' guns were yet to exist.
We had a tiny army, transportation that hadn't changed much since Biblical times, and were at near continuous war along the most inaccessible borders with the indigenous population.
And of course had just completed a long bloody war to gain our independence.
You bet militias were needed, these met regularly drilled together, and were ready to defend the local fort (settlement) at need.
None of this is true.
In the 'old' west where men were men, and we know from movies that everyone wore their 'Peacemakers' on their hips, people were 'self reliant' except for local law enforcement, Federal Marshals, the U.S. Cavalry, and 'most' people actually didn't carry guns all the time, in fact in the towns most often mentioned in the Hollywood myths, Ol' Wyatt, or Bat, or whoever, generally banned the carrying of firearms in their towns.
Now people say they need guns to protect themselves from Government, and from all those other people with guns(?????).
Who less should have such weapons than the obviously paranoid?
And believe it, if 'they' are coming for you in the night, your personal assault rifle will be of little use against their rocket grenades, and high caliber machine guns.
3
@jam4807: you are obviously informed and rational, and you are right that the second amendment is an anachronism that is totally irrelevant in 21st century America. It should ideally be repealed, and less ideally, neutralized by strong new laws that severely restrict the nominal "right to bear arms".
Unfortunately many citizens are uninformed and irrational about guns. They are actually the minority of the electorate, but somehow they manage to put irrational lawmakers in power and force their irrational gun laws on the majority.
It's past time for the majority to take a stand. That's not likely anytime soon. Notice that gun control is not even an issue with the current presidential candidates.
Unfortunately many citizens are uninformed and irrational about guns. They are actually the minority of the electorate, but somehow they manage to put irrational lawmakers in power and force their irrational gun laws on the majority.
It's past time for the majority to take a stand. That's not likely anytime soon. Notice that gun control is not even an issue with the current presidential candidates.
All of you people on here talking about taking peoples rights away have lost your minds. Ya'll refer to how dangerous guns are and how dangerous America is because of guns. More than 75% of gun crime is committed by repeat offenders (also known as criminals who can't own firearms). Sounds like the justice department should start taking that seriously. Since they like mandatory minimums so much, how about if u commit a crime with a gun it is automatically ten years in prison with no parole. Second time is twenty. If the gun criminals aren't on the street they can't commit gun crimes. There is a fresh idea. Oh wait, why don't we talk about the socio-economic conditions that cause places like Chicago, Memphis, Baltimore, DC, Detroit (just a few examples, there are many more) to be ripe with gun violence and start solving those problems. Wait there is no money in that solution (Colion Noir). So until people start trying to solve that problem, don't tell me my legally owned and carried firearms are the problem.
3
Any given legally owned gun is far more likely to be used in a violent crime than in preventing a violent crime. That in itself suggests that others' legally owned guns pose a risk to me.
Good points, Dan, but most liberals view gun-owners with horror and hate. Besides, aren't the cities that you listed under Democrat control? Therein lies your problem. Until liberals decide to realize that it is not the law abiding gun owners that need to be punished, nothing will change. They should consult the NRA for guidance, but they hate them just as much.
But the article isn't about taking guns away. It's about regulating a marketplace for the benefit of society, precisely as Adam Smith--you'll remember him, he more or less invented capitalism--said that government should do.
Oh, and did you happen to notice that the regulation had to do with keeping guns from criminals and crazy people?
Oh, and did you happen to notice that the regulation had to do with keeping guns from criminals and crazy people?
How many lied and intentional miss leading statements can be made in one story?
First off, there have been plenty of work done showing that the majority of gun crime is committed by urban youths who are prohibited from even holding one due to their age and often a criminal past. (Studies done showing most murder suspects, and victims, have a last known address in the city, are under the age of 19 and have lengthy criminal pasts).
Legal gun owners (the only people who follow the law and buy guns legally) historically have a lower crime rate then police.
If smart gun tech is so great, why don't police already demand using it for their weapons? One dirty little secret about them is that the designs normally incorporate a 'kill switch' that allows the police (or anyone with a basic electronic background) to turn off everyone's weapons at any time. Or a criminal can just jam the signal when attacking someone and steal the rfid tag as well as the weapon.
Oh and btw, I guess this reporter missed the whole part about the Charleston shooter PASSING a background check. The issues gun owners have with background checks is that they are stored along with the information about the weapon. Why? If they are just supposed to 'check' the owner why does the information about the gun matter? It Dosent unless it's also a registry. How many guns are found at a crime scene with no owner and that have not been reported stolen?
First off, there have been plenty of work done showing that the majority of gun crime is committed by urban youths who are prohibited from even holding one due to their age and often a criminal past. (Studies done showing most murder suspects, and victims, have a last known address in the city, are under the age of 19 and have lengthy criminal pasts).
Legal gun owners (the only people who follow the law and buy guns legally) historically have a lower crime rate then police.
If smart gun tech is so great, why don't police already demand using it for their weapons? One dirty little secret about them is that the designs normally incorporate a 'kill switch' that allows the police (or anyone with a basic electronic background) to turn off everyone's weapons at any time. Or a criminal can just jam the signal when attacking someone and steal the rfid tag as well as the weapon.
Oh and btw, I guess this reporter missed the whole part about the Charleston shooter PASSING a background check. The issues gun owners have with background checks is that they are stored along with the information about the weapon. Why? If they are just supposed to 'check' the owner why does the information about the gun matter? It Dosent unless it's also a registry. How many guns are found at a crime scene with no owner and that have not been reported stolen?
2
Outstanding response. AS noted, solutions that ignore the facts and have no logical basis are the red meat of the liberal agenda and do nothing other than increase the bureaucracy and add more laws that criminals ignore. Why do liberals ignore the reality that the cities with the highest rates of gun violence are those with the most restrictive gun laws and oh yes by the way they ALL have Democratic mayors and Democratic majority of legislators. Doesn't that speak volumes to the hypocrisy of the Democratic liberal mindset and lack of real solutions!
"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."
Alan Dershowitz
Alan Dershowitz
4
Did "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" get shot dead too?
I am an unarmed person who claims a Constitutional right to institutional evaluation of people who want to go about armed to shoot other people.
I am an unarmed person who claims a Constitutional right to institutional evaluation of people who want to go about armed to shoot other people.
How about this?
Raise people's wages and campaign to eliminate economic disparity throughout all spectrums of American life so that people do not get desperate enough to commit crime to escape such conditions.
Make health care a right for all Americans, including advanced mental care so that people with potentially hurtful conditions can be detected and helped before they harm themselves or others.
Legalize and tax drugs, eliminating a main source of violent crime and personal misery while removing traffickers profit driven incentive and income to buy weapons at the same time.
Just some suggestions that might do more good than trying to ban guns or alter the Constitution.
Raise people's wages and campaign to eliminate economic disparity throughout all spectrums of American life so that people do not get desperate enough to commit crime to escape such conditions.
Make health care a right for all Americans, including advanced mental care so that people with potentially hurtful conditions can be detected and helped before they harm themselves or others.
Legalize and tax drugs, eliminating a main source of violent crime and personal misery while removing traffickers profit driven incentive and income to buy weapons at the same time.
Just some suggestions that might do more good than trying to ban guns or alter the Constitution.
2
The NY Times editors can gnash their teeth all they want over possible "solutions" but in the end, reality reigns. There are over 320 million firearms in the United States and more added every day (over 1 million were sold in California alone last year--a tough "gun control" state) with most of these being semi-automatic rifles/pistols/shotguns. You have a better chance of lightning striking the same spot three times during a solar eclipse than you have of repealing the 2nd Amendment. But even if it happened, what is not enumerated in the constitution reverts to the states, meaning those states that are pro-2A will continue on their merry way.
So propose ridiculous "solutions" all you want. insurance? easy to ignore. Smart guns? Like my dumb ones just fine. Meanwhile gun sales continue to go through the roof, applications for concealed carry permits are increasing, and more and more women and minorities are taking advantage of their 2A rights.
So propose ridiculous "solutions" all you want. insurance? easy to ignore. Smart guns? Like my dumb ones just fine. Meanwhile gun sales continue to go through the roof, applications for concealed carry permits are increasing, and more and more women and minorities are taking advantage of their 2A rights.
4
The column is saying that the government should do something. You're saying, well, they won't. Your claim fails to address the column, because they're not saying what will happen, but what should happen.
1
i simply adore these, "we've flooded the country with unneeded guns, so nieder, nieder, nieder," arguments.
Oh, by the way, we also have no evidence at all of you heroes being there when a James Holmes waltzes into a movie theater with the guns your idiocy helped make sure he could get.
Oh, by the way, we also have no evidence at all of you heroes being there when a James Holmes waltzes into a movie theater with the guns your idiocy helped make sure he could get.
Don't tread on armed snakes. eh?
If this happened, then the immediate response could likely be to shift all of the models the author claims to be used in crime, and all of the firearms sold to the government, into separate corporations. Smith & Wesson gets sold to the government and all of the electronic guns (because nobody will buy guns that introduce an unnecessary feature that could get you killed) and Wesson & Smith gets sold to consumers, as is. Police own Glock, while consumers use Glok.
The truth is, every feature that makes a firearm attractive to police, military, and non-government civilians... is a feature that makes a firearm attractive to criminals. "Cheap, lethal, and works when you need it to."
The truth is, every feature that makes a firearm attractive to police, military, and non-government civilians... is a feature that makes a firearm attractive to criminals. "Cheap, lethal, and works when you need it to."
2
What a sensible approach. I so appreciate that these fellows have pressed President Obama to walk his talk. Now is the perfect time as he is polishing his legacy. Let's all contact him.
A majority of Americans support restrictions such as these which would help keep guns out of the hands of potential criminals. It's time to speak up.
A majority of Americans support restrictions such as these which would help keep guns out of the hands of potential criminals. It's time to speak up.
5
There's nothing like a dose of stupid to strart the day off. This piece is ridiculous on the face of it. Far more disturbing are the comments, whether from anti-gun advocates who have no idea at all about what guns are, how they work, what people use them for or how regulated they already are. Equally disturbing is the lack of understanding most have concerning murderers and their willingness to use whatever means necessary to commit their crimes. Will we next try to ban fertilizer or pressure cookers? I reserve particular scorn for the idiot who suggested that the Second Amendment should be less "fundamental". Less fundamental maybe than the 14th or 15th Amendments? Imagine the outrage if states tried to restrict those constitutional rights...oh, that's right; been there, tried that, didn't work, thank god. Either all consitutional amendments count or none do.
4
It sure is easier to kill by action at a distance using chemical power than by hand.
i know rather a lot about guns, and I also know that your typical screed wasn't even remotely the topic of the article, which didn't call for banning ANYTHING.
How about for a change enforcing the existing 25,000 firearms laws alreaqdy on the books!
When someone uses a firearm during a crime Make them serve every day of 20 years behind bars, second offense every day of 40 years behind bars! The crime rate in cities like Chicago is because they let violent offenders out after six months of jail time. The problem is not there is not enough laws, the problem is violent offenders ignore the laws because liberals feel sorry for the violent offenders!
When someone uses a firearm during a crime Make them serve every day of 20 years behind bars, second offense every day of 40 years behind bars! The crime rate in cities like Chicago is because they let violent offenders out after six months of jail time. The problem is not there is not enough laws, the problem is violent offenders ignore the laws because liberals feel sorry for the violent offenders!
3
Retired Supreme Count Justice John Paul Stevens, in reviewing the original intent of the Second Amendment in light of recent massacres, provided a solution to controlling guns. He argues that the the original intent of its draftsmen was not to permit every "Tom, Dick and Harry" to "keep and bear arms."
To remove any ambiguity regarding the original intent of the Second Amendment, he suggested that four additional words (in caps below) be added: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms WHEN SERVING IN THE MILITIA shall not be infringed" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix....
An additional comment by Stevens in the same article cited above makes eminent sense: "Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands."
We can thank the NRA and the decision by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito in "District of Columbia v. Heller" for changing the "original intent" of the Second Amendment and the irrational discussion we now have regarding the right to "keep and bear arms."
To remove any ambiguity regarding the original intent of the Second Amendment, he suggested that four additional words (in caps below) be added: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms WHEN SERVING IN THE MILITIA shall not be infringed" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix....
An additional comment by Stevens in the same article cited above makes eminent sense: "Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands."
We can thank the NRA and the decision by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito in "District of Columbia v. Heller" for changing the "original intent" of the Second Amendment and the irrational discussion we now have regarding the right to "keep and bear arms."
8
Recent decisions by the Supreme Court continues to show that some of its members aren't necessarily the best role models not express opinions that some of us equal citizens happen to agree with. To take his word as enlightenment is foolish despite his CV.
So, when was Justice Steven's "opinion" given the weight of FIVE justices? Five justices who actually reviewed a case versus an off the cuff opinion from a former justice? Please, we have nine justices for a reason. Guess liberals would prefer that there be just one--and they got to pick em.
Wow!! An actual approach that can trump (not Donald) the NRA death grip on Congress. Why not?? What this says is, "Hey mfrs, you're making good profits, mostly from us, so stop using dealers who are the funnel through which bulk buys, etc occur. No doubt you already know who they are just by their orders." Does NOT STOP ONE LEGITIMATE BUYER FROM BUYING A GUN. And safety devices - reward them for implementing safety devices of their own choosing - fingerprint is probably easiest and most practical, so that a child cannot pick up a gun and shoot someone accidentally. So troubled teens can not go to their father's or grandfather's gun cabinet and suddenly be armed. Makes stealing guns more difficult and somewhat pointless. Register the ID so that it cannot be sold or transferred or used without a background check. Appoint a head of DEA and recess it if you have to (another NRA ploy). Spend money to update and improve the background check program. Nobody's taking your guns (a totally ridiculous assertion made by the Guns and Ammo flack Wayne LaPierre). Note that even Scalia said that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute, reasonable regulations are permitted.
3
I couldn't agree more with this article. Smart gun technology should be a requirement, if it makes guns cost more, so be it. The technology could be built into the background check somehow. Let's make it that if your son finds a gun you have for "family safety," he can not accidentally shoot him self or someone else, let's make it that if a distraught family member cannot intentional shoot him/her self with your gun, let's make it so that if you surprise someone who broke into your home, that person could not shoot you with your own gun. It seems like a no brainer.
1
Given there are 320 plus million dumb guns available, very few individuals would avail themselves of an unproven technology at a significantly higher price. I'll stick to my old fashioned firearms which don't need batteries and NEVER wear out.
1
Modern "guns" can be mass-killing machines--in a category with weapons of war. People should not be easily possessing these things any more than they should be walking around with grenades in their pockets.
5
Sorry but vehicles, pressure cookers, private aircraft, propane canisters, etc. can also be made to be mass killing machines. Guess we should not have access to those as well.
1
With 300 million guns floating around in America, the horse is already out of the barn. I was at a friend's home when the usual propaganda letter from the NRA arrived. Now, it said, Obama is going to take ammunition away. This usually kind and thoughtful man, irate, sent his check off in the mail. Face it. The NRA is implacable, and it has won.
4
Well, there was some truth there. Given the Obama administration tried to ban "green tip" 5.56 ammunition, the most popular and cheapest 5.56 available for the AR rifle platform, the letter was factual. Luckily, the administration backed down after withering criticism from citizens and the Congress. Short memory.
1
"Let’s give gun manufacturers an incentive to make more smart guns and to allow fewer guns into the hands of criminals."
Let's also give criminals an incentive not to steal, rape, murder, and generally break laws at will. Use a weapon in the commission of a crime, get instant death penalty once convicted of the crime.
Let's also give criminals an incentive not to steal, rape, murder, and generally break laws at will. Use a weapon in the commission of a crime, get instant death penalty once convicted of the crime.
The Second Amendment is afterall a mere amedment.It has absolutely no sanctity when it is the prime empowering weapon behind perpetration of murder,misery and evil.It can be dropped in a jiffy and should be dropped immediately.It did long outlive its purpose,it's grossly anachronistic,downright barbaric.
The heinous killer of a law should be withdrawn in full, all guns should be banned forthwith and replaced with milder forms of stun guns.The gun companies will not face bankruptcies and their employees won't lose their jobs,either.Murder and crime rates,especially involving innocents,will plummet to lowest of the low levels,if only guns are severly controlled or banned altogether.To hell with sentiments of monsters,both literally and metaphorically.All those who oppose gun controls are nothing short of being personification of pure evil.
The heinous killer of a law should be withdrawn in full, all guns should be banned forthwith and replaced with milder forms of stun guns.The gun companies will not face bankruptcies and their employees won't lose their jobs,either.Murder and crime rates,especially involving innocents,will plummet to lowest of the low levels,if only guns are severly controlled or banned altogether.To hell with sentiments of monsters,both literally and metaphorically.All those who oppose gun controls are nothing short of being personification of pure evil.
2
I think this is a pretty good proposal. It's basically a market-based solution to gun control, and so a wedge issue for conservatives. The federal government tells gun manufacturers: we'll buy fewer or none of the guns used to commit crimes. Now you figure out how to make it such that your guns are not used to commit crimes. If conservatives really believe markets are so effective, they should think that this is something that should work. And if they think this is unfairly coercive of gun owners, then they would have to attribute a great deal of coercion to voluntary market interactions between buyers and sellers, which they will not do.
I like the idea of product liability for gun manufacturers, or strict liability for gun owners. Selling a gun and owning a gun has a social cost: it imposes risks on other third parties. If there's any benefit to gun ownership, only gun owners receive it, and if at the same time they impose costs on others, that's unfair. If they're strictly liable for the costs resulting from their guns being used in a crime, then they'll be on the hook for part of the costs they're imposing on others. Since a lot of gun owners and maybe manufacturers couldn't afford the judgments that might arise in lawsuits, they'd have to buy insurance. If pro-gun people are right and guns are safe, then premiums on gun liability insurance would be cheap. Otherwise, they would be expensive and force gun owners to pay the actual cost of owning a gun.
I like the idea of product liability for gun manufacturers, or strict liability for gun owners. Selling a gun and owning a gun has a social cost: it imposes risks on other third parties. If there's any benefit to gun ownership, only gun owners receive it, and if at the same time they impose costs on others, that's unfair. If they're strictly liable for the costs resulting from their guns being used in a crime, then they'll be on the hook for part of the costs they're imposing on others. Since a lot of gun owners and maybe manufacturers couldn't afford the judgments that might arise in lawsuits, they'd have to buy insurance. If pro-gun people are right and guns are safe, then premiums on gun liability insurance would be cheap. Otherwise, they would be expensive and force gun owners to pay the actual cost of owning a gun.
5
Or we could just ignore any mandate to buy insurance. Kind of like how New Yorkers ignored the so called SAFE ACT required that so called "assault weapons" be registered. Heard it was about 5 percent who complied? Since there is no gun registration in most states, there is no way to force citizens to comply with insurance mandates. So try again.
1
Mandatory liability insurance. It should do the trick.
8
The Second Amendment is antiquated, destructive, and poorly written, as proven by the fact no one can agree on its scope, intent, or relevance. It should be repealed. Gun ownership should not be mistaken for a 'right.' This is no longer an untamed wilderness filled with disenfranchised native indigenous people being funded by foreign powers to wage war on farmers. Time for national gun control.
The guns and ammunition industry has long been a quasi-criminal enterprise if defined in terms of its toll inflicted in human misery in peace and war. They sell their guns world wide to governments and use middle-men as merchants of death to sell to insurgencies, terrorists, or anyone with a buck. They are responsible for human suffering and misery, but are not held accountable. They should be assessed a death and misery tax and reporting of all gun related injuries should be mandatory, not illegal as the NRA has sought to make it. The NRA should be jailed under the RICO Act. They are a criminal conspiracy to corrupt our society and infect our populous with paranoia and violence. They do so for profit. Therefore they benefit when there are wars and people are using guns to pursue violent ends, whether they are 'government,' 'criminal' or 'terrorist.' They should be taxed accordingly.
Let the gun industry come up with miraculous self-destructing 'smart guns.' All we need to do is give them economic and legal motivation to do so or be driven completely out of business.
The guns and ammunition industry has long been a quasi-criminal enterprise if defined in terms of its toll inflicted in human misery in peace and war. They sell their guns world wide to governments and use middle-men as merchants of death to sell to insurgencies, terrorists, or anyone with a buck. They are responsible for human suffering and misery, but are not held accountable. They should be assessed a death and misery tax and reporting of all gun related injuries should be mandatory, not illegal as the NRA has sought to make it. The NRA should be jailed under the RICO Act. They are a criminal conspiracy to corrupt our society and infect our populous with paranoia and violence. They do so for profit. Therefore they benefit when there are wars and people are using guns to pursue violent ends, whether they are 'government,' 'criminal' or 'terrorist.' They should be taxed accordingly.
Let the gun industry come up with miraculous self-destructing 'smart guns.' All we need to do is give them economic and legal motivation to do so or be driven completely out of business.
79
Perhaps you might be able to learn what the second amendment is about. It was not written with indigenous people or mountains lions in mind. All am endless are purposefully vague and I cannot think of a single one that has not been disputed. Frequently the Supreme Court hears cases on freedom of speech, protections for citizens against government etc. the scope and relevance of many parts of the constitution are constantly being debated and are evolving. Should these amendments be repealed by the same logic?
"Noone can agree"?
Actually, there is broad public agreement, per polls that have consistently shown for decades that the 2nd Amendment right is popularly supported in majority, and there is broad Constitutional and legal agreement as well that the 2nd Amendment is real, and no President has spoken out against it.
What is your definition of "noone"? It sounds like most people and institutions have to be ignored for you.
Actually, there is broad public agreement, per polls that have consistently shown for decades that the 2nd Amendment right is popularly supported in majority, and there is broad Constitutional and legal agreement as well that the 2nd Amendment is real, and no President has spoken out against it.
What is your definition of "noone"? It sounds like most people and institutions have to be ignored for you.
Not according to the Supreme Court in the Heller decision. But go ahead and try to repeal it, the 320 plus million firearms in this country are not going anywhere. You'd have a better chance of counting every grain of sand on the beaches of the Hamptons than you would confiscating Americans' guns. But good luck with that.
1
Wow. The comments here are amazing in their stupidity. All you lefties ever do is blame the gun, and never address the violent culture that breeds the type of sub-human with no value for human life. 75% of gun violence comes from this impoverished urban culture, but all you seem to care about is 20 White kids in Connecticut. The remaining crime victims only matter to you when it comes to padding the stats.
4
The Sandy Hook kids were emphatically not all white, though these sorts of crazy shooters almost always are.
And, your comment's about medium despicable.
And, your comment's about medium despicable.
How about also overturning the law banning research on gun violence?
6
Is research on gun violence really banned? If so, what members of Congress supported that bill?
You have touched the "third rail" of public discussion: gun control. Good luck.
1
This is all well and good but I think the real answer is to collect a heavy sales tax and a yearly registration fee for all guns and use the money collected to pay for the costs associated with gun violence, that would go a long way to controlling guns....
2
An onerous tax--whether it be on guns or ammo--in itself would be perceived by the Supremes as trying to deny a citizen's 2A rights through back door measures. I assume you also support a poll tax as well?
1
These lefty/lib comments are hilarious !! It's Sat. mornin' in the great state of KANSAS (constitutional carry BTW HA !) ..it's HOT and windy but I'm upright, have my guns and just LOVING your ridiculous comments..PLEASE keep them coming !
A king atop your very own small hill, no doubt.
That is even more ignorant and pointless than the usual infringement drivel. News flash: gun manufacturers have zero control what happens with their products upon leaving their normal established distribution network. They, nor anyone in their network, drive truckloads of guns to Flaco's house for a midnight clearance sale. Bidding requirements would be the most pointless, useless, and fruitless burden possible. Which, is probably why you want it. It's the burden itself you're after, not expected results. All gun control in a nutshell.
How about.....NO.
How about.....NO.
2
Well, if they really wanted government contracts, they'd have to get creative. Only sell through direct authorized dealers. Manufacturers in other fields seem to be able to control where and when their products are sold. Do you really think that businesses couldn't be innovative about how to reduce gun violence if they actually have an incentive to be?
Why not a national listing, perhaps on some Government web site, citing the gun makers (not necessarily the specific models) of weapons recovered from crimes, by week, month. Y-T-D and prior year. A checked box might note automatic weapons, semis, high capacity magazines, dumb-dumb bullets, etc.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
2
The reason gun-rights advocates refuse to "compromise" can be seen quite clearly in the comments below where Times readers call for bans on every weapon not useful in hunting.
The word "hunting" is not in the 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the 2A is to allow the citizens to protect themselves from criminal predation as well as from the (hopefully never realized) possibility of defending the republic from enemies external or internal.
The word "hunting" is not in the 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the 2A is to allow the citizens to protect themselves from criminal predation as well as from the (hopefully never realized) possibility of defending the republic from enemies external or internal.
3
200 YEARS of US. Supreme Court judges never thought that the 2nd. guaranteed the individual right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment was not enacted to provide a check on government tyranny; rather, it was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South's principal instrument of slave control.
1
"They could distribute their guns exclusively through dealers that sell guns responsibly, and end their relationships with the small percentage of bad-apple dealers that sell a disproportionate number of the guns used in crimes."
How are these shops to be identified? Do we really think gun manufacturers know who they are and continue to sell to them now? They and their families are walking the same streets.
" They could produce “smart guns” that can be fired only by authorized users."
The "smart gun" technology, just like "micro stamping" doesn't work.
Might it be developed....maybe. but the government won't equip their policy and solders with inferior firearms.
This article is very pie-in-the-sky. It paints a pretty picture but fails to reconcile with the realities of life.
How are these shops to be identified? Do we really think gun manufacturers know who they are and continue to sell to them now? They and their families are walking the same streets.
" They could produce “smart guns” that can be fired only by authorized users."
The "smart gun" technology, just like "micro stamping" doesn't work.
Might it be developed....maybe. but the government won't equip their policy and solders with inferior firearms.
This article is very pie-in-the-sky. It paints a pretty picture but fails to reconcile with the realities of life.
3
Well, if smart gun technology doesn't work, then gun companies would have no incentive to try it in order to lower the number of gun deaths that occur because of their product.
Currently, gun companies may have little control over who they sell to, but they may take an active role in the distribution of their product if they're liable to lose a lot of money if they don't. Other industries take control of their supply chain when they're at risk of losing money by not doing so. This wouldn't be any different.
Currently, gun companies may have little control over who they sell to, but they may take an active role in the distribution of their product if they're liable to lose a lot of money if they don't. Other industries take control of their supply chain when they're at risk of losing money by not doing so. This wouldn't be any different.
I agree!
While we're pressuring gun manufacturers, could the Priesthood all get behind "stop & frisk"?
This would, in tandem with "smart" guns, remove guns from the hands of dumb teens and save countless lives over time.
Or do you religious leaders also suffer from politically correct allies who would rather pressure corporations than individual criminals?
Oh, I get it. This is just one more move in the culture wars.
While we're pressuring gun manufacturers, could the Priesthood all get behind "stop & frisk"?
This would, in tandem with "smart" guns, remove guns from the hands of dumb teens and save countless lives over time.
Or do you religious leaders also suffer from politically correct allies who would rather pressure corporations than individual criminals?
Oh, I get it. This is just one more move in the culture wars.
1
As well intentioned the intent, there is no legal way to stop forbid the stop illegal guns sales from "street vendors" in peacemeal [sic] transactions.
2
After President Reagan was shot in 1981, the gun control movement really gained momentum and many ideas proposed since then sensibly address concerns about gun violence. This is one of them. Like others, it's likely to languish. Polls show support among Americans for better control of guns. Yet, when stepping into the voting booth, most of them vote otherwise, for candidates who don't advance the cause of gun control. It's not the urgent issue it once was. In fact, recent falling barriers to carrying guns would have shocked us in 1981.
5
This basic premise is a great, forward-thinking one. Perhaps we could also shame all of those supposedly deficit-hawks in Congress to work on this issue, as well. Many of them are the staunchest supporters of gun and ammo manufacturers, as well as its mouthpiece--the NRA
Through this common sense approach, there should be a deceases in gun violence, which would mean less financial resources required--at all levels of government--to investigate, apprehend, try and convict gun violators--and the reduced cost of incarceration.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Through this common sense approach, there should be a deceases in gun violence, which would mean less financial resources required--at all levels of government--to investigate, apprehend, try and convict gun violators--and the reduced cost of incarceration.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
3
It seems to me that there is only one sure way to control or reduce the violent use of guns. Prevention. And that includes catching and addressing mental illness and also addressing the various social/familial and other toxic conditions that grow criminals in the first place. Unfortunately, we collectively tend to focus on symptoms rather than causes. That's easier. We forget that nothing happens out of the blue. There's only one exception to our prevention blindness. And that's physical illness such as polio, allergies, high cholesterol and the like. Regarding that, we go all out to prevent. We must carry that idea to all social ills. Until we do we will unfortunately and tragically continue to see and experience history repeat itself.
2
We should also heavily tax all gun and bullet sales, perhaps 300% or more, to fund education, prevention, and ER bills related to gunshot wounds. As with cigarettes, when prices go up significantly, consumption goes down.
6
Yet that still would not affect gun crime in Chicago or Baltimore - because most of those guns come in with the drugs and the non-legal people in the U S
So your theory does not apply to the actual distribution route many guns take
So your theory does not apply to the actual distribution route many guns take
We have more than enough gun laws. Enforce the ones wee have.
6
Sounds sensible to me. For an example of government's clout here, just look at how Colt Defense filed for Chapter 11 last month after the Army dropped its contract with the company. Time to make all these guys feel some pain. Let's get this done!
7
You apparently don't know much about Colt. They have been languishing for quite some time, and have been unable to keep up with other gun manufacturers who have a wider consumer base. As for the Army contract, you'll love this. Colt lost out to Bushmaster, which makes a fine civilian AR rifle as well as assault rifles for the Army. BTW, a Bushmaster AR was used at Sandy Hook. Yeah, looks like the government punished them.
1
And Colt is 1 of how many global gun manufacturers?
The vast majority of gun crimes involve illegal weapons acquired on a black market outside licensed dealers; outside government regulation.
Smart technology may eventually help but, as a practical matter, there is no meaningful gun control right now that doesn't involve 'stop & frisk'.
Smart technology may eventually help but, as a practical matter, there is no meaningful gun control right now that doesn't involve 'stop & frisk'.
1
Using market power to encourage innovation in non-proliferation would be a beautiful thing.
I can't think of anything else that would get the gun manufacturers' attention. They're not troubled by the consequences of their products functioning as intended. Their business model is naked proliferation.
It's time to make them compete for more than just effectiveness and volume.
I can't think of anything else that would get the gun manufacturers' attention. They're not troubled by the consequences of their products functioning as intended. Their business model is naked proliferation.
It's time to make them compete for more than just effectiveness and volume.
50
Many guns are made by companies the U S does not purchase from
Tarus in South America makes guns that the U S does not purchase
They are found at many crimes as well
So how would this stop those guns
Tarus in South America makes guns that the U S does not purchase
They are found at many crimes as well
So how would this stop those guns
The debate over guns has been going on for decades. And we are no closer to solving this national disgrace than we were in the beginning. The solution is not gun control or making "safe" guns. It is gun elimination--except for law enforcement and the military who should be required to surrender their firearms when their service careers end. The problem is rooted in a deep misunderstanding of what the Second Amendment means. It is compounded by the undeniable fact that there are so many guns--including the most dangerous kinds--out there, and that a black market that promotes them can flourish. The gun manufacturers, while not totally free of blame, are not the true culprits. They are simply responding to high demand. If we pass some strong federal legislation preempting permissive state laws, that will have the effect of eliminating high demand and take guns out of the hands of all civilians, period. Let's end the debate and meet a national challenge.
63
Jon Black... you want people to surrender their guns? When gun owners decide to not give them up, are you volunteering to be the one to go collect them? I wish you would.
2
But passing strong legislation is nearly impossible, while an executive decision to make demands of suppliers is practically business as usual.
1
In my state our constitution allows gun possession and approximately half the households own at least one gun. There are dozens of other states where gun ownership is a way of life for millions of people. In these states you don't fool with a mans wife, kick his dog, or try and take his guns. If you believe the majority of these people will turn in, or register, their guns I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
1
Smart guns. Fewer guns in the hands of criminals. Promising safety technologies. Back ground checks. Demanding that the Pentagon demand of bidders for a new handgun contract, detailed information about their gun safety and distribution practices in the civilian market. Does all of that really lead to the saving of lives?
No matter what laws we have in place criminals will always find a way to buy or steal weapons. Criminals will falsify documents, break into stores, homes and vehicles and bring in illegal guns from across the border.
I believe that background checks should be strictly enforced. That must be the front line of defense.
But, and many will disagree, the culture of violence, gun play, murder and mayhem cavalierly promoted in video games, movies, TV and the media is a greater problem. America glorifies violence with guns. Yes, we have a frontier history. We have a history of a bloody revolution, Indian wars, civil war and settling of the untamed West. We have a history of the World Wars, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan and wars in South America, Cuba, and the Philippines.
And we've turned it all into a series of bloody movies and video games. Crime shows on TV display corpses shot to pieces, burned, mutilated and reduced to skeletons for forensic exam.
I do not accept the premise that guns are the problem. I suggest to everyone that the problem is our culture of violence and our continued projection of violence as a satisfying means to solve problems.
No matter what laws we have in place criminals will always find a way to buy or steal weapons. Criminals will falsify documents, break into stores, homes and vehicles and bring in illegal guns from across the border.
I believe that background checks should be strictly enforced. That must be the front line of defense.
But, and many will disagree, the culture of violence, gun play, murder and mayhem cavalierly promoted in video games, movies, TV and the media is a greater problem. America glorifies violence with guns. Yes, we have a frontier history. We have a history of a bloody revolution, Indian wars, civil war and settling of the untamed West. We have a history of the World Wars, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan and wars in South America, Cuba, and the Philippines.
And we've turned it all into a series of bloody movies and video games. Crime shows on TV display corpses shot to pieces, burned, mutilated and reduced to skeletons for forensic exam.
I do not accept the premise that guns are the problem. I suggest to everyone that the problem is our culture of violence and our continued projection of violence as a satisfying means to solve problems.
52
Bloody movies and video games exist everywhere on this planet but levels of gun violence fluctuates substantially. Stop trying to pin this on movies, there isn't even a correlation.
Note to Jay guns are the problem other societies play violent video and have the same level of mental illness but on average have only 5% the level of gun violence
All guns must be SMART GUNS i.e., fired only by registered owner, with real background check that takes two weeks minimum. The bullets will be smart bullets traceable to the gun fired as well. This is a huge disincentive to criminals and those who wish to hurt others with guns.
5
How does one trace bird shot pellets?
2
It deters no one
Smart guns are bought by legal buyers
Illegal Inported guns are ferried over the boarder that the U S decided not to secure, along with cocain and heroin
Your solution just has more guns arrive illegally
Smart guns are bought by legal buyers
Illegal Inported guns are ferried over the boarder that the U S decided not to secure, along with cocain and heroin
Your solution just has more guns arrive illegally
With most guns being made not subject to U S laws - how will that be enforced?
Will it be enforced like U S drug laws?
Will it be enforced like U S drug laws?
1
A former student and gun enthusiast (and a fine marksman) works at a large sporting-goods chain; his comment: "Some of the people who come in to look at guns are really, really scary. I wouldn't want to sell them a water pistol."
As pointed out in the essay, gun dealers do have discretion in completing a sale. Perhaps they should exercise this, rather than hiding behind the background check. A law protecting dealers in this situation may be needed.
The particular failure in the Charleston case can be alleviated by have a more sensible period for the background check. California has a 10 day waiting period; I've noticed no shortage of guns, gun clubs, hunters ... For those concerned over encroachment on civil rights, I'll point out that the extended waiting period is necessary because Big Brother is NOT watching: the profusion of uncoordinated reporting requirements and data bases makes the system less secure or effective.
As pointed out in the essay, gun dealers do have discretion in completing a sale. Perhaps they should exercise this, rather than hiding behind the background check. A law protecting dealers in this situation may be needed.
The particular failure in the Charleston case can be alleviated by have a more sensible period for the background check. California has a 10 day waiting period; I've noticed no shortage of guns, gun clubs, hunters ... For those concerned over encroachment on civil rights, I'll point out that the extended waiting period is necessary because Big Brother is NOT watching: the profusion of uncoordinated reporting requirements and data bases makes the system less secure or effective.
4
The author fails to recognize that all gun dealerships in every state must perform a federal NICS background check for every firearm purchase by every individual. A vast majority of guns who end up in the wrong hands are transferred from a legal buyer to the ineligible criminal; a "straw purchase". There is nothing a gun shop--let alone a gun manufacturer can do to prevent this because it occurs after a legal sale. The other way criminals get guns is through burglary and private sales between individuals without a background check. While I agree that individual sales should fall under the NICS check requirement, thus ending the loophole, this issue has no relation to the responsibilities of gun shops or gun manufacturers. Of course, licensed dealers who openly violate federal law and sell firearms without a background check should be arrested and prosecuted, but these instances are rare and do not contribute significantly to the problem of illegal gun ownership. I feel that the author, with good intentions, has misplaced blame and responsibility on this national issue. It's not the shops or manufacturers; it's criminals and a lacking law.
3
" While I agree that individual sales should fall under the NICS check requirement, thus ending the loophole, this issue has no relation to the responsibilities of gun shops or gun manufacturers"
The manufacturers and their lobbyists along with their shill the NRA need to stop fighting for the loophole. They have the power.
The manufacturers and their lobbyists along with their shill the NRA need to stop fighting for the loophole. They have the power.
Wonderful thinking and well intentioned, but the Republicans will never, ever, agree to the least little effort to restrict gun distribution or availability.This is because the Republicans depend on generous campaign contributions from the gun manufacturers and all their little friends and fanatical devotees.
There is no money in gun control -- only the saving of lives. And that is precisely why Republicans, and all too many Democrats, will never go along with any of the "sensible" proposals to curb gun deaths.
There is no money in gun control -- only the saving of lives. And that is precisely why Republicans, and all too many Democrats, will never go along with any of the "sensible" proposals to curb gun deaths.
2
so how does this stop the guns that are shipped in with the drugs?
Each time I see proposals to "stop guns," I'm struck by the assumptions and ignorance behind them. Do these reverends know ANYTHING about the gun industry? They say that guns could be distributed "exclusively through dealers that sell guns responsibly, and end their relationships with the small percentage of bad-apple dealers that sell a disproportionate number of the guns used in crimes." yet this has more to do with geography than any differences in how gun dealers sell their wares. Outraged officials in Chicago constantly complain of specific dealers in surrounding cities, yet nobody seems to notice that Chicago, to date, has licensed NO dealers inside the city! (They had been specifically prohibited in years prior.)
Secondly, a great deal of "crime guns" are STOLEN. This makes the point irrelevant. NO gun dealer wants to see their products fall into the wrong hands, and there are techniques for spotting things like straw purchasers, etc., that the industry promotes and teaches. But once a gun leaves the store, it is no longer under the control of anyone but the buyer.
Next comes the sci-fi pie-in-the-sky "smart guns" emark: Cops will never accept them. Why? The technology isn't ready. If cops don't want them, than I don't either.
Secondly, a great deal of "crime guns" are STOLEN. This makes the point irrelevant. NO gun dealer wants to see their products fall into the wrong hands, and there are techniques for spotting things like straw purchasers, etc., that the industry promotes and teaches. But once a gun leaves the store, it is no longer under the control of anyone but the buyer.
Next comes the sci-fi pie-in-the-sky "smart guns" emark: Cops will never accept them. Why? The technology isn't ready. If cops don't want them, than I don't either.
4
And yet, this particular gun was sold by a dealer who chose not to wait for the background check to be completed.
1
The advice given by these people is as meaningful as would be the advice I would give to the graduating class at MIT on Quantum Physics. Just what we all need right now. Another bureaucratic program based on statistics and run by politicians in a congress that has defined the word "dysfunctional".
3
Seems like just another excuse by the government loving liberal/progressives to put more useless, parasitic, self-serving bureaucrats on the public payroll. In their ideal world, everyone would work for the government or at most a non-profit, never for an evil for-profit entity.
1
Brawley, Moss, Benke and Mosbacher are delusional. Even as I read this article I could feel the NRA response swelling. Despite painfully logical arguments and suggestions, there is not enough voter strength in America to stem the flood of arms that end up to be used in street crimes. It just isn't there even in the face of senseless carnage such as we have seen recently.
Don't mistake my comment as being supportive of the NRA. It hurts me deeply to know what my grandchildren face on the streets of the future.
Don't mistake my comment as being supportive of the NRA. It hurts me deeply to know what my grandchildren face on the streets of the future.
2
Federal purchases of "smart guns," in any quantity at all, would help open the market that is presently subject to a national boycott. Dealers who sought to sell the Armatix smart pistol were subjected to threats by gun maker groups, and that intimidation has prevented any dealer from taking the risk of selling the product. Use federal funds designated for law enforcement to create demand to open this market, stimulate innovation and reduce prices. Maybe over time (admittedly a long time) market forces will lead to a replacement of old guns with safer ones that won't be able to enter the black market.
2
And a cobat situation where a smart gun refuses to fire for the second soldier just gets that soldier dead
This leverage could help with meaningful gun laws. What if the NYT, WP and all newspapers just captioned at the top of their headlines the number of people killed and wounded everyday by guns in the USA? Along side that caption, they could put the number of people killed in the UK and Japan. That could be done daily even if no legislation is evolved from it. Short one-line numbers and a percent of population killed and wounded would at least give us an indication of the gun lobbyist hold on our politicians.
7
This is an excellent idea. The No Real Accountability movement will oppose it, but in a sense that's all you need to know.
6
This is for all that say the only problem we have with guns is inner city gangs or those with mental health issues. This list is of shootings in the past three weeks of children who have been unintentionally shot. This list is not remarkable, in that it gets repeated every day, every week. Only in America.
7/15 OH: 16-year-old boy shot self in foot with father's gun
7/14 SC: 3-year-old shot self in face
7/13 MS: 4-year-old girl shot self in abdomen
7/10 FL: 6-year-old shot 7-year-old with handgun found in house
7/04 TX: 3-year-old boy fatally shot self with grandparents' gun
7/02 TX: 12-year-old shot self in leg
7/02 VA: 4-year-old boy fatally shot self
7/01 FL: 9-year-old boy shot in the cheek
7/01 LA: 3-year-old boy shot self in face
6/29 WY: 4-year-old shot self in foot
6/28 MI: 3-year-old boy fatally shot self
The author's proposals are good. Many commenters have good proposals. The only proposals that cannot be sustained are ones calling for the status quo-- Guns for all. Guns for every coward. Guns for every disaffected young man.
I will make sure my vote counts and only vote for those that speak of change in the way our country deals with the lunatic gun fringe.
7/15 OH: 16-year-old boy shot self in foot with father's gun
7/14 SC: 3-year-old shot self in face
7/13 MS: 4-year-old girl shot self in abdomen
7/10 FL: 6-year-old shot 7-year-old with handgun found in house
7/04 TX: 3-year-old boy fatally shot self with grandparents' gun
7/02 TX: 12-year-old shot self in leg
7/02 VA: 4-year-old boy fatally shot self
7/01 FL: 9-year-old boy shot in the cheek
7/01 LA: 3-year-old boy shot self in face
6/29 WY: 4-year-old shot self in foot
6/28 MI: 3-year-old boy fatally shot self
The author's proposals are good. Many commenters have good proposals. The only proposals that cannot be sustained are ones calling for the status quo-- Guns for all. Guns for every coward. Guns for every disaffected young man.
I will make sure my vote counts and only vote for those that speak of change in the way our country deals with the lunatic gun fringe.
181
Agree on the children issue and each owner of the gun should be prosecuted. That is a clear gun safety issue where the owner is at fault.
Fatal firearm accidents number around 600 per year. Look at CDC data and you'll see accidental firearm deaths are extremely low as a cause of accident death. As a comparison, hospital transmitted infections kill about 100,000 a year while car accidents kill over 30,000.
What's striking to me about the comments is how chock full of ad-hominem they are. That and general ignorance about all things firearm. I honestly expected more from the readers of the Times.
What's striking to me about the comments is how chock full of ad-hominem they are. That and general ignorance about all things firearm. I honestly expected more from the readers of the Times.
1
Don't forget open carry, in churches, stores, public building, on the streets. There should be NO more of that. We were better off when only hardcore criminals had these weapons. Personally, I'm not afraid of those people. I'm afraid of a regular citizen, in Texas, who thinks he can stroll into my coffee shop carrying his 9.
1
Yes, indeed, never mind about which is the best gun for the purpose. After all, police and soldiers tend to vote against the Party of Welfare and Illegal Aliens, so who cares if they die because they have an weapon that is not the best available for the purpose?
Of course, the criminals WILL be able to choose the best gun for the purpose, since they won't be affected by the latest burst of NYT silliness, but, hey, the important thing is to enforce political correctness.
Of course, the criminals WILL be able to choose the best gun for the purpose, since they won't be affected by the latest burst of NYT silliness, but, hey, the important thing is to enforce political correctness.
3
The H&K Squeeze Cock handgun, needs to be required on all Automatic Handguns, period!
Gun control advocates are primarily focused on the supply side, contrasted with gun rights advocates who tend to be focused on the demand side. The author is proposing ways to 'reduce the number of guns that end up in the hands of criminals' addressing the supply side of the problem. We have been participating in a large national experiment of sorts which encompasses both sides of the problem, where we have incarcerated a large numbers of criminals while at the same time the stock of firearms has increased to record levels. The two largest runs on firearms and ammunition in the history of the US have occurred during the Obama administration, and the national homicide rate is at record low levels. This suggests that addressing the demand side is more effective, something also suggested by the recent uptick in homicides in a number of urban areas where law enforcement activity has been curtailed.
A proposal to address the demand side of the problem includes offering increased rewards for information leading to the conviction of violent criminals, especially those who traffic in and use firearms. Congress was presented with a report almost two decades ago on what works and what doesn't, something that could be brushed off and refreshed.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/works/
PREVENTING CRIME: WHAT WORKS, WHAT DOESN'T, WHAT'S PROMISING
A REPORT TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 1997
A proposal to address the demand side of the problem includes offering increased rewards for information leading to the conviction of violent criminals, especially those who traffic in and use firearms. Congress was presented with a report almost two decades ago on what works and what doesn't, something that could be brushed off and refreshed.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/works/
PREVENTING CRIME: WHAT WORKS, WHAT DOESN'T, WHAT'S PROMISING
A REPORT TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 1997
A common denominator not discussed with most of these mass shooters are that they are Democrats. Yes, members of a party that brought us the KKK and today's intolerance.
Bank the Democrat Party
Bank the Democrat Party
3
Lots of knee jerk articles and we don't even know what gun the shooter used or where he acquired it, or whether he has "rapid reload magazines", whatever that means. The inability of the gun grabbers to correctly identify guns undermines any credibility
4
Why can't we stop all the debating and simply emulate Australia?
1
You can find some intresting data at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death...
It is true that we rank 13th in gun related deaths per 100,000 but the countries above us are all from South & Central America and Africa. Here are some figures for more developed countries:
US 10.64
UK 0.26
Germany 0.20
Australia 0.86
Canada 2.22
Italy 1.28
Japan 0.06
It is true that we rank 13th in gun related deaths per 100,000 but the countries above us are all from South & Central America and Africa. Here are some figures for more developed countries:
US 10.64
UK 0.26
Germany 0.20
Australia 0.86
Canada 2.22
Italy 1.28
Japan 0.06
2
I am an Independent Catholic priest and as a “fellow religious leader,” therefore, I am sorely disappointed at the writers’ underlying premise here, that all we need or all we can hope for is more cops-and-robbers but with a slight change in the rules.
Gun manufacturers will sell their wares to anyone who has a buck to buy them. Appeals, conditions and sanctions based on financial incentives result only in loopholes, payoffs and corruption. In other words, same-old, same-old. And pouring money into the development of so-called “smart” guns simply accelerates the one-step-ahead game. Even more absurd is the authors’ belief that guns ensure public safety. Body cameras, anyone?
Where is the challenge to better ourselves as human beings? Where is the appeal to a higher calling? Where is the funding for education, for exposure to and training in ethics, spirituality, meditation, and all such endeavors that will lift us as a species out of the morass of ignorance, fear and hatred that is still the state of the world in 2015?
Instead, we get clichés about selling guns “responsibly.” These guys need to go back to seminary.
Gun manufacturers will sell their wares to anyone who has a buck to buy them. Appeals, conditions and sanctions based on financial incentives result only in loopholes, payoffs and corruption. In other words, same-old, same-old. And pouring money into the development of so-called “smart” guns simply accelerates the one-step-ahead game. Even more absurd is the authors’ belief that guns ensure public safety. Body cameras, anyone?
Where is the challenge to better ourselves as human beings? Where is the appeal to a higher calling? Where is the funding for education, for exposure to and training in ethics, spirituality, meditation, and all such endeavors that will lift us as a species out of the morass of ignorance, fear and hatred that is still the state of the world in 2015?
Instead, we get clichés about selling guns “responsibly.” These guys need to go back to seminary.
2
It really is amazing to me how Americans cling to guns and God. One actually has more power by eschewing both of these things.
I agree but how are we going to persuade the "God, Guns, Grits & Gravy" folks ?
Two other ideas -
Beef up ATF and other law enforcement agencies to target gun runners, stores that routinely make sales to straw purchasers (and the straw purchasers themselves) and audit dealers on an annual basis and close those that repeatedly can't account for weapons or report them stolen. I have not seen any increase in the ATF budget at all. Working with what you have is a good place to start. And don't call it a war on guns for cryin out loud
Second, use the office to talk down gun violence. Easy access to guns is only part of the problem. The next layer down is that we need to convince people that guns don't solve all your problems. Guns shouldn't be used to bolster your image, improve your confidence or make you fit in. They shouldn't be seen as a status symbol, unless you are a serious collector. Honestly, in most cases, if you have to carry a gun to feel important or protected, you're not doing something right. If you're using a gun to solve a dispute, marital problems or depression, not good. Hunting, sure. Self defense, when needed. To go to a store in the suburbs, crazy.
Right now we are still glorifying guns, both in reality and in TV land. We should stop this and the President could lead on this by showing us what the real effects are on families and communities when guns are used for the wrong reasons. Instead, our youth only see that its good to shoot bad guys on tv and in video games. Time to change this.
Beef up ATF and other law enforcement agencies to target gun runners, stores that routinely make sales to straw purchasers (and the straw purchasers themselves) and audit dealers on an annual basis and close those that repeatedly can't account for weapons or report them stolen. I have not seen any increase in the ATF budget at all. Working with what you have is a good place to start. And don't call it a war on guns for cryin out loud
Second, use the office to talk down gun violence. Easy access to guns is only part of the problem. The next layer down is that we need to convince people that guns don't solve all your problems. Guns shouldn't be used to bolster your image, improve your confidence or make you fit in. They shouldn't be seen as a status symbol, unless you are a serious collector. Honestly, in most cases, if you have to carry a gun to feel important or protected, you're not doing something right. If you're using a gun to solve a dispute, marital problems or depression, not good. Hunting, sure. Self defense, when needed. To go to a store in the suburbs, crazy.
Right now we are still glorifying guns, both in reality and in TV land. We should stop this and the President could lead on this by showing us what the real effects are on families and communities when guns are used for the wrong reasons. Instead, our youth only see that its good to shoot bad guys on tv and in video games. Time to change this.
A thorough criminal and mental health background check before any sale of a fire arm, and licensing of all gun owners that includes testing for safety, accuracy, and use should be mandatory. This would be a new field of learning for many owners. Gun owners need to be law abiding, sane, and knowledgeable of the laws of possession, and the responsibility of ownership. If you don't know how to use a gun safely, you shouldn't own one. If you are a criminal, you shouldn't own one. If you don't know the laws surrounding gun se and ownership, you shouldn't own one.
I urge Congress to pass laws that would demand the all un owners be licensed and that all gun sales be controlled.
I urge Congress to pass laws that would demand the all un owners be licensed and that all gun sales be controlled.
On Wednesday, we saw a jury convict a troubled young man of shooting a dozen people in Colorado, while another young man slaughtered four people in Chattanooga. Since Wednesday, another 240 people have died from guns. Meanwhile, our political leaders, remarkably, pass laws enabling yet more troubled young men to buy guns, to brandish and use them.
We should tell our legislators this: You are cowards. You have passed laws that defeat background checks and create an anything goes atmosphere at gun shows. It’s harder to buy a six pack in many states than it is a six shooter. Then you remove barriers to carry guns—concealed or open—in shopping centers, theaters and bars. Your laws allow, some encourage, guns on city streets, campuses, shopping centers, churches and job sites. You are cowards because, in most cases, you ban guns in one place . . . your own offices and buildings. No guns in the House and Senate buildings, no guns in most state legislative chambers, where you work. Ordinary people at work, riding a bus or walking down the street are naked to the threat of guns. You are free of guns sitting behind your own desks.
Until you’re ready to pass laws that limit guns, have the decency to pass one more law that expands them: It should say simply: “Assault rifles, high-capacity clips, armor-piercing rounds, firearms of any kind are henceforth permitted, without restriction, in all legislative buildings and offices.” Why does the second amendment stop at your front door?
We should tell our legislators this: You are cowards. You have passed laws that defeat background checks and create an anything goes atmosphere at gun shows. It’s harder to buy a six pack in many states than it is a six shooter. Then you remove barriers to carry guns—concealed or open—in shopping centers, theaters and bars. Your laws allow, some encourage, guns on city streets, campuses, shopping centers, churches and job sites. You are cowards because, in most cases, you ban guns in one place . . . your own offices and buildings. No guns in the House and Senate buildings, no guns in most state legislative chambers, where you work. Ordinary people at work, riding a bus or walking down the street are naked to the threat of guns. You are free of guns sitting behind your own desks.
Until you’re ready to pass laws that limit guns, have the decency to pass one more law that expands them: It should say simply: “Assault rifles, high-capacity clips, armor-piercing rounds, firearms of any kind are henceforth permitted, without restriction, in all legislative buildings and offices.” Why does the second amendment stop at your front door?
228
We talk & write about a lot of "shoulds".
While in this forum, lets ask the NYTimes to publish a chart of our congresspersons in both houses, identified by state & party & how they've voted on gun issues.
Then we might, as constituents, call/write our legislators & make it clear about how we are "instructing" them to vote.
If we don't, the NRA, who contributes to their campaign coffers, will continue to command their votes.
While in this forum, lets ask the NYTimes to publish a chart of our congresspersons in both houses, identified by state & party & how they've voted on gun issues.
Then we might, as constituents, call/write our legislators & make it clear about how we are "instructing" them to vote.
If we don't, the NRA, who contributes to their campaign coffers, will continue to command their votes.
1
Great piece. A fresh idea – at least to me.
A question -- and not a rhetorical one:
Federal and state governments purchase lots of other products that are also sold to the public and which can be more safer for users, can be more environmentally benign in manufacture or use, can be manufactured in safer workplaces with decent wages, etc., etc. Aircraft and autos are two products that come to mind.
Before government says “we don’t have the authority to consider the gun sale process or design features not germane to our needs,” and before the NRA utters whatever rants come to mind, someone should compile a list of other interventions in the marketplace to show that it can be done and is done, why it is done and how it is beneficial.
A question -- and not a rhetorical one:
Federal and state governments purchase lots of other products that are also sold to the public and which can be more safer for users, can be more environmentally benign in manufacture or use, can be manufactured in safer workplaces with decent wages, etc., etc. Aircraft and autos are two products that come to mind.
Before government says “we don’t have the authority to consider the gun sale process or design features not germane to our needs,” and before the NRA utters whatever rants come to mind, someone should compile a list of other interventions in the marketplace to show that it can be done and is done, why it is done and how it is beneficial.
3
This makes too much sense and costs tax payers nothing. It will never happen. Complicate it with 800 pages of legalese and run 600 studies on it that cost taxpayers a small fortune and THEN you can have a watered down, unrecognizable version....... maybe.
Main Street USA: a War Zone....thanks to the conservatives in the US
Congress...who are totally to blame and whose campaign backers are
either the gun manufacturers or their advocates and members of the
NRA.
Main Street...a War Zone...thanks to Citizens United mega dollar finance
campaign backers...result ....no US gun control...and
Main Street being the oh so common shooting gallery for anyone who
has an automatic gun...and training by going to a war zone in Syria or
the same....blame the backers of gun manufacturing who are making
a big profit by selling weapons.
Congress...who are totally to blame and whose campaign backers are
either the gun manufacturers or their advocates and members of the
NRA.
Main Street...a War Zone...thanks to Citizens United mega dollar finance
campaign backers...result ....no US gun control...and
Main Street being the oh so common shooting gallery for anyone who
has an automatic gun...and training by going to a war zone in Syria or
the same....blame the backers of gun manufacturing who are making
a big profit by selling weapons.
1
I believe Connecticut is a blue state.
Not every problem is solved by bashing conservatives even though this is a common belief among many.
Obama has finally realized that mutual hatred does not work with Iran and with Cuba. I congratulate him for showing common sense.
May I suggest that conservatives also might be open to a lessening of tensions if you allow them to?
The Buddha said 2500 years ago that Hatred does not work. Jesus said pretty much the same thing.
But a popular belief here seems to be, "Hatred is bad, but hating conservatives is just fine."
Not every problem is solved by bashing conservatives even though this is a common belief among many.
Obama has finally realized that mutual hatred does not work with Iran and with Cuba. I congratulate him for showing common sense.
May I suggest that conservatives also might be open to a lessening of tensions if you allow them to?
The Buddha said 2500 years ago that Hatred does not work. Jesus said pretty much the same thing.
But a popular belief here seems to be, "Hatred is bad, but hating conservatives is just fine."
1
Best idea I have heard in a long time!
6
Make any crime committed with a gun an automatic death penalty case.
4
I thought we were moving away from minimum sentencing and mass incarceration. Same population will be most effected once again.
When something does not work, just take more of it?
1
So would illegal possession qualify? Would the woman who had a Pennsylvania CCW permit who crossed into New Jersey and was arrested for illegal possession count? Or are you only speaking of violent crime?
The greatest damage to US society was done by the Supreme Court that, in spite of their claim to be strict constitutionalists, absolutely ignored a crucial part of the Second Amendment that specifically, explicitly mandates that gun ownership was to be limited to a "well regulated militia". I personally consider them morally responsible for the thousands of murders committed in the country.
141
Sorry Frank. It is widely known that, in the context of the time the amendment was written, well-regulated just meant well-equipped.
2
Try this:
"Well educated voters, being necessary to the health of a free state, the rights of the people to buy and read books shall not be infringed."
So who cannot be denied the right to buy books? Only voters? What about people under 18? Only well-educated voters?So anyone who didn't graduate high-school is not allowed to buy books?
Nonsense. The right is recognized as belonging to the whole of the people. Every time the words "the people" are used in the Constitution, it refers to the entire body of the citizenry. "Heller" merely recognized what was entirely uncontroversial for over a hundred years until a group of anti-gun academic mounted an assault on the 2nd Amendment in the last few decades.
For further reading:
http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primer_on_const.php
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp6ch04.htm
http://www.guncite.com/journals/bk-ufire.html
"Well educated voters, being necessary to the health of a free state, the rights of the people to buy and read books shall not be infringed."
So who cannot be denied the right to buy books? Only voters? What about people under 18? Only well-educated voters?So anyone who didn't graduate high-school is not allowed to buy books?
Nonsense. The right is recognized as belonging to the whole of the people. Every time the words "the people" are used in the Constitution, it refers to the entire body of the citizenry. "Heller" merely recognized what was entirely uncontroversial for over a hundred years until a group of anti-gun academic mounted an assault on the 2nd Amendment in the last few decades.
For further reading:
http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primer_on_const.php
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp6ch04.htm
http://www.guncite.com/journals/bk-ufire.html
Long before Freud made a study of human mental health, "well regulated" meant "sane".
Too many media and other public personalities, along with too many average and poor Americans, wring their hands and say "There's nothing we can do. If America didn't do anything about gun control after 20 little children were slaughtered at Sandy Hook Elementary nothing will be done. It will take 100 years." Where do these people live? Not in MY America. In my America every single citizen 18 years and up has a vote. All money can buy is votes. WE control OUR society with OUR votes. It is time for all gun control advocates to form a national coalition, with a single answer, and enlist average Americans to get the law passed in their state and in OUR Congress. This is how to defeat the BIG DEMOCRACY-DESTROYING MONEY ALEC/Koch brothers/Wall Street/u.s. chamber of commerce/nra/radical religious right/major media corporate conglomerate that has taken over OUR governments at all levels in America. Our laws will only change when WE make it happen. Bullet-Riddled Bodies Do Not Lie. Guns Kill. Get them off the streets of America. WE must demand that every gun in America be registered on a national database, licensed and fully insured for liability. NOW!
56
How exactly will this prevent some thug in Chicago from murdering a rival drug dealer? The people that would buy the liability insurance are not the people that are committing the thousands of murders each year. Get your head out of the sand and address the real issue...the inner cities of this country have become a Joseph Conrad novel.
On one hand you say "get them [guns] off the streets of America," and on the other hand you say "We must demand that every gun in America be registered...licensed and fully insured."
This makes it quite clear that you don't care about a conversation or finding a middle ground when it comes to guns. You only care about completely ridding the US of them. Your wishes to license every gun in America are only a small step in your larger plan to outright ban them completely. You ignore where the majority of gun crime occurs, you ignore that the overwhelming majority of gun owners never commit crimes with guns, you ignore that all of these mass shootings have taken place in gun free zones.
You try to use the deaths of kids at Sandy Hook to further your agenda and that is disgraceful. You just jump straight to guns instead of ask yourself what we can do to protect our children, period. But having a logical debate with such a fanatic is like talking to a wall... there IS no conversation.
This makes it quite clear that you don't care about a conversation or finding a middle ground when it comes to guns. You only care about completely ridding the US of them. Your wishes to license every gun in America are only a small step in your larger plan to outright ban them completely. You ignore where the majority of gun crime occurs, you ignore that the overwhelming majority of gun owners never commit crimes with guns, you ignore that all of these mass shootings have taken place in gun free zones.
You try to use the deaths of kids at Sandy Hook to further your agenda and that is disgraceful. You just jump straight to guns instead of ask yourself what we can do to protect our children, period. But having a logical debate with such a fanatic is like talking to a wall... there IS no conversation.
Most people do not want their right to keep and bear arms abridged anymore than their right of free speech or their right to practice their religion. Politicians know this, and It is for this reason that calls for more restrictions on their rights have failed. I hope and pray that they will continue to fail, because we may one day face what the Jews faced in 1930s Germany, what Muslims faced in 1990s Croatia and what many Christians are facing in the Middle East today. I want to be armed. I want to be able to fight back instead of going meekly to the slaughter. And so do the majority of people in our country.
17
You may want both the right to own a gun and the right to free speech. However, there are limits even on free speech. You will be in trouble if you shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater or other venue unless there really is a fire. Similarly there should be limits on gun ownership.
There is no problem with rifles used for hunting creatures that walk on 4 legs. The ban should be on hand guns, especially those capable of firing many rounds between reloads.
There is no problem with rifles used for hunting creatures that walk on 4 legs. The ban should be on hand guns, especially those capable of firing many rounds between reloads.
22
Do you seriously think you can oppose--in the highly unlikely event it attacks you--the firepower of the United States Army with your Sig Sauer? More important, do you seriously think the United States Army will ever, ever attack you? Your right to keep and bear arms is based on the need for a militia to protect the United States. To that end, the U.S. government should establish such a militia, and you and your guns should do what militias do: drill, train--and defend the United States against its enemies.
8
and you lack the skills to use smart weapons or the ability to earn enough money to buy them?
Another option is to simply use the Supreme Court argument that there is a "traditional" right to gun ownership and ban all guns that have no traditional USE. That would mean allowing only hunting rifles, shotguns, and simple, nonautomatic handguns. All others are weapons of warfare and their only use is mass murder. In Canada they simply made a list of all weapons useful only for mass murder and banned them, leaving sporting weapons and home defense. The police can maintain a stronger arsenal for special circumstances. But if you can't defend your home with a pump shotgun, you shouldn't be allowed out on the streets without your mother to protect you.
45
How about the technology that existed in 1789 when the 2nd Amendment was written -- You have every right to own as many muzzle loaders as you want.
This is perfect. The originalists use that specious argument when it suits their purposes. I believe there can be rational conversation on this issue, and the authors of this editorial have presented a very practical approach. Lack of effort on gun control has been one of my main disappointments in President Obama. If he continues to fail us, maybe the next President can make it happen.
So you think you can defend the constitution from your house?!
There is only one way to control guns that is the dominant source of violence, criminal activity and death impacting on a horrific number of innocents.
Americans are armed to the teeth and the risks for gun-related violence are huge ! The US is a very violent place to live with its pervasive gun culture and its high incidence of gun-related deaths. By the year 2009, the estimated total number of firearms available to civilians had increased to about 310 million. That is almost one gun per person.
And what has Congress done with respect to the continued violence involving firearms against innocents? NOTHING !
Yet the supporters of the Second Amendment including the NRA, arms manufacturers and lobbyists are stronger than the supporters of the First Amendment who speak on their rights for the safety and security of persons.
What say you America ?
The Second Amendment must be repealed.
Americans are armed to the teeth and the risks for gun-related violence are huge ! The US is a very violent place to live with its pervasive gun culture and its high incidence of gun-related deaths. By the year 2009, the estimated total number of firearms available to civilians had increased to about 310 million. That is almost one gun per person.
And what has Congress done with respect to the continued violence involving firearms against innocents? NOTHING !
Yet the supporters of the Second Amendment including the NRA, arms manufacturers and lobbyists are stronger than the supporters of the First Amendment who speak on their rights for the safety and security of persons.
What say you America ?
The Second Amendment must be repealed.
10
Either that or allow only the types of guns available at the time the Second Amendment was passed.
13
I will never vote to repeal the 2nd amendment and I am not a gun owner. Why? How will we stop the flow of illegal weapons into the US? We can't secure our borders and I don't even want to think about the coasts. Drugs flow into this country so much the price has dropped! Lots of law-abiding citizens have guns and don't cause any trouble. Once guns are illegal they will be for sale on every street corner for anyone to buy, but not for people who take the classes and pay the registration. When you can control the border, come back and talk to me.
You are aware that the gun homicide rate is the lowest it's been since the Wild West as the Second Amendment is slowly restored, are you not? (The Wild West was still lower). You're trying to fix a problem that is solving itself with the exact same methods that created it in the first place.
1
Excellent idea. It makes so much sense. An why not explore the idea of limiting developing way to trace a bullet to the weapon. Also, ban the manufacture of magazine clips.
5
What the hell is a magazine clip?
How do the CEO's of these companies sleep at night? Yes, the suggestions in this article of government interventions offer strategy around the second amendment worshippers, but sitting in those board rooms you would hope that a board member or a CEO would be to the right thing. Not shut down their plant, but rather look for ways to make their business serve the common good rather than private wealth. I guess, when they go to bed at night, they have to believe that arming every citizen in this country is serving the common good---good night.
4
ACJ--right on. How DO the CEO's and board members of the gun companies sleep at night? They sleep because we accept the greedy capitalists who wring every last dime of profit out of the American people no matter what the consequences. It is time to prosecute the people who manufacture and profit from every last gun used in crime. It is time for the makers and anyone profiting from guns used in crimes.
2
It's simple they begin the meeting by swearing allegiance to their profits, and telling each other what they 'must do' for their stockholders.
Firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens is the common good. Don't believe me ask one of the Millions of Jews slaughters in Germany from 1938 - 1945 or one of the millions of Chinese, southeast Asians that were slaughtered at the hands of the Japanese during that same period. That's right you can't, their dead they had no way to defend themselves!
Real limits on guns (maybe start with military-style weapons) will only happen when a large majority of NRA supporters themselves lead the political charge to do it. Then, we as a nation could chip away at this terrible problem. The changes will need to come from "the right" in order to be legislated and truly accepted. Could this possibly happen?
2
As an NRA Life member, the answer is no. We cherish our gun rights and, as the recent dustup over M855 ammo shows, are not shy about expressing our views. This may change in a few generations, but the gun-rights movement is more committed than at any time in history.
As for AR-15s, they are the most popular rifle out there. Gun rights advocates are not going to give them up. Heck, as numbers show in New York and Connecticut, many of them are not even going to register them when ordered.
As for AR-15s, they are the most popular rifle out there. Gun rights advocates are not going to give them up. Heck, as numbers show in New York and Connecticut, many of them are not even going to register them when ordered.
American's are a violent people and gun ownership is part of that penchant. Capitalism dictates that some company(s) profit from this inherent market opportunity and that's just what the firearms industry has done, both at home and abroad, both individually and on a larger scale to sell armaments to foreign nations. Bottom line, gun ownership and the corresponding collateral damage is a core American value.
3
This is so true! Want to ban guns? Then end capitalism! Good luck with that...
I would encourage everyone clamoring to press this brilliant idea of "gun insurance" to head over to Wikipedia and read up on Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Meaningful action on guns will not happen until the Second Amendment is less than a fundamental, integrated right. Otherwise, you can no more ask people to have gun insurance (in case they hurt someone) than you can ask them to have voting insurance in case their vote elects a candidate who hurts someone.
Meaningful action on guns will not happen until the Second Amendment is less than a fundamental, integrated right. Otherwise, you can no more ask people to have gun insurance (in case they hurt someone) than you can ask them to have voting insurance in case their vote elects a candidate who hurts someone.
3
Or until people can read the Second Amendment and understand it.
2
What you seem to miss in this article is that many if not most federal law enforcement is not interested in or is prohibited from using firearms incorporating even the basic safety options currently made available by gun manufacturers. Agencies deal with safety through education and training. When is the NYT going to start promoting the approach used by those most familiar with the use of fire arms.
3
I have legally owned 1 or 2 guns for more than 20 years. The NRA won't let me join because I believe that the average citizen has absolutely NO need for assault rifles or specialized ammunition that shoots through body armor and bullet proof vests. (What possible need is there for this by the average, non-military, or non-police citizen?). I also fully supported the Brady bill and still support background checks for all gun purchases.
That being said, all these "Smart" technologies do not take into account the thousands of guns already out there. Forcing the gun manufacturers to deal only with "reputable" dealers does not account for them either. People that want guns, especially the criminals or "mentally disturbed" will always have access to guns.
Every time there is a shooting, all the anti-gun people start screaming to get rid of all the guns. Were that to actually happen, they would be punishing the law-abiding gun owners along with the criminals. I truly believe in the saying "When you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns".
Registration of guns would help but how would you ensure that all the guns currently out there get registered? Wouldn't the only people to register their guns be the law-abiding citizens that aren't the ones committing the shootings anyway?
Outlawing the guns may reduce the occurrence of shootings and gun related crimes but it would never eradicate it. Sensible gun control measures and better enforcement of the ones in place is needed.
That being said, all these "Smart" technologies do not take into account the thousands of guns already out there. Forcing the gun manufacturers to deal only with "reputable" dealers does not account for them either. People that want guns, especially the criminals or "mentally disturbed" will always have access to guns.
Every time there is a shooting, all the anti-gun people start screaming to get rid of all the guns. Were that to actually happen, they would be punishing the law-abiding gun owners along with the criminals. I truly believe in the saying "When you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns".
Registration of guns would help but how would you ensure that all the guns currently out there get registered? Wouldn't the only people to register their guns be the law-abiding citizens that aren't the ones committing the shootings anyway?
Outlawing the guns may reduce the occurrence of shootings and gun related crimes but it would never eradicate it. Sensible gun control measures and better enforcement of the ones in place is needed.
3
Terry H: "The NRA won't let me join because...." you believe in gun-banner myths? I seriously doubt that. They will be happy to take your money.
Look at what happened with "assault rifle" registration in New York and Ct. Massive non-compliance. Registration is not going to happen, even if passed into law.
So you are OK with firearm ownership as long as those firearms meet YOUR requirements. Are you also just as restrictive with the Freedom of Speech? Or Freedom of Religion? Have my words not met your strict requirements for approval?
Sorry, responsible dealers is not the solution. Almost as bad as the republicans claiming on one hand that no law could stop the ongoing and frequent gun massacres while a law that would encourage active military to carry guns would somehow reduce massacres of innocents. Almost as stupid as arming school teachers. Archie Bunker's satire comes to mind - pass out hand guns to all people boarding air planes to negate the hijacker's advantage. Why everyone is so afraid of the NRA is also absurd. Why so many people believe the constitution gives them an unalienable right to own guns is again ridiculous. Let's just essentially eliminate private gun ownership like the rest of the civilized world. Problem solved.
9
This Op-Ed is an admission that the lobbying and propaganda efforts of the firearms "bidniss" can't be overcome.
I don't agree.
I believe the majority of Americans are sensible and don't want their children killed by a handgun illegally obtained by a 15 year old.
Obama's '08 campaign clearly demonstrated how much Americans from both parties wanted change.
Here's a news flash: they still do. Nixon's "Silent Majority" understands that something very wrong has happened and is still happening in their country. They're just not sure what it is. Unless I'm totally off the mark, this is what a pundit would call a "political vacuum."
Gun control is a political problem that the country needs to address. Until it does, no amount of nibbling around the edges will amount to much.
I don't agree.
I believe the majority of Americans are sensible and don't want their children killed by a handgun illegally obtained by a 15 year old.
Obama's '08 campaign clearly demonstrated how much Americans from both parties wanted change.
Here's a news flash: they still do. Nixon's "Silent Majority" understands that something very wrong has happened and is still happening in their country. They're just not sure what it is. Unless I'm totally off the mark, this is what a pundit would call a "political vacuum."
Gun control is a political problem that the country needs to address. Until it does, no amount of nibbling around the edges will amount to much.
5
The social deal isn't working according to the contract, evidently at gunpoint.
So let's not address the issue of why a 15 year old would want to steal a gun and murder someone...lets infringe on the rights of 300 million other people who have no plans to murder anyone because it's more politically correct and doesn't carry the risk of being called a racist.
Agree that most of us desire to stop the insanity regarding guns . It is past time to stop hiding the very profitable business for the manufacturers, the NRA and the obsessive collectors of maximum fire power for their pleasure of "having". At the time the hallowed Second amendment was drafted the frontier was crawling with the native people who in the main had a lack of appreciation for our civilization and resisted our taking their lands. So the authors of the constitution wrote in the qualified stipulation allowing the "Right to bear arms" as a part of a well REGULATED militia. And in the late 1700's there were few stores and the single shot rifle was vital if the family was eat and have leather for clothing. For heavens sake people, that was what was 250 years ago. Today there are over 300 million of us (and a few surviving natives) with food stores on every corner a little wild game; so with little or nothing to shoot except each other and we have big multi and rapid shooters designed to kill any
two legged creature.
Is it not time for intelligent leaders to rise up REPRAL or REVISE the totally worthless language and stop the excessive profits of the few at the expense of the children and adults that die daily ?
two legged creature.
Is it not time for intelligent leaders to rise up REPRAL or REVISE the totally worthless language and stop the excessive profits of the few at the expense of the children and adults that die daily ?
I like the idea of the executive branch simply requiring government contracts to contain language that pushes gun manufacturers to self-report.
Guns are used in 95% of all domestic terrorist attacks.
Guns are designed for one purpose only: to kill things, and guns such as handguns are designed for one purpose only: to kill people.
Maybe by requiring gun manufacturers to tell people what their guns are used for and what they are doing to track gun purchases we can raise awareness of how thoroughly guns have saturated American culture.
Guns are used in 95% of all domestic terrorist attacks.
Guns are designed for one purpose only: to kill things, and guns such as handguns are designed for one purpose only: to kill people.
Maybe by requiring gun manufacturers to tell people what their guns are used for and what they are doing to track gun purchases we can raise awareness of how thoroughly guns have saturated American culture.
6
How about we start by eliminating the absurd protection from product liability lawsuits currently enjoyed by gun manufacturers. They need to have more skin in tnis game than just sales and profits. Cigarette and liquor manufacurers don't have that kind of protection and they also sell legal products.
12
I like this idea in theory. Very sensible.
But you only have to look to what happened with Medicare Part D, the drug prescription benefit put through during the Bush II administration. It was originally proposed that the law include the ability for Medicare to get lower prices based on it's purchasing power. But that was DOA due to Big Pharma putting pressure on lawmakers. The same thing will happen with this idea.
But you only have to look to what happened with Medicare Part D, the drug prescription benefit put through during the Bush II administration. It was originally proposed that the law include the ability for Medicare to get lower prices based on it's purchasing power. But that was DOA due to Big Pharma putting pressure on lawmakers. The same thing will happen with this idea.
4
Lets get real.First,we are unique in the world in calling our police "law enforcement",a subtle but important difference since the connotation is overseeing and acting rather than serving the citizens.Second,we need to recognize that state and local police as well as the FBI have an "arm up"culture,ostensibly because the "bad guys" are armed but in reality more to do with the macho culture amongst these groups.Third,since the majority of our citizens have been conditioned to expect the police to be "tough on crime",few politicians are willing to take up the cause.It is conceivable that the conversation just started on the wisdom of mandatory sentencing etc ,together with the recent spate of police brutality may expand to a review of how we expect our "law enforcement" agencies to act.Should the citizens modify their view we may just be able to pursue the ideas presented in this op-ed.
3
One of the major problems we have with guns in this country is that the stupid things last forever. Guns made for the Civil War are still capable of killing people today. It's time we revisted Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's idea of putting a very high tax on the sale of ammunition; and altogether banning its manufacture and sale for assault weapons other than for the police and military. The ammunition used in these weapons typically gets shot up by the owners in a matter of a few years. It is chemically sophisticated, and hard to manufacture in the average home kitchen or basement. Regrettably, there could be a high rate of mortality among the people who still insisted on trying to make it for themselves, but this is one of the prices the rest of would reluctantly have to pay for living in a free and safer country.
16
Excellent suggestions. But in a society where economics trump moral issues even in the most sensitive of subjects like human welfare, we are destined to drift, passively and aimlessly, for a long time.
Perhaps human nature is such that there will be those who deem the ship to be in a safe port, sheltered from the storm, where steering is altogether unnecessary. Just as soon as there will be others who, with a sense of alarm, see the same ship as careening toward a direct confrontation with rocky shoals or the Titanic’s iceberg. Perhaps there can be no effective reconciliation between these contrasting visions.
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2015/06/steer-or-drift-part-one...
Perhaps human nature is such that there will be those who deem the ship to be in a safe port, sheltered from the storm, where steering is altogether unnecessary. Just as soon as there will be others who, with a sense of alarm, see the same ship as careening toward a direct confrontation with rocky shoals or the Titanic’s iceberg. Perhaps there can be no effective reconciliation between these contrasting visions.
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2015/06/steer-or-drift-part-one...
Excellent suggestion. We should also require gun shops to sell only to people who have bunny rabbits.
There are more guns out there than are sold in any one year and from any one source. Fiddling with gun purchases, when most criminals obtain their guns through a vast, unregulated market makes perfect sense if you don't happen to have any.
How's this for a solution: reinstitute slavery. Individuals, irrespective of race, religion or country of nation origin, found guilty of gun crimes, would be stripped of their civil rights and enrolled in chain gangs, repairing our highways, picking up trash and remediating environmental damage in our cities and national parks.
Simple, effective and a snow ball's chance in hell of happening.
There are more guns out there than are sold in any one year and from any one source. Fiddling with gun purchases, when most criminals obtain their guns through a vast, unregulated market makes perfect sense if you don't happen to have any.
How's this for a solution: reinstitute slavery. Individuals, irrespective of race, religion or country of nation origin, found guilty of gun crimes, would be stripped of their civil rights and enrolled in chain gangs, repairing our highways, picking up trash and remediating environmental damage in our cities and national parks.
Simple, effective and a snow ball's chance in hell of happening.
6
10/10 for cynicism and 0/10 for any long term sense. Attitude like this does not solve problems, it ensures they keep getting worse.
As a resident of Chattanooga, I find this article very timely. While the recent shooting of the two military centers grabs the headlines, there is more to the story. Both the city of Chattanooga and the state of Tennessee are awash in guns and gun violence. Tennessee lax gun laws allow weapons to be carried almost anywhere and the state consistently ranks at or near the top of violent crime. The city of Chattanooga reports gun related crime or a shooting almost daily. The city has implemented a Violence Reduction Initiative only to see the violence increase.
When I applied to work at a Chattanooga high school, I was fingerprinted and a background check was run. When my wife hires a new nurse, they have to pass a background check and drug test. When my sons sought their driver’s licenses, they had to pass a written and practical test of ability and knowledge. To buy a gun, all I need is money.
Our so-called leaders, from Corker and Alexander in DC, to state governor and local officials mourn the loss of four Marines—rightly so. What I don’t see, even before the events of Thursday, is action (or even a rational discussion) on simple background checks or closing the gun show loophole. I am not talking about curtailment of the Second Amendment, I am talking about adding requirements akin to what a teacher, a nurse, or a new driver must follow.
When I applied to work at a Chattanooga high school, I was fingerprinted and a background check was run. When my wife hires a new nurse, they have to pass a background check and drug test. When my sons sought their driver’s licenses, they had to pass a written and practical test of ability and knowledge. To buy a gun, all I need is money.
Our so-called leaders, from Corker and Alexander in DC, to state governor and local officials mourn the loss of four Marines—rightly so. What I don’t see, even before the events of Thursday, is action (or even a rational discussion) on simple background checks or closing the gun show loophole. I am not talking about curtailment of the Second Amendment, I am talking about adding requirements akin to what a teacher, a nurse, or a new driver must follow.
270
I think that guns should be treated like cars.
Register all guns and keep a complete database easily accessible by law enforcement.
Require gun owners to get a licence which requires tests both written and practical with different tests for different kinds of guns.
Require gun owners to carry liability insurance.
Subject gun owners to a myriad of rules as to how they may operate the guns such as making it illegal to operate a gun while under the influence of alcohol.
Require regular inspections of guns.
Regulate what type of guns are legal and where various types can be used.
Have a special group of police whose sole duty is to see that gun operators obey the rules,
Please no babbling about rights vs privileges. All rights have restrictions. You can't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. Furthermore the words "Well Regulated" appear in the 2nd amendment.
Register all guns and keep a complete database easily accessible by law enforcement.
Require gun owners to get a licence which requires tests both written and practical with different tests for different kinds of guns.
Require gun owners to carry liability insurance.
Subject gun owners to a myriad of rules as to how they may operate the guns such as making it illegal to operate a gun while under the influence of alcohol.
Require regular inspections of guns.
Regulate what type of guns are legal and where various types can be used.
Have a special group of police whose sole duty is to see that gun operators obey the rules,
Please no babbling about rights vs privileges. All rights have restrictions. You can't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. Furthermore the words "Well Regulated" appear in the 2nd amendment.
30
We already have Homeland Security, the biggest bureaucracy on Earth. How are we going to afford yet another one?
"Please no babbling about rights vs privileges. All rights have restrictions. You can't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. Furthermore the words "Well Regulated" appear in the 2nd amendment."
You're right, you can't "falsely yell fire in a crowded theater" but you can, and should, if there is an actual fire. Just like you have the legal Right to use your firearm if your life is in danger but to use it in a crime. And please do some research on the "Well Regulated" section of the 2nd Amendment before spouting off about it.
You're right, you can't "falsely yell fire in a crowded theater" but you can, and should, if there is an actual fire. Just like you have the legal Right to use your firearm if your life is in danger but to use it in a crime. And please do some research on the "Well Regulated" section of the 2nd Amendment before spouting off about it.
petowl, it will be more than paid for by the reduction in the huge costs of gun related injuries and deaths.
"It costs over $2 billion a year in hospital charges to treat victims of firearms-related injuries.
That was the major finding of a study released today at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association (APHA). "
http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/inside-criminal-justice/2013-11-the-p...
"It costs over $2 billion a year in hospital charges to treat victims of firearms-related injuries.
That was the major finding of a study released today at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association (APHA). "
http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/inside-criminal-justice/2013-11-the-p...
I expect that before too long we are going to begin seeing extremely shocking mass shootings in this country, sometimes exceeding 100 deaths -- possibly even of children -- in a single incident.
When that happens the government should be prepared to bring together all of the chief participants in the gun debate, including the NRA, if they are willing to participate, to hammer out a proposal for reducing gun assaults consisting of the 10 or 20 best ideas for doing so. There are some good ideas for reducing gun violence, but none that, in and of themselves, would make much difference.
A compromise package proposal that might modestly reduce gun assaults is probably the best we can expect in the foreseeable future. I don’t believe we are going to have to wait very long before our mass shooting problem turns much uglier than it already is.
When that happens the government should be prepared to bring together all of the chief participants in the gun debate, including the NRA, if they are willing to participate, to hammer out a proposal for reducing gun assaults consisting of the 10 or 20 best ideas for doing so. There are some good ideas for reducing gun violence, but none that, in and of themselves, would make much difference.
A compromise package proposal that might modestly reduce gun assaults is probably the best we can expect in the foreseeable future. I don’t believe we are going to have to wait very long before our mass shooting problem turns much uglier than it already is.
6
20 dead children in Connecticut wasn't enough to start this dialogue?
Based on your predictions, the best solution is to lock up the mentally ill, who are invariable the people who committ these atrocities. I would rather lock up thousands than take a constitutional right from millions. Unfortunately for both of us, the Constitution won't allow us to do either.
This editorial is riddled with flaws. For starters, legally purchased firearms, just do not, as a matter of fact, represent how most guns end up in murderers' hands.... Guns used to murder are with rare exception stolen from people who legally purchased them and irresponsibly stored them in homes and cars, or were purchased on a secondary market. (neither has anything to do with manufacturers)
Secondly, the reason these particular guns mentioned are commonly used in crimes is because there are millions of them in civilian hands already. It stands to reason that the most common guns in America are the most common guns used for crimes. Just like the most common cars in America are the ones most commonly involved in accidents.
Third, the relatively small number of legally purchased guns used in crimes could be legally purchased anywhere. The owners would have passed all necessary background screenings. The "bad" sellers (those who sell large quantities of guns to straw purchasers) are almost exclusively intended for the Mexican market.
This argument is also entirely predicated on the mistaken belief that gun manufacturers share equally in military and federal contracts. They don't. Most of the 100's of thousands of M-16's the military uses are made by FN (not even on the list). Almost all the military's pistols are made by Beretta. Ruger and half the companies listed have zero military contracts.
There is more to criticize, but why bother...
Secondly, the reason these particular guns mentioned are commonly used in crimes is because there are millions of them in civilian hands already. It stands to reason that the most common guns in America are the most common guns used for crimes. Just like the most common cars in America are the ones most commonly involved in accidents.
Third, the relatively small number of legally purchased guns used in crimes could be legally purchased anywhere. The owners would have passed all necessary background screenings. The "bad" sellers (those who sell large quantities of guns to straw purchasers) are almost exclusively intended for the Mexican market.
This argument is also entirely predicated on the mistaken belief that gun manufacturers share equally in military and federal contracts. They don't. Most of the 100's of thousands of M-16's the military uses are made by FN (not even on the list). Almost all the military's pistols are made by Beretta. Ruger and half the companies listed have zero military contracts.
There is more to criticize, but why bother...
5
The NRA and gun manufacturing industries hide behind their distorted view of the 2nd amendment. They will continue their relentless disinformation strategies for as long as we allow it. So be it. The next line of action would be personal responsibility. Day after day we hear of children finding weapons and accidently shooting someone, usually, another family member. Even with these tragic heartbreaking circumstances, the gun owners need to be held responsible. Their needs to be severe penalties when these tragedies occur. If Mrs. Lanza (Sandy Hook) had her weapons locked away where Adam had no chance of getting at them, perhaps that horrific tragedy would have never taken place. At the very least Adam would have had to resort to some other plan. Smart technology seems to be one way to go. We can do this. We did it with drunk driving. The penalties for driving drunk were severe enough to dramatically reduce the number of fatalities. The same principle should work here. The NRA and all the 2nd amendment folks should be able to compromise enough on that portion of the issue. By the way, Congresses inaction on this issue is disgusting. To trade money from the gun industry and the NRA for public safety is reprehensible and they should be ashamed of themselves. What do they think "public servant" means?
4
Guns don't get to crime scenes because of manufacturer practices, but because they are stolen or straw purchased--many by people in the Reverends' communities. The second order effect of what they propose would be increased government spending on firearm acquisitions. Plus, the lesson of the AR 15 becoming the most popular rifle in America is that the qualities that the federal government wants in weapons are precisely the same things that the public wants. Smart weapons technology will fly when it is 100% 24/7/365 reliable and reasonably inexpensive for people or the government to purchase. And the reader proposals for gun insurance are really ill advised--and I am a gun insurance owner. Requiring insurance of gun owners would be a huge boost for the NRA. They already offer such insurance, which is relatively cheap because people responsible enough to buy it almost never have accidents. But if insurance were required, they would heavily discount it to NRA members, and as a matter of practicality their membership ranks would increase--probably by a factor of 10 or more, because most gun owners obey the law and would get insurance through the NRA. Because of the resulting NRA membership surge, requiring insurance of gun owners would eliminate the possibility of ever again passing even a single gun control bill. Meanwhile, the gang bangers and disenfranchised criminals that commit most of the gun violence would never buy insurance--they don't even buy it on their cars.
3
There are more guns than people in this nation.
This does nothing about the 200,000,000 weapons out there already.
This does nothing about the 200,000,000 weapons out there already.
4
The NYT is proposing solutions to issues this morning, not just citing problelms -- hats off to the effort, to some cogent options for consideration here and elsewhere. Good job.
Guns are really not that smart: they will work for anyone, and that's the root of the problem. How do we control the underworld? I don't see much hope in that regard: there won't be the necessary support for that level of control.
Invention is the answer. We need options for self-defense that may be chosen over gun ownership. Florida, for example, restricts the ownership of a knife down to the small Victorinox that is sufficient to open doughnut packages, UNLESS you qualify for gun license, then you can actually purchase a larger knife that a fisherman could use. We need to look into this extremism on the federal level. Obviously, they won't.
"Don't put your finger on the Glock trigger!" said one handgun instructor who shot himself in a handgun course while pulling his gun out of his holster.
The "Squeeze cock" system should be reinstituted and required of all handguns! You have to squeeze the lever on the handle to cock the gun for immediate firing -- that was a "smart" gun that had been replaced. Dumb and dumber! took over the manufacturer.
ALL AUTOMATIC HANDGUNS should have a "squeeze cock" system, period!
Guns are really not that smart: they will work for anyone, and that's the root of the problem. How do we control the underworld? I don't see much hope in that regard: there won't be the necessary support for that level of control.
Invention is the answer. We need options for self-defense that may be chosen over gun ownership. Florida, for example, restricts the ownership of a knife down to the small Victorinox that is sufficient to open doughnut packages, UNLESS you qualify for gun license, then you can actually purchase a larger knife that a fisherman could use. We need to look into this extremism on the federal level. Obviously, they won't.
"Don't put your finger on the Glock trigger!" said one handgun instructor who shot himself in a handgun course while pulling his gun out of his holster.
The "Squeeze cock" system should be reinstituted and required of all handguns! You have to squeeze the lever on the handle to cock the gun for immediate firing -- that was a "smart" gun that had been replaced. Dumb and dumber! took over the manufacturer.
ALL AUTOMATIC HANDGUNS should have a "squeeze cock" system, period!
Wayne LaPierre is a certifiable crackpot. Without guns he's just laughingstock.
5
Every mass shooter in recent history has been an insane mental case who should have been locked up before he could commit a murder. What's your point?
1
Same issues, same response. We are life long gun owners and hunters. We do not belong to the NRA since they redirected their gun policies in the 1970's. Most of our neighbors own guns regardless of political persuasion usually a couple of shotguns and a couple of rifles, almost all of them used for hunting or varmints and very very rarely for personal protection. I shot a racoon just a month ago that was confirmed to have rabies. For the majority of us, background checks for all purchases are commonplace. DU banquets, auctions, etc. all do background checks on the spot. When I sell a firearm, we go to the sporting goods store who will do the background check. Hunter safety instruction is required in every state (other than us old timers who are literally and figuratively grandfathered in). All firearms owners should be required to have a firearms safety class. Sellers should be monitored. Those dealers who are indiscriminate sellers should be shut down. Liability insurance? I know my insurance agent knows I have firearms (he has a list of the serial numbers for insurance purposes). I also carry extra liability insurance. As to the putting more laws on the government to affect gun manufacturer's, I doubt it would work. Gun safety technologies? How would that work with my shotgun when we are hunting upland birds in December at 10 below zero with gloves or in a deer stand with a 25 below wind chill?
16
The design of guns matters. Guns made to shoot people encourage people to shoot people.
I agree; please see my recent post to see if it addresses your concerns.
While the Republicans lack the political will and cultural compassion to stave off the increasing tragedy of gun violence in America, they are all in for increase expenditures for homeland security and national defense. Perhaps, if violent crime would be included in "homeland security," something would be done...
8
How about producing "smart cars" that require a sober person to operate the car. Last I looked cars have been killing more people then guns. Most deaths by guns are the result of a criminal owning that gun illegally. Most of the alcohol related auto deaths involve innocent law abiding people and most deaths by guns still involve CRIMINALS! It boggles my mind......
7
If I'm not mistaken, the majority of gun deaths and injuries are the result of domestic violence and accidents, not criminal activity. Also, in the criminal activities, the criminal somehow acquired a gun, whether legally or illegally. Every gun starts out as a legally sold weapon, it filters its way into the criminal's hands somehow.
Maxwell, there are interlock devices that prevent drunkards from aperating automobiles and their use been been mandated by courts in some cases. You are right that not every car is so equipped.
It boggles my mind that you do not grasp how much more damage guns do than cars on the basis of the time they are in use.
Dealing effectively with gun safety requires the knowledge of when things go off the rails. The true costs of guns in America is hidden by dilution--one murder here, one suicide there, one "accident" there. [An aside: Buddhists might say there are no accidents. A child shooting a playmate with a loaded weapon is not an accident when an irresponsible owner has left a gun accessible. It is a statistical probability.]
For some time after Newtown, Mr. Nocera and his staff sponsored an ongoing catalog of gun deaths and injuries which appears to have ended. Gun deaths have not ended, though, just our notice of them.
Media could also help by simply partitioning death notices in two groups: a) those by gun, b) all others.
To the NYTimes, McClatchey, NPR, Gannett, AP, UPI, Tribune, USA Today: help us understand what we are doing to one another because of our adamantine adherence to antediluvian ideas of personal rights (without personal responsibility).
For some time after Newtown, Mr. Nocera and his staff sponsored an ongoing catalog of gun deaths and injuries which appears to have ended. Gun deaths have not ended, though, just our notice of them.
Media could also help by simply partitioning death notices in two groups: a) those by gun, b) all others.
To the NYTimes, McClatchey, NPR, Gannett, AP, UPI, Tribune, USA Today: help us understand what we are doing to one another because of our adamantine adherence to antediluvian ideas of personal rights (without personal responsibility).
11
I agree with one point. There are no gun accidents. Follow the rules and everyone should go home with all of their toes.
Gun discussions evidently have the same degeneracy to Groundhog Day as discussions of climate change.
Ban assault weapons; hand guns provide enough "private" protection. Strength background checks and increase waiting periods to do so. Private citizens have no need for assault weapons.
7
This very intelligent and well thought out article offers some solutions THAT DO NOT LIMIT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TO PURCHASE OR OWN GUNS.
The suggestions focus on a key step in the acquisition of guns by criminals---the marketing strategy of the gun manufacturers. Waiting times are not increased although that might be a good idea too. Nobody's right to bear arms is being infringed on. If the right is being made more difficult well maybe that is a good thing considering that we're not talking about wedding cakes here but "machines that kill humans". Cars fall into that category
although unlike guns cars are not designed and manufactured solely to kill.
And look at how much we regulate cars and enforce the laws. A police officer is more likely to stop you for a traffic violation than a gun offense. It is true traffic offenses are more obvious but I think gun offenses are more serious.
Change the ways manufacturers marketi the guns they produce and you could save a whole lot of lives without seriously limiting or impinging on individual right to bear arms.
The suggestions focus on a key step in the acquisition of guns by criminals---the marketing strategy of the gun manufacturers. Waiting times are not increased although that might be a good idea too. Nobody's right to bear arms is being infringed on. If the right is being made more difficult well maybe that is a good thing considering that we're not talking about wedding cakes here but "machines that kill humans". Cars fall into that category
although unlike guns cars are not designed and manufactured solely to kill.
And look at how much we regulate cars and enforce the laws. A police officer is more likely to stop you for a traffic violation than a gun offense. It is true traffic offenses are more obvious but I think gun offenses are more serious.
Change the ways manufacturers marketi the guns they produce and you could save a whole lot of lives without seriously limiting or impinging on individual right to bear arms.
11
The "gun rights" or shall we call them the gun profits people do not want to control guns in any way shape or form. The "rights" or second amendment argument is contrived. I don't altogether excuse President Obama for not using his executive powers to the uttermost on this, but in the end Obama is not the problem.
4
People buy guns to kill. Bullet-Riddled Bodies Do Not Lie. Guns Kill. Get them off the streets of America. WE must demand that every gun in America be registered on a national database, licensed and fully insured for liability. NOW!
11
TV has taught me that a gun has a unique ballistic pattern, just like a human fingerprint. Does a manufacturer keep a record of that gun's ballistics and its serial number? Along with distribution records, that could help reduce criminal traffic. Of course it won't make any difference with weapons that are obtained illegally, but in time, it might.
8
Recent studies have shown that what you learned on TV about ballistics is wrong. Just like fingerprints are not foolproof identification, hair does not have characteristics that are unique for one person (except DNA analysis - hair has been used for decades to "prove" a person's guilt), and eyewitness evidence is most often wrong, and innocent people will confess under enough pressure from police questioners.
1
TV is TV, not real life.
TV taught me that any man shooting at some food could discover oil and become a 1%er.
TV taught me that any man shooting at some food could discover oil and become a 1%er.
1
TV is wrong, shotguns do not have a "unique ballistic pattern" , most high velocity rifle bullets are too deformed to determine the rifling pattern and such patterns will change over time with heavy use. I believe that one state tried to keep bullets from each new gun sold and gave up after a few years because they were useless.
1
I intend to unsubscribe from this news paper over this obviously biased article. We have the first and second amendment to consider.
14
I've often thought the same thing, but over different issues.
But the mark of an educated and mature person is that they can listen to arguments they find distasteful without simply shutting down their thinking.
Perhaps the problems in America can be solved if we are open to more points of view than just those that affirm how right we are.
Just a thought.
But the mark of an educated and mature person is that they can listen to arguments they find distasteful without simply shutting down their thinking.
Perhaps the problems in America can be solved if we are open to more points of view than just those that affirm how right we are.
Just a thought.
1
Bothe the first and second amendments seem to have been edited. The clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" effectively does not exist, and so it goes as well for the principle that only sane people should be trusted with guns by the sane unarmed.
I fail to see what the First has to do here, but let me point out that prior to Heller v DC, 7 Supreme Court decisions held that an unfettered person has no constitutional right to own a gun, The very conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger called that idea that such a person has that right "a fraud upon the American people."
So, here's the solution. Make possession of any guns by all private citizens and off-duty military and police illegal, punishable by a minimum of 10 years in jail. Give three years notice before this goes in to effect. During those three years, people can hand in their guns in exchange for a big screen TV and six-pack of beer. Gun deaths would (almost) entirely disappear. Those who enjoy shooting animals could shoot with a camera lens instead. Those who like target practice can take up darts. Those who want to feel big and tough can..well, they'll think of something.
12
You should move to a country without a Constitutional right to bear arms. Why stay here where your freedoms from governmental intrusion were based on that right.
ER of Earth would like to ban all privately owned guns. Well, not gonna happen in Amuricuh. There will always be angry people who believe that God wrote the Second Amendment, giving them the unrestricted right to carry a Glock while shopping at WalMart, fearful folks whose goal is to intimidate others, and inadequate fellows who feel the need to display their, um, "weapons." The best we can do is to regulate the manufacture and sale of firearms as suggested in this article. I would add that there ought to be a campaign of contempt for those angry and ignorant ideas, much like the anti-smoking ads that show how "sophisticated" smoking can be when you don't have a lower jaw.
This article is once more is about 'smart' guns, 'responsible' dealers, wait times and background checks. That is just a first - if necessary step - in our present political environment.
Yet, it is really high time for our learned members of SCOTUS, and the not-so-learned members of Congress to correctly interpret and apply a text written in 18th century language - a time when punctuation rules didn't exist.
After just having defeated a mighty standing army with a true people's militia, the Founding fathers were vehemently opposed to forming a standing army on these shores to protect the new country.
Their intent most certainly was not that a few hundred years later, at a time when their country has a military larger than the next 10 nations combined, every Tom, Dick and Harriet can arm themselves to the teeth with guns that fire numerous shots per second by claiming they are members of 'a well regulated militia'.
When will this country wake up and realize that more people die by gun every week and even day than all year around in other advanced nations, only because our masses and leaders can't read 18th century English?
Yet, it is really high time for our learned members of SCOTUS, and the not-so-learned members of Congress to correctly interpret and apply a text written in 18th century language - a time when punctuation rules didn't exist.
After just having defeated a mighty standing army with a true people's militia, the Founding fathers were vehemently opposed to forming a standing army on these shores to protect the new country.
Their intent most certainly was not that a few hundred years later, at a time when their country has a military larger than the next 10 nations combined, every Tom, Dick and Harriet can arm themselves to the teeth with guns that fire numerous shots per second by claiming they are members of 'a well regulated militia'.
When will this country wake up and realize that more people die by gun every week and even day than all year around in other advanced nations, only because our masses and leaders can't read 18th century English?
130
Yes it also why several of those countries around the world have refugees on the move trying to find a place to live in relative safety. People often dying as the flee their homes. They don't have a population in the position to respond in any meaningful way to overreach by their government. Nor do they have the philosophical frame of mind that would even suggest the possibility because they do not share our 2nd amendment.
Ah yes, 18th Century English: the word "regulated" meant well-trained or well-drilled, hence the word "Regular" to describe professional troops.
A well-trained militia would be a fine thing.
A well-trained militia would be a fine thing.
@Conservative Catholic.
I am writing about American history and reading comprehension of an 18th century text here, and write in 21rst century English about the gun death rate in other advanced country, emphasis on advanced.
Are you seriously suggesting that the refugee problem in war torn nations is a result of their not sharing our cherished 2nd amendment?
I am writing about American history and reading comprehension of an 18th century text here, and write in 21rst century English about the gun death rate in other advanced country, emphasis on advanced.
Are you seriously suggesting that the refugee problem in war torn nations is a result of their not sharing our cherished 2nd amendment?
1
A beginning. But what is it about our American culture that makes us so violent? Americans have a history of incivility. By mid 20th Century we earned the moniker, "ugly American". Over the decades our disregard for others has only grown. On the roads drivers attempt to intimidate others; on the Internet bullying and threats are common. On our airwaves, radios broadcast hate speech. Our nightly entertainment is a diet of gruesome crime shows with ever more graphic violence.
Take a society that has no respect for others and put guns in their hands. Pass laws allowing open carry of guns. Allow military style assault weapons. Allow magazines with a hundred rounds of ammunition. Pass laws that provide loopholes in background checks. Allow the sale of weapons without background checks. Allow the sale of large numbers of weapons purchased by a single buyer. Is there any wonder the daily news reports a dozen shooting and murder stories?
America is on a trajectory towards even greater violence. The NRA is a marketing agent for violence. The GOP represents people who have a great propensity towards incivility and disrespect for others. Together they move us towards fear and violence. We need to rein in the guns; they make our violent nature more destructive, but we also need to look inward and find out what it is that makes us such a violent society in the first place.
Take a society that has no respect for others and put guns in their hands. Pass laws allowing open carry of guns. Allow military style assault weapons. Allow magazines with a hundred rounds of ammunition. Pass laws that provide loopholes in background checks. Allow the sale of weapons without background checks. Allow the sale of large numbers of weapons purchased by a single buyer. Is there any wonder the daily news reports a dozen shooting and murder stories?
America is on a trajectory towards even greater violence. The NRA is a marketing agent for violence. The GOP represents people who have a great propensity towards incivility and disrespect for others. Together they move us towards fear and violence. We need to rein in the guns; they make our violent nature more destructive, but we also need to look inward and find out what it is that makes us such a violent society in the first place.
63
We saw mob violence this year didn't we? Now, think hard.
I do not believe in violence. I refuse to be a victim.
I do not believe in violence. I refuse to be a victim.
Why not simply severely limit the ammunition. Ownership of guns is a Second Amendment right as I understand, but ownership of ammunition is not mentioned, and therefore could be restricted.
17
This is total nonsense. The constitution doesn't "mention" women and blacks either (calls them persons), does that mean we can restrict their rights? The first amendment does not mention the Internet, does that mean that our speech rights are restricted to what we utter and print in a paper?
1
This was an ill informed piece.
Millions of Americans own guns, purchased legally and commit no crimes with them.
The firearms dealers sell to people that pass the FBI background check. If the state police or Feds have information that has net been included in the system, don't blame store.
FBI crime data flat out shows that gun crimes are down like 40% over the past 20 years as gun sales have soared.
Most crimes occur in the same areas, often associated with gangs or drug, focus there. Pay people to inform on the criminal element in their neighborhoods.
The U.S. Constitution protects our right to own firearms. It does not say we have the right to drive or marry who we want-not that I have a problem with either.. It is #2 on our bill of rights.
States and cities with the most gun restrictions have the most crime. This is proven by the data.
We have too many gun laws and to little effort to stop criminals. Oh and I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop. When you need the police in seconds, they are only minutes away.
Guns can be safe and fun. Get educated
Millions of Americans own guns, purchased legally and commit no crimes with them.
The firearms dealers sell to people that pass the FBI background check. If the state police or Feds have information that has net been included in the system, don't blame store.
FBI crime data flat out shows that gun crimes are down like 40% over the past 20 years as gun sales have soared.
Most crimes occur in the same areas, often associated with gangs or drug, focus there. Pay people to inform on the criminal element in their neighborhoods.
The U.S. Constitution protects our right to own firearms. It does not say we have the right to drive or marry who we want-not that I have a problem with either.. It is #2 on our bill of rights.
States and cities with the most gun restrictions have the most crime. This is proven by the data.
We have too many gun laws and to little effort to stop criminals. Oh and I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop. When you need the police in seconds, they are only minutes away.
Guns can be safe and fun. Get educated
16
Something like 86% of shootings are committed with a gun not legally owned by the shooter, so the advocates of better background checks will need to set up a table on 36th and Market Street (Philadelphia) to assist in getting those gun transactions properly checked.
Prior to Heller, 7 Supreme court decisions ruled that only members of "well-regulated militia's" have a constitutional right to own a gun.
Okay, guns can be safe and fun. The point here is that the under regulation of guns in this violent country of ours has made them instruments of death and destruction to too many of our citizens. Regular guy, I suspect you carry a gun because you fear all the other non-regular guys (read thugs) who also possess guns. If this country was not awash in guns, your fear would not be justified.
I can think of at least three areas of the constitution this would violate. The bad guys have no problem getting guns, and in fact many other weapons that are used in murder and mayhem are not regulated. Just take a look at the list the FBI collects.
7
This idea is substantially more productive than wars to keep oil flowing, and probably much cheaper.
1
We screen people every day for depression, anxiety, ADD, etc through questionnaires. Something like this should be given to gun dealers to screen for someone who is mentally imbalanced enough to use the gun in a shooting like Sandy Hook. Then they could refuse the purchase at the point of sale and have the ID of the person so a tragedy could be prevented.
26
Really, a questionnaire? That's going to catch the mentally ill? Then why do psychiatrists bother with 4 years of college, another 4 of medical school and residency? Let 's just let the average gun seller take care of diagnosing the mentally ill. Also, if a questionnaire asks if you are depressed and you are but want a gun, you will answer honestly. Without a do it the most highly irresponsible suggestion in a comment ever. NEW York Times, you need someone reviewing comments who has a clue.Also, you have one less subscriber, not that you will care.
Except gun dealers are not qualified to interpret those questionnaires.
In the state of Maryland, if you want to buy a bottle of gin, you must go to the state-licensed liquor store and produce proof of age. If you need amoxycillin for your kid's earache, it requires both a visit to a licensed physician, then to the licensed druggist for the RX. My car is registered, and I hold a license to drive it. Regulation permeates every sector of our lives when it is deemed prudent and necessary to regulate. Yet I, who have never fired a weapon and have no training to do so, could go to a gun show and buy a semi-automatic gun and bullets designed for warfare. This doesn't make sense. People are threatened by the waiting period; there is a waiting period to book a room on Air BnB. Guns are more dangerous than alcohol, prescription drugs, automobiles, or renting a room. Calling regulation an "infringement of civil liberties" is one of those buzzwords designed to frighten people and take any discussion whatsoever off the table.
286
Gun controls won't stop deranged people from acquiring guns. Most of our daily gun murders are committed with guns taken from the homes of people who acquired them legally. It is long past time for the media to recognize that highly sophisticated military weapons designed expressly to kill human beings should not be in private hands whether registered or not registered.
167
How do criminals get guns from the homes of legal owners? Don't owners lock them in gun safes? Are their firearms just laying around their home?
It's refreshing to see a detailed plan and not just a problem analysis, even if the plan does have workability and impact issues that need to be addressed in future debates, and perhaps even hear in the forum.
Prudence is needed if a plan will actually be implemented. A hard-core plan will only lead to failure due to the "watering down" process in Congress.
Prudence is needed if a plan will actually be implemented. A hard-core plan will only lead to failure due to the "watering down" process in Congress.
4
We legally prohibit heroin but the number of addicts continues to grow. There is not shortage of meth amphetamine on the street. We can't prevent illegal immigration, and sexual slavery and the porno factories keep preying on minors. We can place gun sales under stiff regulation, with heavy fines for sales without real background checks. But we don't need another reason to put more of our citizens under the care of our already obscenely overflowing, profitable prison system. Build more prisons, more firearms, more bombs and rockets, but while we do, why not make psychiatric counseling cheap and easy to get for those lonely and alienated souls out there, coming apart and blaming everyone else?
3
Perhaps, Bruce, the reason is that the same people who oppose any regulation of guns oppose spending on mental health.
Vote against politicians who are highly rated by the NRA. Make such ratings more of a burden than an asset. Unfortunately, American voters can't get together on anything.
12
This is a line of thinking long over-due. As mechanical science with government support has made transportation safer for the masses over the decades, so too can a mind-set of innovation and responsible distribution make our weapons of self-defense evolve and become safer for us as well.
5
The suggestions in this piece make so much sense that it is a wonder why they have not yet been employed. Eventually America will decide that there must be compromise on gun sales and ownership. Until then, there will be more gun murders.
8
ok a few thoughts
1 the second amendment says nothing about self defense
2 guns last pretty much forever ammunition does not so we could start by severely limiting the amount of ammunition that can be purchased at any one time but there are flaws in this approach
3 guns should be treated like cars you should need a license to own one they should have an individual license number and the owner should have to carry insurance against injury or damage caused by said gun ah but what insurance
company would write such a policy
1 the second amendment says nothing about self defense
2 guns last pretty much forever ammunition does not so we could start by severely limiting the amount of ammunition that can be purchased at any one time but there are flaws in this approach
3 guns should be treated like cars you should need a license to own one they should have an individual license number and the owner should have to carry insurance against injury or damage caused by said gun ah but what insurance
company would write such a policy
19
Somewhat nonsensical suggestions here. The key is capturing criminals and locking them up for long terms if they have or use a gun in the commission of the crime. Most laws that require this are watered down by prosecutors and anti-jail fans so there's no deterrent value left. Putting the onus on manufacturers and distributors is like holding the government responsible for the misuse of money. Give me a break!
6
We have been locking up criminals for years and gun violence has not subsided. In these mass killings the shooter either commits suicide or is killed by the police.
As a gun owner, hunter, and recreational shooter, I would be open to licensing and going through an extensive background check if it would help reduce the violence.
Gun owners need to step up and take some responsibility. Keep your guns under lock and key. Don't leave them in plain sight in a vehicle encouraging theft. And stop parading around with guns practicing the "open carry" thing. The assault on your person or persons whom you claim to be protecting will probably never happen. You give those of us who are responsible gun owners a bad rap.
As a gun owner, hunter, and recreational shooter, I would be open to licensing and going through an extensive background check if it would help reduce the violence.
Gun owners need to step up and take some responsibility. Keep your guns under lock and key. Don't leave them in plain sight in a vehicle encouraging theft. And stop parading around with guns practicing the "open carry" thing. The assault on your person or persons whom you claim to be protecting will probably never happen. You give those of us who are responsible gun owners a bad rap.
There are already smart guns available for sale--except states, like New Jersey, forbid them! And, of course, the NRA and its gun manufacturer masters oppose them. These guns cannot be fired unless an accompanying watch is set. In addition, gun dealers and sellers should be liable if the gun they sell is used in a crime by the person who purchased it who did not have a thorough background check. Similar liability holds for bar owners who sell liquor to minors and allow patrons to leave drunk and then have accidents. But right now there are laws exempting gun owners and manufacturers from all liability. Finally, gun owners should be given some encouragement for practicing safe management by taking a six-hour, state-approved course that would, like defensive driving courses, lower their insurance premiums.
7
If smart guns are so reliable, why do not police officers , or better yet our Dear Leader's Secret Service goons, use them to "set an example"?
1
Excellent thoughts. We are very seriously off the rails in this country when it comes to guns. How can any civilized and sane country refuse to limit the magazines of guns meant only to kill or maim human beings? How can we allow semi-automatic weapons to be sold to our citizens in the first place? I have no problem with hunting, though it is not my thing. Although I think the notion of self-protection with a pistol or other hand gun is more delusion than reality, I can accept that - but guns which rapid-fire 20 or 30 rounds? How crazy are we?!
36
I grew up hunting and can verify that:
No hunter ever needs a semiautomatic shotgun or rifle. They are for the incompetent. A double barrel or pump shotgun with three round magazine is enough. If the first shot misses, the second is much more likely to miss. Exceptional skill is needed for a double. Likewise rifles: bolt or lever action with a three round limit is also more than enough. After the first shot the deer or squirrel is lost. Handguns: personal safety in the home needs no more than a revolver (six-shooter). In fact, why do even the police need semiautomatic sidearms? In the rare case of a standoff needing military-style firepower, call in the reinforcements. Maybe then we won't hear of cops pumping dozens of rounds into a victim. Solution: a ban + buyout of ALL semiautomatics.
No hunter ever needs a semiautomatic shotgun or rifle. They are for the incompetent. A double barrel or pump shotgun with three round magazine is enough. If the first shot misses, the second is much more likely to miss. Exceptional skill is needed for a double. Likewise rifles: bolt or lever action with a three round limit is also more than enough. After the first shot the deer or squirrel is lost. Handguns: personal safety in the home needs no more than a revolver (six-shooter). In fact, why do even the police need semiautomatic sidearms? In the rare case of a standoff needing military-style firepower, call in the reinforcements. Maybe then we won't hear of cops pumping dozens of rounds into a victim. Solution: a ban + buyout of ALL semiautomatics.
Semi auto rifles and shotguns are used to hunt many types of animals. They are preferred in coyote, hog and waterfowl hunting. The gun is simply a tool. A tool that if used improperly, can be deadly, much like a wrench or a hammer.
Guns are a cult in the US. Nobody knows better than gun dealers how kooky so many gun buyers are.
14
Certainly a novel idea--the power of the purse. I can already hear the screams from the gun lobby.
Anything is worth a shot (pun NOT intended) when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or potential terrorists. Since the laws we do have on the books clearly aren't working because of the irresponsibility of some sellers, maybe a new approach is needed to hit manufacturers where they hurt most--in their bottom lines.
Anything is worth a shot (pun NOT intended) when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or potential terrorists. Since the laws we do have on the books clearly aren't working because of the irresponsibility of some sellers, maybe a new approach is needed to hit manufacturers where they hurt most--in their bottom lines.
11
Four brains and not one intelligent phrase in the entire article.
13
Dylann Roof purchased his firearm, though he was legally disqualified from doing so, because an FBI employee didn't do their job, and because even long established laws are never completely foolproof. Despite the FBI Director's circular logic, not doing one's job isn't an excuse for how a law is written.
Suggesting the Executive Branch of Government should intervene politically in the Private Sector's retail business is, however, par for the course for those interested only in abrogating Constitutional liberties in favor of more State control over our everyday lives. What could go wrong?
Newtown was perpetrate by a severely mentally ill individual. Little has been done with regard to mental health services since then. It is interesting that State's largest mental health facility was also located in Newtown, and that it has been closed since 1995, thousands of beds were lost, and nothing even close to it exists in CT today.
Senseless mass shootings very often take place in "gun free zones" including the Chattanooga murders of Marines by an Islamic radical. And non-military police soldiers have been forbidden from carrying guns outside combat zones since the Clinton Administration.
We already have a Federal law which criminalizes, "straw purchases" Where a non-criminal might be encouraged to buy a gun for a crook. There are severe penalties.
Kathryn Steinle's San Francisco murder by the illegal alien, Sanchez was committed with a gun stolen from a Federal Agent.
Suggesting the Executive Branch of Government should intervene politically in the Private Sector's retail business is, however, par for the course for those interested only in abrogating Constitutional liberties in favor of more State control over our everyday lives. What could go wrong?
Newtown was perpetrate by a severely mentally ill individual. Little has been done with regard to mental health services since then. It is interesting that State's largest mental health facility was also located in Newtown, and that it has been closed since 1995, thousands of beds were lost, and nothing even close to it exists in CT today.
Senseless mass shootings very often take place in "gun free zones" including the Chattanooga murders of Marines by an Islamic radical. And non-military police soldiers have been forbidden from carrying guns outside combat zones since the Clinton Administration.
We already have a Federal law which criminalizes, "straw purchases" Where a non-criminal might be encouraged to buy a gun for a crook. There are severe penalties.
Kathryn Steinle's San Francisco murder by the illegal alien, Sanchez was committed with a gun stolen from a Federal Agent.
5
Just a small correction here. I was in the military from 1963 until 1967, and was never allowed to keep my two firearms, a shotgun and a rifle on the base. Only security personal were allowed to carry firearms.
Clinton's first term started thirty years later.
Clinton's first term started thirty years later.
Don't you think a "smart" gun tied to that agent might have prevented Kathryn's death?
Many readers suggest making more difficult to acquire guns is an impingement on their 2nd Amendment freedom and think the problem is the lax treatment of criminals. However many gun crimes are committed by people with minor criminal or no criminal backgrounds, therefore tough sentencing and denial of probation and parole will not affect those reacting in anger and rage that can now so easily obtain a gun.
2
Here is an idea that leverages off of the central theme of the editorial. Take it one step further.
Currently, we pay farmers to not produce certain crops. This is done to prevent oversupply and maintain prices. Why not pay gun manufacturers to not produce guns? Use the same reasoning. Price supports.
Since the President Obama has been elected, gun manufacturers have sold so many firearms that the price of guns on the used market has plummeted. Production has greatly declined.
Claim that guns are essential for national security and a stable base of manufacturing is essential. So have the government and law enforcement buy what they need and pay the gun manufacturers to not produce any more. Dry up the oversupply, prices will rise. The millions of guns already stacked from floor to ceiling in the hoarders homes will skyrocket in value.
There are so many guns in circulation now that the supply will remain strong longer than our grandchildren will be live. The things never wear out. Pay the manufacturers to produce a limited number of hunting rifles and shotguns (with low capacity magazines) for legitimate hunting uses. Hunting is in serious decline anyway and the demand for these items is dropping.
This doesn't infringe on gun ownership. It just uses market forces to affect the price. The Constitution does not address the price of firearms.
Currently, we pay farmers to not produce certain crops. This is done to prevent oversupply and maintain prices. Why not pay gun manufacturers to not produce guns? Use the same reasoning. Price supports.
Since the President Obama has been elected, gun manufacturers have sold so many firearms that the price of guns on the used market has plummeted. Production has greatly declined.
Claim that guns are essential for national security and a stable base of manufacturing is essential. So have the government and law enforcement buy what they need and pay the gun manufacturers to not produce any more. Dry up the oversupply, prices will rise. The millions of guns already stacked from floor to ceiling in the hoarders homes will skyrocket in value.
There are so many guns in circulation now that the supply will remain strong longer than our grandchildren will be live. The things never wear out. Pay the manufacturers to produce a limited number of hunting rifles and shotguns (with low capacity magazines) for legitimate hunting uses. Hunting is in serious decline anyway and the demand for these items is dropping.
This doesn't infringe on gun ownership. It just uses market forces to affect the price. The Constitution does not address the price of firearms.
1
What an excellent piece. Thank you for offering specific remedies to address our nations gun crisis. I hope that someone important is listening because our people need help.
I realize that you did not make this point, but I am appalled to think that our government might be unloading their guns on to the street. This would be the mark of a truly dysfunctional, banana republic type of country. I hope that we have not stooped this far.
I realize that you did not make this point, but I am appalled to think that our government might be unloading their guns on to the street. This would be the mark of a truly dysfunctional, banana republic type of country. I hope that we have not stooped this far.
2
Outstanding ideas and a great start. One other thing to consider is the change to Federal legislation that the NRA paid for, wrote and got passed by Congress by a midnight attachment to a funding bill, that prevents the CDC from collecting comprehensive information on gun shootings. This would help Americans and possibly even Congress understand the enormous costs to the tax payers that gun violence costs. The CDC information would also help the healthcare industry improve outcomes of gun violence treatments. This change to the law will be opposed by the NRA but with effective lobbying by the President for the law's change Americans could begin to understand solutions that are needed and change the dialogue that NRA dominates on gun violence.
10
The approach advocated in this piece is an admission that government is held hostage by Republican obstructionism on behalf of juveniles who can't abide any limitations on gun acquisition. A howitzer in every garage and a pox on anyone who objects.
7
The idea that gun dealers can execute a sale at their own discretion if a background check isn't completed in three days is preposterous. Imagine these businesses' reactions if they were told they had to let a new employee begin working for them before a background check (if their company requires one) is complete. If length of time for a background check isn't an automatic disqualifier of a potential purchaser, it ought, at least, to arouse a dealer's curiosity or inspire some additional care and attention.
6
Laughably liberal lamentations. I can't decide which provoked more mirth, "begin a substantive conversation" or that bureaucratic favorite "develop a set of metrics for measuring manufacturers’ performance."
But the roundhouse guffaw goes to the last line: Let’s give gun manufacturers an incentive to make more smart guns and to allow fewer guns into the hands of criminals."
It astounds me that Men of the Cloth have so little understanding of what drives violence--with or without a gun. It's smarts alright, but not the one they have in their sights.
But the roundhouse guffaw goes to the last line: Let’s give gun manufacturers an incentive to make more smart guns and to allow fewer guns into the hands of criminals."
It astounds me that Men of the Cloth have so little understanding of what drives violence--with or without a gun. It's smarts alright, but not the one they have in their sights.
3
You mean we don't do some of these already? How did we arrive at such a situation (where the gun manufacturers/lobby dictate so much)? If we could use the leverage of the government's (read citizen/tax payer's) purchasing power with the drug industry, then we should be able to do it more easily with gun manufacturers. Both issues are matters of life and death for the citizen; and no sensible citizen will vote for death by avoidable means
Just a quick note: drug manufacturers won passage of a law that says the US government CANNOT negotiate the price of drugs in medicare (and Medicaid?) programs. Uh huh. Not a good sign for the government's ability, know-how, and/or will to use purchasing power to control anything.
We arrived at such a situation very simply: The National Rifle Association. Every person who provides them with one single dime has blood on their hands from the 88 daily gun deaths in this country.
Consumer gun sales are gravy to large manufacturers of weapons. Research and development costs, overhead, tight specifications, and after-sale support costs for police and military purchases are not involved when public consumption of guns is concerned. Already paid for, overhead is unimportant when production reaches a certain point, e.g., so adding to production increases profit per weapon. Getting manufacturers to concentrate on smaller sales? Santa Claus. Israel simply maintains physical and mental health exams, competency testing, and regular renewals that speed up as aging occurs (the buyers' not the guns'). The heavily trained Israelis must work hard and long at personal expense to earn the privilege of private gun-ownership, and one result is amuch lower wound/death rate per thousand owners. It's not easy, but it is smart. Trying to get gunmakers to cut high-profit sales is hard and not likely to suceed.
2
While it is clear that sane gun laws work, thanks to the lies of the NRA, they don't get passed on a national level, and won't any time soon.
On the other hand, requiring any gun manufacturer who sells to the federal government to require dealers who sell their guns to allow for the completion of background checks - regardless of time - is a regulation that is unlikely to be fought against with the usual NRA vigor.
But if you can get an Israeli-style background check / registration / licensing system through in the US, I will support you 1000%.
On the other hand, requiring any gun manufacturer who sells to the federal government to require dealers who sell their guns to allow for the completion of background checks - regardless of time - is a regulation that is unlikely to be fought against with the usual NRA vigor.
But if you can get an Israeli-style background check / registration / licensing system through in the US, I will support you 1000%.
Gun violence is also a measure of lethality where, in order to stop a perceived threat, the threat must be killed. Gun users need a weapon that will stop the threat but not kill. Is this science fiction or just science?
4
So many comments dismiss or criticize any and all ideas for any reasonable gun control. Clergy have a unique perspective on the horrors of gun violence in this country. Their contribution to this discussion is necessary. We as a country have to do something to stop the senseless murders of our citizens. The suggestions offered here can be a beginning however when those screaming "it's my right, it's my right" the future for America becomes more bleak. We won't have to worry about Isis we have enough irresponsible gun owners to kill just as many people.
10
Absolutely and amen.
I suppose these ideas could work, but I doubt it. Yet I applaud you for at least presenting some ideas. There are many models of "gun control" from many different countries around the world, that would be a good place to find something that will work with our "well regulated militia" (I love how the word regulated has no meaning in this context). But... Until we fix the main problem to gun regulation, nothing will we done. That problem is how we run our elections. Because of the amount of money the NRA puts into electing the right puppets in congress, they (the NRA) completely control the very people that we would need to fix our enormous national problem of shooting deaths.
11
I hope this is tried. But let's remember that after the first time the president does try this, Congress will have its say. So it may last less than a season.
2
Exactly. Congress is a terrible danger to the people of the United States and, alas, it has us by the scruff of the neck.
The really difficult reality is that clinically psychotic or psychiatrically otherwise highly dysfunctional people are the ones who commit crimes of violence. Most of that is actually criminal on criminal or criminal on sexual partner. Relatively rarely is the crime upon large unselected groups or does it start as person specific in a workplace and then become unselected.
Access to guns through illegal channels is extremely hard to shut down. In fact, it may be impossible. While gun regulation needs to find ways to grow, probably more important is to find ways to encourage close contacts of potentially violent persons to report odd behavior with the intent to modify behavioral tendencies. The problem with the latter is that psychiatrists find themselves incapable of predicting who will become homicidal or even suicidal. Thus, reporting the psychiatrically loose cannons potentially would be enormously expensive and still probably only produce a modest reduction in mass murder. Yet, each time a mass murderer is analyzed, each one has shown evidence of severe dysfunction for months to years prior to their crime of horror.
Much, much more commonly, though, similar persons afflict family and consorts with emotional trauma repetitively, afflict parents with great worry incessantly, and prompt teachers, coworkers, and supervisors to reject them. Virtually all are somewhere between difficult and impossible to mold, medicate,and otherwise guide towards less societal and self-risk.
Access to guns through illegal channels is extremely hard to shut down. In fact, it may be impossible. While gun regulation needs to find ways to grow, probably more important is to find ways to encourage close contacts of potentially violent persons to report odd behavior with the intent to modify behavioral tendencies. The problem with the latter is that psychiatrists find themselves incapable of predicting who will become homicidal or even suicidal. Thus, reporting the psychiatrically loose cannons potentially would be enormously expensive and still probably only produce a modest reduction in mass murder. Yet, each time a mass murderer is analyzed, each one has shown evidence of severe dysfunction for months to years prior to their crime of horror.
Much, much more commonly, though, similar persons afflict family and consorts with emotional trauma repetitively, afflict parents with great worry incessantly, and prompt teachers, coworkers, and supervisors to reject them. Virtually all are somewhere between difficult and impossible to mold, medicate,and otherwise guide towards less societal and self-risk.
1
Having read the article and comments, what strikes me is that the problem with limiting guns is similar to the problem of limiting pornography: any attempt to do either brings into question the basic goodness or rightness of these objects and of the urge to pursue them. If we, as a society, acknowledge that there is something essentially unhealthy about guns, as we do with smoking, it raises the serious question, why have anything to do with them at all?
4
Congratulations to the three authors for the most sensitive and logical proposals on how to minimize criminals' access to firearms. It is truly refreshing to read this article among all the knee-jerk reactions to anti-gun ownership.
Why so much crime? It is conceivable that Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi's gift of the Statue of Liberty in 1886 provoked within a very heterogeneous US population of that time a misconceived notion that "Liberty" means a right to do anything, including to be a criminal.
Why so much crime? It is conceivable that Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi's gift of the Statue of Liberty in 1886 provoked within a very heterogeneous US population of that time a misconceived notion that "Liberty" means a right to do anything, including to be a criminal.
1
Even simpler solution: GIve every person one Brown Bess or Long rifle at birth -- arms available at the time the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights -- and ban private ownership of all other firearms. Gun manufacturers and the NRA wouldn't be happy, but the law would match the original intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
3
I'm a rural northwoods boy who owns a couple of couple of shotguns and rifles. I don't own a handgun because they creep me out.
Sure sometimes back in the woods I bump into odd strangers and become somewhat concerned for my safety and I think to myself, "Hey, I'm the only guy here without a gun." But I feel even more uncomfortable carrying a handgun.
So while I'm a gun owner, I'm all in favor of anything we can do to reduce the number of handguns in the mentally crazed population. It may well take 100 years.
Sure sometimes back in the woods I bump into odd strangers and become somewhat concerned for my safety and I think to myself, "Hey, I'm the only guy here without a gun." But I feel even more uncomfortable carrying a handgun.
So while I'm a gun owner, I'm all in favor of anything we can do to reduce the number of handguns in the mentally crazed population. It may well take 100 years.
13
Here are some real facts about guns in America:
1. Everyday nearly 90 million legal gun owners in America will harm no one.
2. The vast majority of guns used in crimes are foreign made or foreign owned companies making (cheap reproductions) of American guns.
3. The overwhelming majority of crimes committed with guns are gang and drug related, and the guns used are stolen or illegally purchased through third parties and not legal gun shops or gun shows because both perform background checks. This doesn't mean someone mentally ill with no criminal background can't get their hands legally on a gun. This is the case in almost all of the high profile shootings in the last 20 years. Adam Lanza murdered his mother and took her legally owned guns to Sandy Hook.
4. The government on all levels when it purchases guns maintains those guns until they are taken out of service and they are destroyed, they are not ever sold to the public.
5. "Smart guns" are expensive and the technology is unreliable at this time.
1. Everyday nearly 90 million legal gun owners in America will harm no one.
2. The vast majority of guns used in crimes are foreign made or foreign owned companies making (cheap reproductions) of American guns.
3. The overwhelming majority of crimes committed with guns are gang and drug related, and the guns used are stolen or illegally purchased through third parties and not legal gun shops or gun shows because both perform background checks. This doesn't mean someone mentally ill with no criminal background can't get their hands legally on a gun. This is the case in almost all of the high profile shootings in the last 20 years. Adam Lanza murdered his mother and took her legally owned guns to Sandy Hook.
4. The government on all levels when it purchases guns maintains those guns until they are taken out of service and they are destroyed, they are not ever sold to the public.
5. "Smart guns" are expensive and the technology is unreliable at this time.
6
I've never understood the logic of trying to punish tens of millions of lawful gun owners for the acts of a relatively few criminals. It's the antithesis of a rational strategy and clearly why it is so unsuccessful.
Any solution to gun violence has to focus on the real perpetrators and work backwards.
Any solution to gun violence has to focus on the real perpetrators and work backwards.
Customers have enormous power, IF they will use it. Will our government? I would like to think so.
Many police departments will also sell their retired handguns to the public, through licensed dealers. Many gun buyers, such as myself, prefer buying ex-police department handguns because these firearms have usually been only lightly used and are priced lower than other used or new firearms. Contrary to public perception, most rank and file cops don't spend much time practicing on the range.
2
I wonder if the writers, well intentioned as they are, ever heard of the GOP, the NRA, and the SCOTUS?
3
The U.S. Constitution states clearly that the bearing of guns should be "well-regulated." The NRA says it doesn't, so gun sales aren't. Who's right? The problem could best be solved by the U.S. Supreme Court -- if, if, if, if the Court weren't so "RRRRight" !!!
7
The words, "well regulated," do not mean that gunowners should be controlled by some government body. Those two words refer to specifications of firearms owned by local militias. "Well regulated," as used in the second amendment, means that firearm ignition mechanisms, calibers, gun sights, etc. should be standardized in order to make parts interchangeable. Those who favor gun control don't know this.
Militias are "well-regulated," not guns. Gun sales are regulated in every state, and
very strictly regulated in nearly all. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on the Constitutional issue of gun ownership, not the NRA. Nearly all gun owners are law-abiding, safety-conscious legal owners/users of their guns. You are wrong on every point, and you need to get up to date. The loopholes in the laws need to be closed. However, there will always be ways that deranged, crazed and/or fanatic people get guns and commit heinous crimes, no matter what country or its laws (e.g. Norway). But we can't stop trying.
very strictly regulated in nearly all. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on the Constitutional issue of gun ownership, not the NRA. Nearly all gun owners are law-abiding, safety-conscious legal owners/users of their guns. You are wrong on every point, and you need to get up to date. The loopholes in the laws need to be closed. However, there will always be ways that deranged, crazed and/or fanatic people get guns and commit heinous crimes, no matter what country or its laws (e.g. Norway). But we can't stop trying.
The words, "well regulated," do not mean that those who have guns should be controlled by government. They are an 18th century term referring to firearm specifications. "Well regulated," as written into our constitution, means that the caliber, firing mechanism, gun sites, etc of firearms should be "regulated" to make parts interchangeable. The authors of our constitution understood that Interchangeable parts was an important element of the ability of citizens to protect themselves against a tyrannical central government, such as that of George III. All of this is still true today. Gun control advocates, however, don't know this.
>
I think it has been made more than self-evident via recent events that it is not what Obama wants or can do but, rather, what the NRA wants and can do. They are calling the shots.
I think it has been made more than self-evident via recent events that it is not what Obama wants or can do but, rather, what the NRA wants and can do. They are calling the shots.
21
Are we really okay with that?
"[The NRA] are calling the shots." Indeed they are.
Appropriate pun, the NRA is calling the shots. On a recent NRA magazine cover the bold headline read: "The next 700 days are the most dangerous in American history." Why? When you read the follow up article the reason is: because Barack Obama is president. Would/could that message incite some people to want to shoot the president? I think so, especially since the rest of the magazine is devoted to selling guns.
Why Mental Health Background Checks Are Not the Solution to Gun Violence
Nearly half the country experiences some kind of mental illness during their lifetimes. Should they all be barred from owning guns?
http://napoleonlive.info/did-you-know/gun-control/
Nearly half the country experiences some kind of mental illness during their lifetimes. Should they all be barred from owning guns?
http://napoleonlive.info/did-you-know/gun-control/
In a word, yes. No one needs them. No. They. Don't.
Because it violates the HIPPA law.
I believe the issue of mental illness has become so distorted that in most minds it bears no relation to reality. Many mentally ill people go to work every day, have families, raise kids and are as responsible as any person can be. Psychoactive, by definition, are out of touch with reality. But even psychotic are more likely to be afraid than aggressive unless provoked by someone clueless as to how to properly engage with them. The mentally ill actually can buy guns at least in my state unless they have been committed to a psychiatric facility by a judge. Voluntary commitment does not count. It is just plain impossible to identify people who are likely to become mass murders. There are most often no "signs" to look for in mass murders or the mentally ill who are on the edge of reality and psychosis.. Also, I firmly believe there is mental illness and there is evil and the two are very distinct. I also believe you can be an alienated loner who is looking to belong to something without being mentally ill or even evil. That's a category to be defined and explained by people far more trained in human behaviour and psychology than I.
Here's a way to control guns:
Turn all the drug possession convicts out of jail.
Put everyone who is caught using a gun in a crime in jail for many years.
Problem solved.
Turn all the drug possession convicts out of jail.
Put everyone who is caught using a gun in a crime in jail for many years.
Problem solved.
3
It’s absurd that in this age of powerful computers, the NRA and rw Gop have blocked the govt from amassing data on shootings nationally, in terms number of victims, mass shootings vs single shootings, links to hate groups, etc. And no one was keeping track of police killing civilians, armed or unarmed. We are still in the 19th century, not even the 20th.
They block it since this data would be evidence to use for practical gun control for public safety. Meanwhile, employers can check data bases when ex convicts apply for work. And govt and businesses can track citizens for other reasons, violating their privacy. But let’s stay in the dark about one of our biggest threats to public safety.
They block it since this data would be evidence to use for practical gun control for public safety. Meanwhile, employers can check data bases when ex convicts apply for work. And govt and businesses can track citizens for other reasons, violating their privacy. But let’s stay in the dark about one of our biggest threats to public safety.
76
The last time a gun manufacturer (Smith & Wesson) co-operated with the government on safety, it nearly collapsed after a mass boycott of its products by gun owners. I don't think the NRA types are any less committed now than in 2000.
I think the government would find that a few manufacturers with a reliance on defence contracts would co-operate, but that others would make a public point of refusing and then advertise this to gain more sales. The result could be even worse than the status quo, with any and all safety improvements seen as commercial suicide because of the public connecting them with the government.
I think the government would find that a few manufacturers with a reliance on defence contracts would co-operate, but that others would make a public point of refusing and then advertise this to gain more sales. The result could be even worse than the status quo, with any and all safety improvements seen as commercial suicide because of the public connecting them with the government.
3
Money and fierce ideology combined. I heard the following astounding fact today on NPR Diane Rehm show:
“USA Today reports that since the Colorado shootings three years ago, 78 additional mass killings have occurred, claiming the lives of nearly 400 additional victims.” (that’s MASS killings)
NYT John Harwood and guests made these points:
That congress has done nothing. A disappointment to Obama.
“ It is shocking to many people, but the deep rooted 2nd amendment beliefs been more powerful than the pro gun regulation side. “
(no matter what happens)
No Gop candidate breaks with the consensus that gun rights are absolute. The gun lobby blames crazy people for shootings, not guns, and then works hard to make it impossible to restrict the access of mentally ill people to guns.
Harwood said that “eventually gun control will win, very slowly. The gun advocates who are the older, rural, tradition minded whites and NRA supporters are going to lose, over time.”
(that's a relief)
It’s odd that the president of the world’s ‘most powerful’ nation is powerless in life and death matters. The will of the majorities who want gun control is not being responded to by congress we elect. Our candidates are tethered to big money.
Our democracy cannot start working again until campaign finance is removed from powerful donors. We must set aside public funds for short political campaigns, with strict limits on private donations, as most other nations do, with strict gun laws.
“USA Today reports that since the Colorado shootings three years ago, 78 additional mass killings have occurred, claiming the lives of nearly 400 additional victims.” (that’s MASS killings)
NYT John Harwood and guests made these points:
That congress has done nothing. A disappointment to Obama.
“ It is shocking to many people, but the deep rooted 2nd amendment beliefs been more powerful than the pro gun regulation side. “
(no matter what happens)
No Gop candidate breaks with the consensus that gun rights are absolute. The gun lobby blames crazy people for shootings, not guns, and then works hard to make it impossible to restrict the access of mentally ill people to guns.
Harwood said that “eventually gun control will win, very slowly. The gun advocates who are the older, rural, tradition minded whites and NRA supporters are going to lose, over time.”
(that's a relief)
It’s odd that the president of the world’s ‘most powerful’ nation is powerless in life and death matters. The will of the majorities who want gun control is not being responded to by congress we elect. Our candidates are tethered to big money.
Our democracy cannot start working again until campaign finance is removed from powerful donors. We must set aside public funds for short political campaigns, with strict limits on private donations, as most other nations do, with strict gun laws.
33
It is not the "guns" that must be controlled, it is the people. Specifically, the criminals with seedy, harsh, and exact judgement and adjudication! That includes gun dealers, manufactures, personal sellers that break the law! If you use a gun is a way that is not a sport, self defense, or protection you go to jail! Stop trying to control the object and control criminality in an effective way. Bring back hard labor and get rid of the country club prisons.
1
Finally, we begin to see some light at the end of the tunnel! For those of us who have despaired of ever seeing some shred of sanity in America's gun love culture, these suggestions finally offer common sense, effective ways of combating the NRA's stranglehold on the nation's gun policies.
In addition to the remedies suggested here, President Obama should use the power of his office to compel the firearms industry to provide insurance for gun ownership. Such insurance would offset the damages incurred when guns are used in accidents or to commit crimes.
Every automobile owner in America is required by law to have auto insurance to compensate victims and cover damages due to auto accidents. Auto insurance, coupled with improvements in auto safety engineering, has dramatically reduced the numbers of auto fatalities over the years. Auto deaths stood at 24.09 per 100 million miles driven in 1921, vs. 1.11 in 2013.
We should remember that for many decades, the U.S. auto industry fought tooth and nail to block any safety features such as seat belts, which would add to manufacturing costs. Due to government pressure and public support, we now have air bags, hardened steel and other features to protect drivers and passengers.
Firearm insurance could materially reduce the deaths caused by guns in the United States and compensate victims of gun violence. President Obama should use the power of his office to make this happen.
In addition to the remedies suggested here, President Obama should use the power of his office to compel the firearms industry to provide insurance for gun ownership. Such insurance would offset the damages incurred when guns are used in accidents or to commit crimes.
Every automobile owner in America is required by law to have auto insurance to compensate victims and cover damages due to auto accidents. Auto insurance, coupled with improvements in auto safety engineering, has dramatically reduced the numbers of auto fatalities over the years. Auto deaths stood at 24.09 per 100 million miles driven in 1921, vs. 1.11 in 2013.
We should remember that for many decades, the U.S. auto industry fought tooth and nail to block any safety features such as seat belts, which would add to manufacturing costs. Due to government pressure and public support, we now have air bags, hardened steel and other features to protect drivers and passengers.
Firearm insurance could materially reduce the deaths caused by guns in the United States and compensate victims of gun violence. President Obama should use the power of his office to make this happen.
17
It’s clear that most guns are purchased in America not by government but by individuals, and at higher, retail profit margins. While governments have leverage, as the authors suggest, gun manufacturers can’t ignore their private markets. Some of the gun-safety features the authors stress are high on the list of those intensely resisted by gun-owners, in part for their inconvenience, in part for their reliability, in part for their added expense.
The authors end with an exhortation to incentivize gun manufacturers to contribute to safer technology and distribution methods that lessen the likelihood of handguns finding their way into the possession of criminals and the deranged; but what they’re really flogging is the subordination of an industry and the buying preferences of its customers to the social priorities of a segment of society.
Now, that’s a defensible, certainly an arguable, point to make. But to make it successfully, they need to line up sufficient public support so that the social segment they represent, and the priorities it embraces, make it plain that the coercion is one accepted by a solid majority of the people. But they haven’t done that – they’re appealing yet again to a president to impose his notion of what is “right”, regardless of an inability to sell it to Congress or to the people. Unless they resolve to do this right, and succeed at it, they won’t succeed at their real objective, which is to lessen the danger represented by guns in America.
The authors end with an exhortation to incentivize gun manufacturers to contribute to safer technology and distribution methods that lessen the likelihood of handguns finding their way into the possession of criminals and the deranged; but what they’re really flogging is the subordination of an industry and the buying preferences of its customers to the social priorities of a segment of society.
Now, that’s a defensible, certainly an arguable, point to make. But to make it successfully, they need to line up sufficient public support so that the social segment they represent, and the priorities it embraces, make it plain that the coercion is one accepted by a solid majority of the people. But they haven’t done that – they’re appealing yet again to a president to impose his notion of what is “right”, regardless of an inability to sell it to Congress or to the people. Unless they resolve to do this right, and succeed at it, they won’t succeed at their real objective, which is to lessen the danger represented by guns in America.
48
Your point is valid. However, I think that a majority of Americans would approve of rational controls on gun design ownership and design. But our dysfunctional political system (gerrymandering, campaign finance, lobbying, etc) allows powerful special interests to obstruct the general public's interests.
1
Correct, thank you.
1
Richard Luettgen:
"they need to line up sufficient public support so that the social segment they represent, and the priorities it embraces, make it plain that the coercion is one accepted by a solid majority of the people"
*****
Why start now?
"they need to line up sufficient public support so that the social segment they represent, and the priorities it embraces, make it plain that the coercion is one accepted by a solid majority of the people"
*****
Why start now?
1
Police departments across America also sell guns back to the public, guns they have seized from criminals and even their own police weapons when they get new ones. Does this make any sense? I wonder how many police officers have been shot with weapons sold by police departments.
Reducing the number of weapons on the streets and in houses and apartments is important, but the arms lobby has made it very clear that they will not accept safety devices that prevent unauthorized people, like children, from firing guns. Further, Congress, at the behest of the NRA, has slipped little amendments into various legislation to prevent any preliminary steps, like studies, from taking place.
Is it possible to reach any national consensus on these issues? Not through the political process. The Republicans would not want to give up one of their chief energizing tools against Democrats. Some mechanism needs to be considered that might create a multi-partisan effort outside of the two major parties, a consensus building effort that just might force reasonable, modest legislation through an insistently bitterly divided Congress.
Don't laugh. If citizens could get together in enough numbers and with enough political power, it could happen. Look at how a small group of Cuban Americans in south Florida held American foreign policy toward Cuba hostage for almost six decades. It is time for citizens, like the good reverends who authored this op-ed, to get moving and drag politicians along.
Reducing the number of weapons on the streets and in houses and apartments is important, but the arms lobby has made it very clear that they will not accept safety devices that prevent unauthorized people, like children, from firing guns. Further, Congress, at the behest of the NRA, has slipped little amendments into various legislation to prevent any preliminary steps, like studies, from taking place.
Is it possible to reach any national consensus on these issues? Not through the political process. The Republicans would not want to give up one of their chief energizing tools against Democrats. Some mechanism needs to be considered that might create a multi-partisan effort outside of the two major parties, a consensus building effort that just might force reasonable, modest legislation through an insistently bitterly divided Congress.
Don't laugh. If citizens could get together in enough numbers and with enough political power, it could happen. Look at how a small group of Cuban Americans in south Florida held American foreign policy toward Cuba hostage for almost six decades. It is time for citizens, like the good reverends who authored this op-ed, to get moving and drag politicians along.
4
Another (early-stage) idea which could potentially make everyone happy: Allow the citizens of individual cities to designate by vote their city to be either a pro-gun or gun-free zone. Citizens in pro-gun communities would continue to collect all the arms they want, and those who vote to have guns in their lives would be surrounded by people of like mind. Citizens who vote to live in gun-free cities would begin creating low-weapon zones similar to Europe where people live with far less fear of violence. The disparity in crime rates between the two zones would likely encourage an increasing number of cities to designate themselves as gun-free.
all these blah blah blathers are point-of-sales prospective controls on law abiding persons and most are both irrelevant and inflammatory and we gun-clingers (vs gun-grabbers) hopefully illegal; they fail traction b /c they would not have prevented any of these mass casualty events
(single casualty events are localized in space and demography, we tend to ignore those, even as the body count is much much higher, but less dramatic 'ordinary murders' a term from the 1950s and 60s)
I think we have forgotten Fast and Furious Obama's gun runners to Mexico, and thereby back to US lost in other noise
The best gun control is stop and frisk, which targets illegal guns in high crime neighborhoods using behavioral cues
and no we are not the world we are only ourselves, so don't compare us to others
(single casualty events are localized in space and demography, we tend to ignore those, even as the body count is much much higher, but less dramatic 'ordinary murders' a term from the 1950s and 60s)
I think we have forgotten Fast and Furious Obama's gun runners to Mexico, and thereby back to US lost in other noise
The best gun control is stop and frisk, which targets illegal guns in high crime neighborhoods using behavioral cues
and no we are not the world we are only ourselves, so don't compare us to others
2
Register gun ownership like it is done for cars.
Not everyone is allowed to drive, not everyone should be allowed to have a gun. People with mental illness, violent behavior, criminal past should be barred from having guns and those who sell them liable for any consequences. A mandatory liability insurance for gun owners may not be a bad idea either.
Registration process can be privatized if people are paranoid about government keeping records.
Renew registration every year by bringing the gun for inspection.
Missing a gun for any reason? Then, pay a penalty 2x the original price of the gun. Lose a gun too many times, then lose the right to own one.
People who can't avoid living near or with the person who has a gun should have the right to demand that this person surrender all guns due to safety reasons. The guns could be kept in escrow or auctioned off and money returned to original owner.
Not everyone is allowed to drive, not everyone should be allowed to have a gun. People with mental illness, violent behavior, criminal past should be barred from having guns and those who sell them liable for any consequences. A mandatory liability insurance for gun owners may not be a bad idea either.
Registration process can be privatized if people are paranoid about government keeping records.
Renew registration every year by bringing the gun for inspection.
Missing a gun for any reason? Then, pay a penalty 2x the original price of the gun. Lose a gun too many times, then lose the right to own one.
People who can't avoid living near or with the person who has a gun should have the right to demand that this person surrender all guns due to safety reasons. The guns could be kept in escrow or auctioned off and money returned to original owner.
3
That is dumb. Not everyone can drive because it is not a right. So all the demands you recommend don't apply.
FYI, we will not register guns because that always leads to confiscation. Check out NY compliance with their new gun law, 13%. That is civil disobedience that we all cherish Americans.
FYI, we will not register guns because that always leads to confiscation. Check out NY compliance with their new gun law, 13%. That is civil disobedience that we all cherish Americans.
Contrary to popular belief a 'right' is not an unlimited resource. A person rights and freedoms end where the other person's rights begin, unless you live alone on a deserted island.
US Constitution is not an infallible religious scripture. That's why Ammendments exist - to fix what doesn't work.
If you are paranoid about the government then
1. Change the government without a revolution.
2. Create a local community gun registry not affiliated with government that would be fully accountable for all gun ownership and distribution within this community. A local militia? Perhaps you need your own island and a country.
US Constitution is not an infallible religious scripture. That's why Ammendments exist - to fix what doesn't work.
If you are paranoid about the government then
1. Change the government without a revolution.
2. Create a local community gun registry not affiliated with government that would be fully accountable for all gun ownership and distribution within this community. A local militia? Perhaps you need your own island and a country.
The writers should stick to prayer.
States have the right to determine laws pertaining to gun sales and distribution. The Second Amendment does not describe a privilege, it establishes a legal right of citizens of the several states to keep and bear arms.
Federal authority, including that of the President, ends at the statehouse for control over gun ownership.
As far as crime is concerned, zip guns can and are being made as single shot handguns for criminal use. A child can manufacture them.
The solution is to influence the Values that Americans are working with, and the American fascination with guns. Europeans don't have the same violent attitudes as Americans and don't have a gun problem like ours.
Even with their history of wars, civil wars and occupation by a foreign army, they don't dote on gun ownership.
Their Values are different, and that's the key to gun control.
States have the right to determine laws pertaining to gun sales and distribution. The Second Amendment does not describe a privilege, it establishes a legal right of citizens of the several states to keep and bear arms.
Federal authority, including that of the President, ends at the statehouse for control over gun ownership.
As far as crime is concerned, zip guns can and are being made as single shot handguns for criminal use. A child can manufacture them.
The solution is to influence the Values that Americans are working with, and the American fascination with guns. Europeans don't have the same violent attitudes as Americans and don't have a gun problem like ours.
Even with their history of wars, civil wars and occupation by a foreign army, they don't dote on gun ownership.
Their Values are different, and that's the key to gun control.
1
"Their Values are different, and that's the key to gun control."
Repealing the 2nd Amendment and replacing it with one permitting Congress to regulate the ownership, possession, and use of firearms is the key to gun control. That way, we get past this silly notion that there is a birthright to having guns and we actually discuss what regulations make sense rather than what regulations are allowed.
Repealing the 2nd Amendment and replacing it with one permitting Congress to regulate the ownership, possession, and use of firearms is the key to gun control. That way, we get past this silly notion that there is a birthright to having guns and we actually discuss what regulations make sense rather than what regulations are allowed.
That is a very weak, meek set of suggestions. Here are some better ones:
Ban all semi-automatic firearms and all magazines with more than a six shot capacity, and use federal funds to purchase existing guns, paying their owners twice the present market value.
Require all gun owners to be licensed and to pass a rigorous firearm safety course every five years.
Strictly regulate the sale and possession of ammunition larger than .22 caliber or larger than #4 birdshot.
That should keep the sportsmen happy and the public safe.
Ban all semi-automatic firearms and all magazines with more than a six shot capacity, and use federal funds to purchase existing guns, paying their owners twice the present market value.
Require all gun owners to be licensed and to pass a rigorous firearm safety course every five years.
Strictly regulate the sale and possession of ammunition larger than .22 caliber or larger than #4 birdshot.
That should keep the sportsmen happy and the public safe.
9
That won't make anyone safer and it will definitely anger sportsmen.
What would keep public safe is that we arrest bad guys, criminals. Taking the guns of law abiding citizens only makes them and others less safe.
There may be a few germs to be brought to fruition in some distant future but as serious suggestions there is an insurmountable chasm between these ideas and reality. Getting from the article to actual by what non existent road? Oregon recently passed some unenforceable unfunded poorly planned laws. Resulting in inflated pro gun energy and recall petitions for leading democrats. Our legislators, well just forget it.
Last but not least is the millions and millions of guns already in citizens hands. The authors left that part out.
Put your energy into education, jobs/economic development. Full employment reduces gun violence effectively.
Last but not least is the millions and millions of guns already in citizens hands. The authors left that part out.
Put your energy into education, jobs/economic development. Full employment reduces gun violence effectively.
3
Here's an idea tell gun manufacturers who seek to sell to the government that their support of the NRA will make the likelihood that they receive contracts next to nothing. Corporations should not be able to claim first amendment rights...regardless of what SCOTUS says they are not people. The Constituion guarantees the right of free speech to humans!
2
Why aren't gun owners required to carry liability insurance? You can't legally own a car without liability insurance. Time for some well-regulated insurance regulations on our supposedly well-regulated, home-grown militias.
405
The NRA already offers this--more money into their coffers. Thanks a lot.
1
"Why aren't gun owners required to carry liability insurance? You can't legally own a car without liability insurance."
Yes, and like car insurance, those policies should include "uninsured gun damage liability". The insurers will pay into a national insurance pool which will cover costs related to stolen and other uninsured guns.
Yes, and like car insurance, those policies should include "uninsured gun damage liability". The insurers will pay into a national insurance pool which will cover costs related to stolen and other uninsured guns.
1
What a great proposition! Insurance is always associated with machines or diseases. Guns are machines and the US has a gun disease, per the Center of Disease Control. Once the insurance industry executives see the opportunity for a new market, this may actually happen. Wow, imagine the gun and the insurance lobbies doing battle. It will be fascinating to watch, and it also gives me hope.
1
Another pusillanimous posting, trying to establish a false narrative for actual events in the service of pushing an increase in the unchecked power of executive authority (for a questionable goal). The circumstances that allowed the gun to sold to Mr. Root are described here http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/us/clerical-error-played-role-in-gun-s... . The legal issues are discussed at http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/13/why-was-dylann-roofs-gun-purchase-illega. No legislative regime will solve the problem of government personnel who do not diligently pursue their duties. If there was a legal basis for denying Mr. Root's ownership of that handgun, why was it not communicated to law enforcement officials, either State or Federal, who could have called on him to surrender it?
4
The hypocritical Congress makes laws and then refuses to fund their enforcement.
"begin a substantive conversation"
****
Leave the anti-gun zealots out of it. They just stiffen the resolve of lawful gun owners to protect their rights.
As with the Confederate flag, hard-line opponents don't resolve problems. They just make them more difficult to resolve.
****
Leave the anti-gun zealots out of it. They just stiffen the resolve of lawful gun owners to protect their rights.
As with the Confederate flag, hard-line opponents don't resolve problems. They just make them more difficult to resolve.
5
We the unarmed have a lawful right to vet those who think they need guns to live among us.
I detest the public policy message broadcast by the present US gun policy. It aids and abets people taking the law into their own hands.
I detest the public policy message broadcast by the present US gun policy. It aids and abets people taking the law into their own hands.
2
Steve Bolger:
"Those who think they need guns" is the typical arrogance used to discount the values of Americans. It's just like the "think God is real" arrogance when dismissing religious adherents.
"Those who think they need guns" is the typical arrogance used to discount the values of Americans. It's just like the "think God is real" arrogance when dismissing religious adherents.
1
Hard-line opponents don't solve problems? I guess we just should have waited for slave owners to free their slaves, waited for the Nazis and Communists to mellow out, etc, waited for factory owners to voluntarily give up child labor. All that protest and violence just made it harder to solve the problem.
Allowing gun possession outside the home, a gun range, or a designated hunting area should not be permitted, period. Law enforcement should be the only ones allowed to carry a gun, and all others should be prosecuted and serve time, if found guilty.
6
How will your suggestion change anything? Those carrying guns outside "home, a gun range or..." and using their guns in violent crime are already committing crime by doing so without permit to carry, so would continue to break the laws you are proposing. Those individuals legally carrying guns outside home etc with carry permits are not the causing today's gun violence. Result of your ideas will not prevent today's law breakers from continuing to break your laws.
Yes! Same for books, pamphlets, cameras and newspapers!
This is a great idea, and an example of thinking outside the box. The government and others could also lean on private firearm purchasers, such as security companies, to also pressure the gunmakers. I'm sure that they don't like their employees having to face illegal firearms, either.
10
Would this just mean a boom for the gun companies that do not sell to government?
Good idea but too late. Many unsmart guns out there still in working order. Ammo makers would have to key rounds to work only on smart guns.
DAVID K. BRAWLEY, OTIS MOSS III, DAVID BENKE and JOEL MOSBACHER, I would argue that you gentleman are in no position to be making comments about gun laws in the United States when (I'd wager) none of you even own a gun and have no concept of carrying a gun for self defense.
If you are frightened and appalled by random acts of criminal violence try living in a state where the gun laws allow you to protect yourself and be not afraid.
If you are frightened and appalled by random acts of criminal violence try living in a state where the gun laws allow you to protect yourself and be not afraid.
7
"I would argue that you gentleman are in no position to be making comments about gun laws in the United States when (I'd wager) none of you even own a gun and have no concept of carrying a gun for self defense."
I don't own a pit bull, but that hardly invalidates my opinion on the dangers of owning a pit bull or letting it off the leash.
I don't own a pit bull, but that hardly invalidates my opinion on the dangers of owning a pit bull or letting it off the leash.
Of all the absurd arguments posited here. You sure don't need to know how to use a gun or own a gun to counsel those whose family members have been slaughtered by one, just as a doctor doesn't need to have shot a gun to heal those maimed and injured by one. And you actually think that only by living with a gun, you have the higher authority to speak of ways to reduce gun deaths and injury. Give me a break. Try reason.
And, what are you so afraid of that you must need a gun to protect you? Why all the other gun owners, (who have easy access to guns) of course.
And, what are you so afraid of that you must need a gun to protect you? Why all the other gun owners, (who have easy access to guns) of course.
1
Ask yourself the question: Why do so many Americans feel the need to protect themselves?
That would be a good place to start.
That would be a good place to start.
118
Because they have gobbled down the pabulum of fear fed to them by the NRA and its members.
5
The problem is not everyone who buys guns does feel the need to protect themselves. Out here in the middle of the country there a many...okay, I'll say it...men who collect them like commemorative plates or figurines. I would venture to say most of the men I know have a vast gun collection kept in safes, some one of a kind, some special editions, some just hold a sentimental value from childhood. And a lot of this type of man doesn't even have bullets for most of them.
l'm completely anti-gun. But I guess I get the fascination for a segment of society on some level. Since we're never going to get rid of them, I guess the idea is how to keep them out of the hands of crazies.
l'm completely anti-gun. But I guess I get the fascination for a segment of society on some level. Since we're never going to get rid of them, I guess the idea is how to keep them out of the hands of crazies.
3
I'll answer that: Because many Americans live their lives in fear. Not all gun owners (myself included), mind you, but many. That fear is mostly irrational, and fueled in large part by NRA- and GOP-fueled paranoia of danger at the door step. Fear is contagious (plus it sells more guns), and they know it.
It's a lifestyle choice. I choose not to live my life in fear. I'm happier that way.
It's a lifestyle choice. I choose not to live my life in fear. I'm happier that way.
5
The only incentive that will have any impact on gun manufacturers and sellers is that of making more profit. They are amoral and immoral, and the capitalist motive of maximum money is the only guideline they observe. The real problem is capitalism and the manner in which it warps the human soul. Humans made capitalism (and many other equally damaging "isms") so perhaps it is humans who are the problem....
www.jonjost.wordpress.com
www.jonjost.wordpress.com
1
In order to give game birds a chance, shotguns can contain no more than 3 shells at a time. Why is
it so difficult to limit the capacity of arms meant to be used to harm people?
it so difficult to limit the capacity of arms meant to be used to harm people?
60
Because when you are trying to defend you home and your family, "sporting" doesn't enter into the equation.
I give up! Let the NRA decide what to do.. Give them a blank play book and tell them they can design any system they want- sky is the limit - arm school children for all I care- BUT let them know that anything they put forth will be subject to the "Pottery Barn" rule.
1
Are we waiting for the day that the number of Americans in "Parents Of Murdered Children" outnumbers the membership of the NRA?
If we as a society continue to let our lax gun law situation fester, that day will come.
There are eight parents in Chattanooga who've just qualified to join an organization they probably never heard of, nor dreamed they'd ever be a part of.
This is the only country in the world where such an organization exists.
We can't sit by and pretend this is acceptable.
It is not.
If we as a society continue to let our lax gun law situation fester, that day will come.
There are eight parents in Chattanooga who've just qualified to join an organization they probably never heard of, nor dreamed they'd ever be a part of.
This is the only country in the world where such an organization exists.
We can't sit by and pretend this is acceptable.
It is not.
170
And our court gives it's support in support of greed over good.
And while we are at it, how about the unbelievable carnage caused by guns on the international market? Where do African warlords get their guns? ISIS? Terrorists? They sure aren't manufacturing them - it is a few Western countries that provide all the guns.
10
Russia and China are not considered Western countries. That's where most of those guns come from.
I take it you haven't done much investigation on the subject: the vast majority of weapons in the hands of Africa and the rest of the Third World are the good old reliable and deadly Kalashnikov family of weapons (AK-47, AK-74, RPK, PK, etc.) from Russia, China, and others.
Very few Western weapons make their way to Africa or the Middle East. The internet is your friend.
Very few Western weapons make their way to Africa or the Middle East. The internet is your friend.
1
That would be squarely on the shoulders of Kalashnikov Industries, it subsidiaries and licensees. None of the bad actors you reference are using non-military AR-15's, M1A's, etc., all semi-auto and perfectly legal. 99% of their guns are made outside the western hemisphere. Your statement is, by all measures, counterfactual though I'm sure you fell smugly self righteous and believe it in full.
3
How is it that baked into our culture and our political system that the NRA and the gun manufacturing lobbies can exert such an inordinate amount of political power and entirely control this health related issue? Following the Sandy Hook tragedy, nearly 90% of Americans polled were supporting increase oversight and control of guns, yet our political system entirely failed to respond to the people's will. Why is this so?
102
Our political system is broken. The nuts are running the asylum.
1
I wonder the same thing. My questions are undoubtedly naive, but why are politicians hostage to the NRA if 90% of Americans approve of some form of gun control legislation? Why would their re-election prospects suffer if they voted in favor of such legislation?
3
If you dig down and unwind those "polls" you'd see they were targeted geographically and within that, aimed at a receptive audience guaranteed to produce the desired results.
1
Unfortunately, knowing the right things to do is not the same as getting them done. Common sense or not, the NRA will not permit any kind of gun control, including even registration, and you know the NRA controls Congress, not the other way around as it should be. An Amendment change is what is needed, and that has about the same chance as any other charging at the windmills of gun ownership. I am glad I am very old.
10
"What could gun manufacturers do to protect the public?"
It seems highly unlikely that Glock, Smith & Weston, Sig Sauer, Beretta, Colt, Sturm, Ruger & Company and their shareholders would put any measures into place which would negatively affect their bottom line,whatever the government pressure. These companies know they can count on our legislators, in thrall to the NRA for (re)election, to protect their profits. In the same way the U.S. Chamber of Commerce fights tobacco regulation in the third world by cynically invoking the concept of "freedom of commerce" and "American interests", corporations have no interest in promoting the public good (here or abroad) over profits which feed the 1%. When the Supreme Court conferred "personhood" on corporations, it is tragic that they forgot to give them anything resembling "a conscious" at the same time.
It seems highly unlikely that Glock, Smith & Weston, Sig Sauer, Beretta, Colt, Sturm, Ruger & Company and their shareholders would put any measures into place which would negatively affect their bottom line,whatever the government pressure. These companies know they can count on our legislators, in thrall to the NRA for (re)election, to protect their profits. In the same way the U.S. Chamber of Commerce fights tobacco regulation in the third world by cynically invoking the concept of "freedom of commerce" and "American interests", corporations have no interest in promoting the public good (here or abroad) over profits which feed the 1%. When the Supreme Court conferred "personhood" on corporations, it is tragic that they forgot to give them anything resembling "a conscious" at the same time.
20
Make it mandatory to insure them just like cars. If someone gets killed with your irresponsibility, the family can sue your insurance company. Trust me that would be the best law to pass. When or if it is proven by the insurance company there was negligence on the part of the gun owner, they deny the claim and the person's family can come and sue you directly taking your house and savings.
This would be a great motivator for gun owners to act responsibly.
This would be a great motivator for gun owners to act responsibly.
480
The majority of gun owners already act responsibly. The problem is targeting and punishing them when they are not the ones breaking the laws.
Insurance should be for those who allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, which doesn't include the majority of lawful gun owners.
Insurance should be for those who allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, which doesn't include the majority of lawful gun owners.
5
It would also get a huge part of the financial sector to worry about you and your gun.
AACNY, how is asking a responsible person to do something responsible punishing them? Is car insurance a punishment?
5
When police officers with guns recover guns at crime scenes...
When police officers, who are human beings, stumble across crime scenes committed by human beings...
More misguided rhetoric. Keep commuting sentences, pardoning drug users, and minimizing crimes. That will solve everything.
When police officers, who are human beings, stumble across crime scenes committed by human beings...
More misguided rhetoric. Keep commuting sentences, pardoning drug users, and minimizing crimes. That will solve everything.
2
Remember the 1970's when the blame was placed on "Saturday night specials"?
Now the request goes out to Smith and Wesson - whose pistols and revolvers are anything but "Saturday night specials" to control their sales. What leads Brawley et. al. to believe such an approach has the chance of a snowball in ....................
Grab a copy of the December, 2012, Atlantic Monthly. Read the article by Jeffery Goldberg
For my money, the issue is best solved by addressing the nation's mental health issues.
Now the request goes out to Smith and Wesson - whose pistols and revolvers are anything but "Saturday night specials" to control their sales. What leads Brawley et. al. to believe such an approach has the chance of a snowball in ....................
Grab a copy of the December, 2012, Atlantic Monthly. Read the article by Jeffery Goldberg
For my money, the issue is best solved by addressing the nation's mental health issues.
3
Oh, trying to inject intelligence into the discussion are you?
You some kind of commie?
You some kind of commie?
9
Market solutions would be best - mandate insurance liability for gun ownership so that victims can file a lawsuit if they are harmed by a gun that someone "lost" or did not properly secure. Same concept behind operating a car. You need to be insured to prevent liability to others and the price of insurance should not in any way be subsidized.
31
Great idea, and I recently wrote an insurance executive at my carrier if they would support legislation proposed by Congresswoman Maloney requiring gun owners to obtain liability insurance. What reply did I get? "None."
2
Why would anyone be surprised at the support of insurance company executives for such government mandated insurance? Such a program would increase their income as well as be a public good. (Is that an unnecessary redundancy?)
1
The NRA is on the phone to Congressmen and women right now, killing this idea. Leverage on gun manufacturers? It's those shining lights of democracy on Pennsylvania Avenue who need the nudge. Fat chance that will happen.
9
Good piece. Let us not forget the NRA represents gun manufacturers, not gun owners. This would REALLY get the NRA riled up. Let's do it.
81
This is a reasonable argument, worthy of serious consideration. And because it includes the words 'gun' and 'control,' this comment section is about to become a flood of histrionics, as it always does when these words are mentioned in close proximity.
13
Excellent suggestions! I've been involved with a gun safety group for the last few years and have never heard of these ideas. Share them far and wide.
These slaughters have to stop. When is the mainstream media going to see that the problem is guns? When do we break the taboo and begin to talk about guns as dangerous weapons?
These slaughters have to stop. When is the mainstream media going to see that the problem is guns? When do we break the taboo and begin to talk about guns as dangerous weapons?
20
Kinder eggs are banned. Guns are not.
Let that sink in for a moment. The insanity of US gun laws.
Let that sink in for a moment. The insanity of US gun laws.
11
Great idea! Lot's of potential benefits.
Police, especially, should use "smart guns". If the police carried guns that could only be fired by the police then they would not have to worry about a criminal grabbing the policeman's, or policewoman's gun and using it to shoot the policeman. I would think that the fear of being shot with your own gun must be very strong and that knowing that couldn't happen would prevent a lot of both police and suspects from being shot. That alone would be a gamechanger.
Police, especially, should use "smart guns". If the police carried guns that could only be fired by the police then they would not have to worry about a criminal grabbing the policeman's, or policewoman's gun and using it to shoot the policeman. I would think that the fear of being shot with your own gun must be very strong and that knowing that couldn't happen would prevent a lot of both police and suspects from being shot. That alone would be a gamechanger.
7
None of this will work. The assumption by the authors is the president and the government should want, by dint of their view of what's moral and right, to limit gun availability to the legally entitled public. They'd like to impose extra-legal restrictions on freedoms already tested and affirmed. Bullying an industry has rarely if ever yielded long term positive results. Imposing one's view on the rest of us never does. Phrasing it as cops with Glocks finding Glocks at crimes is disingenuous, and extending the argument to Smith and Wesson is pedantic. A few would like to see "smart" guns, but it's wishful thinking, any technology can and will be defeated. Most of us don't want them, despite what the very vocal and very small minority think and say. Being a "religious leader" imbues one with no special insight or knowledge of the facts, the science or the statistics of this issue. Personally I find religion and it's professional practitioners to be an ongoing pretense, comforting though it may be for some. This is like baseball players or movie stars selling stuff totally unrelated to their field, it's associative pleading of false cause, and I resent it. Perhaps these "wise men" should encourage to government to better do it's job, on all levels, and enforce the laws we already have, and I mean non-selectively. "Reasonable regulations" means very different things to folks in different regions. Also, religion has no place in this or any other political discussion.
4
So I assume you are a member of a well regulated citizen militia and you have the right to a musket. Freedoms tested and affirmed need to be changed, as Australia did. This is an obvious health issue. We are tired of cowboys who don't understand:guns are rarely used in self defense--surprise is everything, gun owners are more likely to be shot than non-gun owners, the person a gun owner is most likely to shoot is him or herself and immediate family member is next.
10
I served with honor in the military during war time. I am not presently affiliated with any armed group other than being a member of a local range where I practice and compete with others, including police, sheriff's deputies and border patrol. I also hunt, and try to eat or otherwise utilize as much as I can of any animal I kill. The above mentioned have no problem with my owning and using various firearms, as do most Americans. On the 2 occasions I've used a firearm in self defense (mere defensive display in both cases), I did not shoot myself, a family member or an endangered species. I successfully deterred some bad actors, one of which went to jail for a long time. I do have the right to a musket, and any other firearm available save those prohibited by law. I exercise that right regularly and stand with the majority of Americans who do not wish to see stare decisis upended. And for the umpteenth time, well regulated, as used when memorialized in the constitution, meant having one's own tent, horse, firearm, etc. and being well practiced and proficient in their use and care. All that beibng said, I agree whole-heartedly that you should never have a gun. Anyone whose ideation is so far from the mainstream and so easily convinced of absurd fictions should be declared a prohibited possessor.
1
Though not as strong as actual laws limiting guns (banning military-style assault weapons and "cop-killer bullets", requiring universal background checks, gun registration, banning high-capacity magazines, as examples), these are excellent recommendations. As we mourn the victims of the most recent all-too-common massacre on the same day that we get news of another troubling shooting, we must do something to stop the carnage.
13
The article starts with the wrong premise. Do we want to control guns or do we want to control violent criminals and madmen who use guns? You can try the former all day long without have any material impact on the latter. Aren't heroin and cocaine banned completely? Does anyone who wants it have a problem getting it?
For years, gun control advocates have been fighting guns. They have created "gun-free" zones which become shooting galleries where we send our children unprotected and defenseless. Just yesterday we had the shooting in Chattanooga and the conviction of James Holmes in Aurora Colorado. Both incidents happened in "gun-free" zones. When will the gun control advocates who created these ponds of sitting ducks take responsibility for the blood on their hands? Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Ft. Hood, Washington DC Navy Yard, Lubys, and now Chattanooga. Enough is enough.
Since President Obama entered office the number of concealed carry permits issued to law abiding citizens has soared from about 4 million to 12 million. At the same time the murder rate has fallen 25%. The gun control advocates will wail that more guns will mean shootouts over road rage, but there is no evidence of that. In fact, concealed carry permit holders are 1/6 as likely to commit a crime with a gun than police, and we trust police with guns, don't we?
With ISIS becoming more bold there is no time to call police when they attack. A good guy with a gun could make a difference.
For years, gun control advocates have been fighting guns. They have created "gun-free" zones which become shooting galleries where we send our children unprotected and defenseless. Just yesterday we had the shooting in Chattanooga and the conviction of James Holmes in Aurora Colorado. Both incidents happened in "gun-free" zones. When will the gun control advocates who created these ponds of sitting ducks take responsibility for the blood on their hands? Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Ft. Hood, Washington DC Navy Yard, Lubys, and now Chattanooga. Enough is enough.
Since President Obama entered office the number of concealed carry permits issued to law abiding citizens has soared from about 4 million to 12 million. At the same time the murder rate has fallen 25%. The gun control advocates will wail that more guns will mean shootouts over road rage, but there is no evidence of that. In fact, concealed carry permit holders are 1/6 as likely to commit a crime with a gun than police, and we trust police with guns, don't we?
With ISIS becoming more bold there is no time to call police when they attack. A good guy with a gun could make a difference.
7
Oh, boy. "ISIS becoming more of a threat here."
It isn't the criminal robbing someone. It isn't the gang banger on the next block. Not the cop down the block. Not the crazy person who's still got guns. Not the kid with his dad's Glock. ISIS is the reason we each other more often than the citizens of any other civilized nation.
Carry permits skyrocketed because gun nuts are, well... nuts. Worry about the now-secretly armed bigots, rather than ISIS, pal.
It isn't the criminal robbing someone. It isn't the gang banger on the next block. Not the cop down the block. Not the crazy person who's still got guns. Not the kid with his dad's Glock. ISIS is the reason we each other more often than the citizens of any other civilized nation.
Carry permits skyrocketed because gun nuts are, well... nuts. Worry about the now-secretly armed bigots, rather than ISIS, pal.
12
"They could distribute their guns exclusively through dealers that sell guns responsibly, and end their relationships with the small percentage of bad-apple dealers that sell a disproportionate number of the guns used in crimes."
Great, you'll bring more suppliers into the market that you hope to choke. At least this will open the market to others than those evil large corporations.
Move over craft beers.
Great, you'll bring more suppliers into the market that you hope to choke. At least this will open the market to others than those evil large corporations.
Move over craft beers.
1
The solution is simple. Do not restrict gun ownership to adult citizens, but REQUIRE liability insurance for those guns.
61
Having the owner to have liability insurance is an excellent idea!
5
Agree 100%. When I was younger I didn't understand why I HAD TO have car insurance--if I wreck my car that's my problem, right? Well yes, but you are just as likely to wreck someone else's car--and we can't count on individuals to compensate others they have harmed, out of the goodness of their heart. So we make auto insurance mandatory.
Same with guns--yes it's your business to own a gun, but if your ownership of the gun leads to AN INNOCENT person being harmed, you are on the hook. Better get insurance. Better not let an unqualified, or intoxicated, person get near your gun (just the way you would not let them near your car).
And to the argument that there will still be those without insurance using guns--yes of course, just like there's lots of people driving around without insurance. But we didn't scrap the whole system because of it.
Same with guns--yes it's your business to own a gun, but if your ownership of the gun leads to AN INNOCENT person being harmed, you are on the hook. Better get insurance. Better not let an unqualified, or intoxicated, person get near your gun (just the way you would not let them near your car).
And to the argument that there will still be those without insurance using guns--yes of course, just like there's lots of people driving around without insurance. But we didn't scrap the whole system because of it.
3
If police carried smart guns that could only be fired by the officer they are assigned to, it would remove the fear of having the weapon grabbed by a suspect. And it would reduce police shootings flowing from that fear. This seems a no-brainer. So much so that we could move on to banning "unsafe" guns that lack this feature, all without further limiting gun rights.
What if you needed to register your gun with the manufacturer (not the government) in order for it to function? And forbid the feds (including the NSA) from accessing these records without a warrant for an individual firearm. No mass requests, no fishing expeditions, with a strictly defined probable cause.
Gradually the supply of "unsafe" guns would dwindle, driving their price so high that the average criminal couldn't afford one.
If you ban unsafe guns then only responsible gun owners will have them.
What if you needed to register your gun with the manufacturer (not the government) in order for it to function? And forbid the feds (including the NSA) from accessing these records without a warrant for an individual firearm. No mass requests, no fishing expeditions, with a strictly defined probable cause.
Gradually the supply of "unsafe" guns would dwindle, driving their price so high that the average criminal couldn't afford one.
If you ban unsafe guns then only responsible gun owners will have them.
3
So, if you're a cop, you're going to just stand there and let someone point your, or your partner's gun at you (or at him/her), trust that it won't fire, and not shoot the assailant?
I doubt it.
I doubt it.
2
I can't understand why our vision needs to be so limited. Why stop at designing a gun that cannot be fired by an unauthorized person? Why not invent a gun that cannot be fired at the back of a fleeing person? Or is this audience sanguine about such shootings just because they are committed by "authorized" personnel?
The NUG -- New Urban Gun -- is an ultra smart gun. Not only can it be fired exclusively by a registered user, but it also uses a built in camera, microphone, cell phone and GPS to record who the gun is being fired at, the circumstances including voices of the shooting scene, exactly where it is being fired, while automatically calling 911 to call for help from the police about the situation. The NUG could also use isotope enhanced signature bullets, which could be used to scan, trace and identify criminals and assailants who were shot but ran away. Every high school senior could be trained in the use of a NUG in special training facilities as a requirement for graduation. A lost NUG could emit a signal like a cellphone telling where it was. Tampering with a NUG could also automatically deactivate it and send a locator signal. A surcharge on non-NUG firearms could be used to lower the price of every NUG.
7
Right, and it will sync with your social media, calendar and phone, guide the bullet to it's intended target using the same algorithms used to target advertising to you, and bring home the bacon, humus or sprouts, depending on the color of your mood ring (also synced, naturally). Since it records video of everything when there's a round in the chamber or it's being fired, don't wear it to the bathroom or your next extramarital appointment. As for those bullets that scan, trace, etc., why not simply have them end poverty, war and drought while your at it?
4
Along with manufacturing controls, use a small portion of the Defense Dept budget to start buying up guns now in circulation. The right price will accomplish a lot. Whatever that budget is defending me from, it's not defending me from what I fear more likely : a lunatic with a gun in a public place.
52
Brilliant idea... especially when we consider Cheney's notion that if there's even a 1% chance for another 9-11 attack, we need to muster the resources to prevent such a tragedy. Thousand of deaths by gun violence and accidents get a "free pass" from that GOP thinking... perhaps, if wrapped into the Defense Department's concerns for national, (what?) defense, we'd all be MUCH safer.
2
I also fear that, which is why i carry a pistol and have my CPL. I would rather have the ability to do something if a situation comes up than to huddle in the corner and wait for the cops to show up minutes later.
additionally, You really want the government buying up guns for no reason? Guns are very expensive. Your average handgun (glock, S&W, Ruger), is 4-500$ and long guns vary from a few hundred to thousands of dollars. They are significant investments most of the time.
additionally, You really want the government buying up guns for no reason? Guns are very expensive. Your average handgun (glock, S&W, Ruger), is 4-500$ and long guns vary from a few hundred to thousands of dollars. They are significant investments most of the time.
1
I grew up hunting and until recently have owned guns all my life. Having said that if any reasonable person looks at the statistics, Americans are not mature enough to own guns. We are slaughtering each other at the rate of a small town each year. In 2012 according to the FBI there were 8,855 deaths related to guns, of which 6,371 were by handguns. Unfortunately the most common victims are young people and particularly young minorities.
If I had my way, I would bad handguns. There only purpose is to kill someone. This is unfortunately a non-starter. My serious suggestion however is to raise the minimum age for purchasing a gun to 35 years old. A look at crime statistics shows that involvement in criminal activity in general, and gun crimes in particular, drop off dramatically beginning at age 35. Presumably by that age a person no longer feels the need to prove their manhood and takes some time to actually think of consequences before doing something.
Therefore my proposal is that the minimum age for purchasing a handgun be raised to 35 years old. In addition people who purchase a handgun will be limited to the purchase of 2 bullets per year. If, as some claim, you need a handgun for home defense, you don't need more than 2 bullets. I would also require the manufactures of gunpowder to make that gunpowder so that it becomes inert in 14 months. Doing so would reduce the stockpile of bullets and convert most handguns to bricks which would saves lives.
If I had my way, I would bad handguns. There only purpose is to kill someone. This is unfortunately a non-starter. My serious suggestion however is to raise the minimum age for purchasing a gun to 35 years old. A look at crime statistics shows that involvement in criminal activity in general, and gun crimes in particular, drop off dramatically beginning at age 35. Presumably by that age a person no longer feels the need to prove their manhood and takes some time to actually think of consequences before doing something.
Therefore my proposal is that the minimum age for purchasing a handgun be raised to 35 years old. In addition people who purchase a handgun will be limited to the purchase of 2 bullets per year. If, as some claim, you need a handgun for home defense, you don't need more than 2 bullets. I would also require the manufactures of gunpowder to make that gunpowder so that it becomes inert in 14 months. Doing so would reduce the stockpile of bullets and convert most handguns to bricks which would saves lives.
117
Brilliant!!!
2
Excellent comment and excellent suggestions!
2
2 bullets a year? That has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. First of all, if you're going to defend yourself, you need to train. There is skill involved. Second, will two rounds stop an attack? What if there's more than one attacker? Think this through a bit.
And you'd require the gunpowerder to become inert...? What black magic is this you think these companies use? It's chemicals, not witchcraft. They can't put a hex on the powder.
And you'd require the gunpowerder to become inert...? What black magic is this you think these companies use? It's chemicals, not witchcraft. They can't put a hex on the powder.
1
This is just a BRILLIANT solution - Boycotts have been used for many years very effectively, I plan to write my congressional reps, and the President to ask that this be implemented and I plan to pass this along to my friends and family.
TELL A FRIEND!
TELL A FRIEND!
31
For your letters to Congress(wo)men to be effective, enclose very large checks.
7
A good start to a discussion, but why is it necessary for the authors to tout their religious credentials? Being a religious leader does not endow one with some sort of special wisdom. I think we need to have less rather than more church involvement in the affairs of state. It doesn't matter whether an idea is offered by a preacher or a plumber, it's the idea that matters. Let's have less religion mixed up in politics.
4
Dan, maybe it does matter that they are ministers of religion. Is there any closer relationship in middle America than that of guns and God? Clearly Christianity, US-style, is a violent creed.
4
Can you point out where they "touted" their religious credentials? I see it noted by the Times as the Times identifies anyone who writes an op-ed. And why shouldn't clergy care about the communities in which their people reside, and in some cases, die senseless deaths? Calm down.
2
Another piece of nonsense by someone who never fired a gun and does not have a clue about how a transaction is executed in the purchase of a firearm.
Reverend, tell your congregation to stop shooting at each other..you may be more effective that way.
Reverend, tell your congregation to stop shooting at each other..you may be more effective that way.
6
Smart guns could be very important.
They would be of especial value to cops. A major concern is the bad guy grabbing the cop's gun. Cops get up close and personal, and so within reach.
They could also be of value in a home. That is not generally a good idea, but it would help if people are going to do it.
However, smart guns are oversold.
First, they don't work yet. We have to invent them before we can require them.
Second, they won't work for the military. In combat, comrades must be able to pick up and use the other guy's weapon. This is about disorganization of combat, and jams at critical times, and many other practical concerns.
Third, the military can't be expected to fund and develop something of no use to it.
Fourth, it is a basic rule of safety to use the safety, but don't ever trust the safety. Use the safety, but don't rely on it to make the gun safe. Smart guns would be another variation on a safety -- nice to have, good to use, but it could not be trusted to make a gun safe. Trusting any safety it is the sure and certain road to accidents.
That takes some of the value out of it, as for cops. If a bad guy does grab his gun, is the cop supposed to trust that it won't shoot? "Do you feel lucky?" No. Luck already ran out when he got the gun. He'd have to treat it as if it wasn't a smart gun.
Finally, any technology would need to allow a gun to be transferred to use by another shooter. That is an opening for an unwanted shooter with time to fool with the gun.
They would be of especial value to cops. A major concern is the bad guy grabbing the cop's gun. Cops get up close and personal, and so within reach.
They could also be of value in a home. That is not generally a good idea, but it would help if people are going to do it.
However, smart guns are oversold.
First, they don't work yet. We have to invent them before we can require them.
Second, they won't work for the military. In combat, comrades must be able to pick up and use the other guy's weapon. This is about disorganization of combat, and jams at critical times, and many other practical concerns.
Third, the military can't be expected to fund and develop something of no use to it.
Fourth, it is a basic rule of safety to use the safety, but don't ever trust the safety. Use the safety, but don't rely on it to make the gun safe. Smart guns would be another variation on a safety -- nice to have, good to use, but it could not be trusted to make a gun safe. Trusting any safety it is the sure and certain road to accidents.
That takes some of the value out of it, as for cops. If a bad guy does grab his gun, is the cop supposed to trust that it won't shoot? "Do you feel lucky?" No. Luck already ran out when he got the gun. He'd have to treat it as if it wasn't a smart gun.
Finally, any technology would need to allow a gun to be transferred to use by another shooter. That is an opening for an unwanted shooter with time to fool with the gun.
11
My guess is that any technology could be easily "hacked".
Looking at the various shootings that have made the news (and which are actually statically rare), it is beyond clear that the problem is mentally ill people who are out on our streets, off their meds and society is not able to keep them in appropriate mental health settings though they pose a CLEAR DANGER to the rest of us.
Looking at the various shootings that have made the news (and which are actually statically rare), it is beyond clear that the problem is mentally ill people who are out on our streets, off their meds and society is not able to keep them in appropriate mental health settings though they pose a CLEAR DANGER to the rest of us.
3
There's your problem CC. Those same Civil Liberties that are invoked by gun owners also work to protect the mentally ill people. What is your system for figuring out which Civil Liberties should be protected and which should be tossed out the window? Or for figuring out which citizens deserve Civil Liberties and which do not. I suspect it would be a pretty inefficient, sloppy, and ultimately unconstitutional mechanism. That pesky Constitution again!
2
Concerned citizen, that's a straw man argument unless you're assuming that every single person who kills someone with a gun is mentally ill which is statistically impossible.
Just remember, every responsible gun owner is responsible until he shoots somebody. Then the gun lobby yells that he's mentally ill. Not true. Every gun owner is a potential killer. Every single one. There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner."
Just remember, every responsible gun owner is responsible until he shoots somebody. Then the gun lobby yells that he's mentally ill. Not true. Every gun owner is a potential killer. Every single one. There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner."
4
Disregard the law in ways this interest group likes? The law says a dealer must wait three days for an answer, but so what, he should be made to wait for as long as it takes?
There is a big problem running a government that way. It is exactly the attitude for which anti-Obama activists wrong accuse Obama. Let's not make it true.
Don't like that law? Change the law, or change the service provided so the answer arrives in three days. Don't just have the government ignore the law because you don't like this one.
Don't feed that beast.
There is a big problem running a government that way. It is exactly the attitude for which anti-Obama activists wrong accuse Obama. Let's not make it true.
Don't like that law? Change the law, or change the service provided so the answer arrives in three days. Don't just have the government ignore the law because you don't like this one.
Don't feed that beast.
29
Between the fact that the federal government is the nation’s top gun buyer, and state and local law enforcement agencies purchase a large share--essentially we taxpayers are subsidizing gun manufacturers!! And what do we get in return? An under-regulated system full of holes that allows anyone to get a gun leading to proliferation madness and approximately 30 gun deaths per day.
230
The government probably is the top buyer of a lot of products. They are buying guns for the military, FBI, CIA, police, etc. It is perfectly logical they would be the major purchaser of such items.
1
Last summer while in rural Idaho, I passed a car on the side of the road with a large sign 'Guns for Sale', this only a hundred yards from a main highway going through the area.
There is a significant proportion of illegal gun sales going through unlicensed dealers, flea markets, gun shows and a multitude of online sites. Facebook has been brought to task for featuring channels which sell guns.
This article makes some excellent points about ways to help hinder the proliferation of firearms, and bringing the gun manufacturers in line with contracts they carry with the government, now that's real leverage.
Many enamored of guns may argue that these steps will not eliminate gun violence and gun deaths. They won't eliminate all of them but such sensible regulations, as with the suggestion about 'smart guns', would make a real dent in the number of senseless deaths and suicides which plague our nation each and every year.
There is a significant proportion of illegal gun sales going through unlicensed dealers, flea markets, gun shows and a multitude of online sites. Facebook has been brought to task for featuring channels which sell guns.
This article makes some excellent points about ways to help hinder the proliferation of firearms, and bringing the gun manufacturers in line with contracts they carry with the government, now that's real leverage.
Many enamored of guns may argue that these steps will not eliminate gun violence and gun deaths. They won't eliminate all of them but such sensible regulations, as with the suggestion about 'smart guns', would make a real dent in the number of senseless deaths and suicides which plague our nation each and every year.
157
" . . . As Glenn wrote long ago, in any mass shooting event, there is one group of people who, by definition, are already there–the “victims.” Only, if they are armed and dangerous, they don’t have to be victims. They can be first responders. . . . "
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/a-pack-not-a-herd.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/a-pack-not-a-herd.php
3
"Many enamored of guns...." How about people who are enamored of civil liberties? No argument at all aboutbthe need for thorough background checks that work. What I find missing on these comments are reflections on how to stop violent criminals and sociopaths. Does not this begin in the home and neighborhood? No one has mentioned lawful self defense by reasonable, prudent people in fear of their lives. Firearms can be eliminated from US life: house to house searches, jackbootsed no knock entries, criminalizing otherwise good people, and perhaps the establishment of special gun courts. The violent actions of a criminal class can, and perhaps be will, help bastion the erosion of deeply rooted civil liberties. "War is the health," cried Randolph Bourne during The Great War. One can apply this to contemporary life: crime must (sadly) strengthen the power of the state at the expense of civil liberties. Be careful what you wish for.
3
Do you know that those guns in rural Idaho were for sale illegally? How? did you investigate or report this to authorities?
When it comes to drugs, we are told it is absolutely impossible to curtail illegal sales through similar sources -- dealers (obviously unlicensed), individuals, home growers, illegal immigrants and so on. Because people like drugs and want to buy them. Where there is a customer, there will always be a willing salesperson.
The major source of gun violence is the drug trade in the inner cities, and the majority of shootings & victims are drug dealers and gangs, fighting for dominance. This goes on daily with little comment, as it is so commonplace. Most people argue we should GIVE UP trying to police or restrict drugs, because people like using them.
In the case of this prominent mass shootings, however, it is nearly always mentally ill "lone nuts" with not only a history of crazy, but friends & family who come forward and say "yes, he was nuts, threatening people, writing about killing in some little notebook" blah blah blah and yet they did NOTHING. Sometimes they had no power to do anything, because just being crazy was not enough cause to have such people put into a mental hospital -- and THAT is because the ACLU and lefty liberals decided (about 30 years back) that all crazy people should be allowed "their rights" to roam free, shoot people and defecate on sidewalks.
When it comes to drugs, we are told it is absolutely impossible to curtail illegal sales through similar sources -- dealers (obviously unlicensed), individuals, home growers, illegal immigrants and so on. Because people like drugs and want to buy them. Where there is a customer, there will always be a willing salesperson.
The major source of gun violence is the drug trade in the inner cities, and the majority of shootings & victims are drug dealers and gangs, fighting for dominance. This goes on daily with little comment, as it is so commonplace. Most people argue we should GIVE UP trying to police or restrict drugs, because people like using them.
In the case of this prominent mass shootings, however, it is nearly always mentally ill "lone nuts" with not only a history of crazy, but friends & family who come forward and say "yes, he was nuts, threatening people, writing about killing in some little notebook" blah blah blah and yet they did NOTHING. Sometimes they had no power to do anything, because just being crazy was not enough cause to have such people put into a mental hospital -- and THAT is because the ACLU and lefty liberals decided (about 30 years back) that all crazy people should be allowed "their rights" to roam free, shoot people and defecate on sidewalks.
4
These ideas make a lot of sense
The pressure should be most intense,
Many battles t'will bode,
NRA will explode,
Obama should get off the fence!
The pressure should be most intense,
Many battles t'will bode,
NRA will explode,
Obama should get off the fence!
171
One of your best, LE!
2