Considering that 2/3 of US gun deaths are suicides, while only 1% or 2% of US gun deaths are mass shootings, the former gets far too little discussion while the latter gets way too much. I was glad to see Gabby bring up suicides. We could prevent many suicides simply by reducing the number of guns in circulation.
Circumvent Democrat gun laws/gun confiscation and protect your 2nd Amendment freedom and other freedoms by having and carrying a Jo staff as a weapon.
None of them advocated the obvious: adopt the same gun laws as European countries, France or Germany. Oh yeah, the second amendment. Or, more accurately, Scalia’s twisted interpretation that Chief Justice Berger accurately called a “fraud.” Among other things, gun mania externalizes enormous cost forcing those who don’t participate in the gun economy to subsidize those who do. Higher health and life insurance, the cost of security and extra police, welfare costs for survivors of gun violence is spread to everybody, an enormous forced economic subsidy to support a deadly, useless hobby.
3
First of all, someone who fears confiscation of their guns needs to paint a very detailed picture of how such a thing would happen. This is a huge country- thousands of roads with even more driveways to houses and farms, multi-unit apartments, thousands of businesses where firearms could be hidden etc etc. I make my living driving to client's homes. In my small county, it is hard to imagine even here some person or persons going door to door to confiscate guns. People so love their guns that they are irrational and without logic.
Secondly, where do all the 'bad guys" get their guns? Is there a gun manufacturing facility somewhere for illegal guns only? Might they be straw man purchases from a state with weak gun laws like Indiana 20 minutes to my hometown of Chicago where laws to buy a gun legally are tough? Or are they stolen from "law abiding" citizens who really are not very responsible and law abiding ( just have not been convicted of a crime but full of stupid!). A friend moved to Ocala FL a few years ago and tells me she often reads about cases where a loaded gun is stolen from an unlocked vehicle. But "law abiding'!!
My job takes me into the home of strangers. I have seen handguns and long weapons in plain sight and within my reach. I do not know if loaded or not but I think it is incredibly stupid to have someone you don't know in your home with a gun obviously displayed. A gun owner told me a gun is of no use if not loaded so I am guessing they were. Unsafe!!
2
Problem with this dialogue is that Angela is a one trick pony. My guns, I have for killing people, are more virtuous than your guns because you have an Arsenal. What a level of dumbness.
Repeal and Confiscate.
3
The vast majority of violent crimes, including mass murders and mass shootings, in the United States are committed by African American males between 15 and 30. Can we have a conversation about reasonable common sense African American control?
No!
Why?
Because individuals have rights. The rights of African American individuals and the rights of individual gun owners (and any and all other individuals) can not be violated just because someone else does something bad and happens to fall within their demographic.
So here is your conversation: We will not comply! If you pass any new laws we will not obey them. If you send people to enforce them we will defend ourselves. Leave us alone.
Also, Times, instead of getting moderate leftists and extreme leftists to have a conversation about gun control how about you get some real ordinary gun owners and people who actually represent typical gun owners. These people you have are not it and it only furthers the lie the gun owners support gun control, and further discredits you with anyone not on the left.
2
I just came back from a tour of northern Europe, visiting Germany, France, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Austria. The sense I gathered from talking to people is that they think the whole business of guns in the USA is just plain stupid, lacking in common sense and in reasonable trust of one another.
3
when our congress did nothing after sandy hook, i threw up my hands in complete and utter disgust at the republicans , and then i just threw up. the 2nd amendment is not a free-for-all for military style weapons. it continues to sicken me as trump is a patsy for the NRA. what other country allows this kind of mass slaughter, time after time, without taking action? i'll tell you.......
no other country.
2
The only way to reduce gun deaths is to reduce the number of guns in the United States. No guns? No dead kids. This is the #BrutalReality of the gun debate.
Background checks INCREASE the number of guns in circulation and therefore are useless.
America must work to make Guns safe, legal and rare. Only those that need them for work and those that undergo extreme vetting (permit to purchase, training, licensing, and insurance) should be allowed.
And we need a massive buy back two get guns off the streets and into the schmelters.
Melt the guns.
2
@Shaun And the only way to reduce Automotive deaths in the United States is to reduce the number of cars in the United States. No cars? No dead kids.
Look. It’s this simple: restrict magazine size to 7 rounds and make all firearms with detachable magazines illegal to own or sell. No grandfathering, no “you can sell it to your kids/parents/family friends”, no “special permits.” Doesn’t matter if they’re an AR / AK based model or a wood grained hunting rifle or a shotgun or a pistol; if the magazine can be reloaded by removing and replacing it, it’s gone. Detachable magazines are the reason for massacres like Las Vegas, Pulse, Parkland, etc. Nothing else.
Restrict handgun ownership to only those who go through rigorous training and oversight (no, being a police officer or in the military is not the only qualification you need. But it helps). More people are killed or hurt by handguns than every other kind of firearm combined. Make them very, very difficult to acquire. They have one purpose: killing and hurting human beings. That’s it.
You wanna shoot cans in the backyard? Get an air gun. You wanna use real bullets at the range? Rent a piece from the range owners, who have to carry massive amounts of insurance and provide supervision as well as secure, regularly inspected storage facilities. You wanna play Dirty Harry? Buy a video game. Get guns out of the hands of every knuckle dragger with a couple hundred $$ and a Charles Bronson fantasy. Only then will we see a reduction in gun violence.
Every other civilized nation on the planet has figured this out. It’s not difficult.
1
Having a gun to protect yourself from the government is so misplaced. If you have a cell phone the government or Google or Facebook, whoever, can manipulate you all they want. This is not the 1800"s. You should have to register your gun in a line next to your license application and every bullet should be tagged too.
I can't understand why such intelligent people can argue the subleties of gun violence when you have one of the highest rates of gun deaths among developed countries. Gun control works: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/mar/20/strict-firearm-laws-reduce-gun-deaths-heres-the-evidence
Stop shooting each other!
3
The only difficulty in discussing guns in America arises from the deluge of misinformation liberal media outlets have drowned readers with over the last 20 years.
Few NYTimes readers know they are 20X more likely to die of choking (eg, on a pretzel) than being killed by a semi-auto target rifle. They are 50X more likely to be killed by a DUI/DWI driver.
Yet we see blaring headlines weekly, or daily, sensationalizing the relatively -few- murders that are committed with these firearms. Yes, "few", compared to all other forms of mortality for which data is collected.
Liberals should stop wasting their political capital on an AWB, and start negotiating for reasonable restrictions (serial numbers) on high cap mags, and start incentivizing gun makers to eliminate detachable magazines. But that would require some actual knowledge of the subject, which few of the loudest anti-gun groups have.
3
Let me spell it out for you: Shall not be infringed.
That's it. All the people in this "discussion" are supporting infringing on people's rights.
AR-15s are not an issue. 30 round magazines are not an issue. That is a fact.
3
I was trained as a lawyer and I can generally concoct a reasonable-sounding rationale for the most arguably ridiculous position taken by a client. But no matter how I twist logic, I can’t see how the language of the Second Amendment creates a constitutional right to own any firearm. The Second is obviously a dead letter, since militias in the 18th century sense no longer exist. I think the result of the Heller case is right; an absolute ban on gun ownership is an unreasonable burden on citizens for a lot of simple due-process reasons. But to the extent that justice Scalea created a constitutional right out of whole cloth, the opinion is ridiculous.
9
@McFadden He, at least, had some language in the Constitution to base his opinion on, unlike Justice Douglas in Griswold v Connecticut. Creating a right to privacy out of thin air seems OK these days, so why not an individual right to bear arms?
My younger brother by 3 years took his life with a 12 gauge shotgun 30 years ago in Ohio. He was diagnosed through multiple forced hospitalizations as a "full blown" paranoid schizophrenic. Drivers license revoked among all the other publicly accessible records. He couldn't own a car because he couldn't get insurance or a license. He walked into a local gun shop put down the cash and walked out. Bingo. He fortunately didn't take anyone with him. I'm still destroyed to this day with his and our loss.
It should be 5 times harder to get a gun as it is to get a car in this country. 10 times the regulation.
As far as I'm concerned. ENOUGH.
Any weapon that is semi or fully automatic can be used by the military or law enforcement only.
There is no reason for a civilian to own anything more than a revolver, or bolt action rifle or shotgun. That's it. That's all we get and all we need (if that)
You want to use big time weapons? Join the military or law enforcement.
At 66 years of age and listening to and witnessing these asinine arguments over all these years is enough.
14
@UtahSteve 1953 YES. Why do people register cars without complaint (and insure them, and pay property taxes on them) and refuse to do so with guns, which are specifically designed to kill? Vote for candidates who will pass laws for registration, limits on the size of magazines, and more stringent background checks.
1
@UtahSteve 1953
"You want to use big time weapons? Join the military or law enforcement."
I have yet to hear a convincing argument for allowing active and/or retired police to own a firearm that is prohibited to civilians.
If we don't need it, they don't need it either.
1
Guns are instruments of death. They are tools made for one purpose only: to kill. Either we accept the proliferation of death or we fight against it. Destroy all guns.
1
America prides itself on allowing capitalistic greed to overcome common sense regarding gun control and just about everything else.
Only in America!
1
Wonderful initiative by the New York Times!
I'd encourage readers who believe we can address gun violence despite ideological and geographic differences to consider participating in Urban Rural Action's gun safety / violence prevention programming: https://www.uraction.org/gunsafety.html
Online conversation about legislation is useful, but coming together in person to figure out what action we can take in our (urban and rural) communities to reduce violence (including gun-related suicides) is an even better way to effect meaningful change.
1
The Times. TV need to raise hell about guns every day, but they don't. The Times, TV need to get after politicians who neglect their readers, their constituents, about guns, but they don't. Neglected by the media, their representatives, the people suffer.
Life trumps rights, except the right to defend it.
I’m impressed that there is dialogue between people with very different views. How did you manage to get that to happen?
2
WRT your first two participants (Angela and Tom), I feel like Tom is either ignorant (unlikely) or was being intentionally obtuse (perhaps?). To say that a 30 round Sig .380 could do "just as much damage" as a (30 round) AR-15 ignores the AR-15's significantly higher (~3x) muzzle velocity (more than enough to make up for the lower bullet weight) and far better medium to long range accuracy. Simply put, AR-15's were designed to be highly effective offensive battlefield weapons; handguns are more generally thought of as self-defense or small scale offensive weapons.
But funny - after that it might seem I am anti-assault rifle. I'm not. I think citizens generally should be able to own these weapons (perhaps with some level of background checks to ensure they are in fact compos mentis etc). I base this under the simple premise that the reason our right to bear arms was enshrined in the Bill of Rights was to give the people the ability to resist the government in the event it turned to tyranny. May that day never come - but if it does, I believe it is an intrinsic piece of who we are as a country that we are 'of the people, by the people, for the people'.
FWIW - tho I live in Canada right now, I am American and a former officer in the US Navy
2
Repeal Second Amendment; ban military-style weapopns and accessories; write new laws treating gun ownership just as we treat automobile ownership, i.e. licensing, registration and insurance; buyback programs.
I love the way the Tom Kolditz is gun-splaining and Angela is taking it.
***
I tried climate-splaining and evolution-splaining to conservatives and it didn't go as well.
Start by requiring liability insurance in order to own a gun. The cost, as it is with other types of liability insurance, would vary based on various identified risks (type and caliber of firearm, magazine capacity, training completed by the prospective owner, etc). This would respect the citizen's right to bear arms but would mitigate the social cost of emts, police, hospital trauma care, ongoing cost of lost wages, and rehab for survivors that now is regularly passed on to the public, and, that at its core, is a seldom discussed form of socialism.
1
I've noticed a lot of "replys" in the comments section, most of which are trying to pull the typical extreme commenters on both sides into a more moderate space. This is apparently why the editorial assistants created the conversations that make up this article. Remarkably effective journalism! There is hope.
I feel this issue is well overdone and is being overlooked that only provides more room for these heinous crimes. The solution for this issue is to rather get rid of guns in general which will just result in a national upset. We provide a simpler solution that can evolve such as mental/phycological checks. This will provide more insight on the people doing the purchasing. This will later provide a platform for a real solution or the finding of the cause of all this violence
Amazing how feebly the pro-gun-control spokespersons argue. So much more could be said, than what they found it possible to say. Oh well, a missed opportunity.
What do those people fear, who cannot go anywhere without carrying a gun? And where does their opposition to a registry of purchasers and/or owners of guns come from?; why in the world do they fear that government agents will swoop down to confiscate their weapons? It's the paranoia of these people, and their weird and warped ideas about society, government, and the generally peaceful intentions of their neighbors, that badly need to be examined, before anything like a reasonable dialogue with them can be carried on.
BTW, where Tom Kolditz is said to use two formidable rifles to "control" coyotes and wild boars, please let's get rid of that cold euphemism. He doesn't "control" wild animals, he kills them. As individuals, he kills them, and as populations inhabiting a place, he kills them off. "Control" is a squeamish, diffident ploy to avoid facing the moral consequences of a deadly course of action.
@Mark Caponigro I believe that the term "control" in this context means to control the population. Yes, that does mean killing off feral hogs, but we've got scores of those property-ruining animals down here in Texas. When a state allows for the hunting of an animal year-round, there's usually a good reason. Keeping from being overrun with feral hogs is, in fact, a very good reason indeed.
1
I believe we can begin to cut down carnage from guns without troubling any gun owners of gun safety advocates.
First, let's agree guns as toys as well as toy guns are dangerous--just ask the family of Tamir Rice. Anything we can do to safely store guns and keep children safe from family fire is to the good. Even an unloaded gun is intimidating to the would-be criminal.
Next, red flag laws to give the abuser and the distraught less access to highly lethal ways not to just end discussion but end lives is also beneficial.
Universal background checks can put fewer arms in the hands of the criminal and miscreants among us.
Saving one life is worth a small inconvenience to another life.
1
A whole bunch of discussion about solutions, pro and con, and not once has anyone asked WHY the increase in gun violence.
This society has been armed to the teeth since its inception. Gun violence seems to be a relatively new phenomenon, or is that perception just visibility afforded by mass media reporting? If new, why, what are the underlying causes? If the underlying causes are not addressed then all subsequent legislation will be for naught.
2
Buried in each of these are frightening right wing talking points: excessive government intrusion, law and order based on more guns instead of laws that restrict the most lethal violence, corrupt law enforcement, rampant individualism when it comes to what they want to do. Pain and trauma of those gun owners who are victims should be addressed, but not with more guns. Guns kill. As studies have found, guns increase one's sense of power. Period. This exchange felt false because It was. Where is the value of peaceful community? Opposition to widespread gun ownership is not a matter of not understanding guns, it's a matter of not believing guns are the solution to anything but fear, desperation and rage.
As it wasn’t highlighted, I had to check back that this was really coming from your new “Debatable” feature. I had commented on an earlier column that “Debate” is not the best vehicle to even partially reconcile difficult problems, look for common ground, or see the mutual humanity. Each side is just looking “to win,” which is a very different thing, with practices designed for that goal.
Yet, you have accomplished something positive on one of the classically difficult issues: guns. There was some understanding of the other side; learning, which can be hard to admit to; respect.
You obviously didn’t touch all the issues, and there are always the issues under the surface.
And I still don’t see why registries are a bad idea if one of our goals is to fight crime.
But a pleasant surprise! This can be relevant for much more than just the gun issue. Also a small sign of hope amid the overarching depressing trajectory of quality democracy. So, people can still do this! Maybe, too, an example of a positive journalistic innovation.
Finally, maybe at the end of the theme, you could categorize the relative agreements by sub-topic, including what did not get published, and offer it to researchers, think tanks, and serious politicians and others involved in non-superficial negotiations on gun regulation.
I don't own a gun, never have, and hopefully never will. I also have no argument with any capable person who chooses to own one. While it is good to see mutually respectful conversations between progressives and supporters of gun ownership right such as in this article, the present climate of polarization makes such discussions difficult to achieve on a broad scale, unfortunately. While the NRA historically deserves much blame for shutting down any possibility of such discussions, the gun owners cited here are hardly recycling their talking points. I'm sure it is not lost on gun owners to see a trend coming from the progressive side where the basic rights of those not in their circle are increasingly disrespected. What I am referring to includes high-brow deconstruction of the right to free speech, open hostility and bigotry towards those seeking to practice their religion, and flippancy on due process rights. So can there be a good-faith discussion on the Second Amendment? It doesn't help to get the discussion moving that the only focus is on how much the rights of gun owners are to be reduced.
1
Thank you for this article. I learned a lot, and I appreciated the well-reasoned arguments from the gun-owners.
While there are some practical ways to prevent mass murders, as Tom in the first section suggested, I cannot understand why our legislatures, both at the state and federal levels, do not stop all new gun purchases immediately until we get some common-sense regulations in place. There should be no gun show sales or online sales, to start. Registration is an excellent idea -- it helps press charges against illegal ownership.
@Carolyn
"until we get common sense gun regulations in place"
Does that mean the thousands of gun laws we have on the books already contain no "common sense?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California
Other than a complete ban on firearms ownership I believe CA has enacted everything you've asked for already.
Obviously background checks should be rigorous and required, but a person who seems sane today might not be sane tomorrow. People can do a lot more damage with a gun than without one.
The following sentence isn't really ambiguous. "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." The latter is clearly intended in support of the former. It doesn't make sense to interpret a part of a sentence as opposed to the whole sentence. Either that or I can have a tank, an Apache attack helicopter, and a cache of explosives because my rights to bear arms can't be infringed.
@Pete Yes, that's what it says--you should be free to keep a tank, etc. Like freedom of speech which allows us to say horrible and hurtful things, our Constitutional gun rights allow us to keep and bear dangerous and harmful arms. We pay a great price for our freedoms in this country--the land of the free and the home of the brave.
1
First you should realize that the 1st Amendment does NOT protect all speak. Cf. Schneck vs. the US. The poignant phrase from that Supreme Court case is:
"You can't yell fire in a crowded theater" if there is No fire. So no you can't just say whatever you want anywhere.
Second I point out that the first four words in the 2nd are "A well regulated militia". Note particularly "regulated" from the Latin, "regere"'- to keep straight, direct, govern, rule.
Third, for the sake of argument, even if you believe that our founders thought anybody and everybody could own any weapon, big or small, they also designed a constitution that could be modified by amendment. From the Latin, "emendare," - to correct, rectify, improve, and my favorite make better.
@Stephen The first part about the militia is irrelevant. "...shall not be infringed" is quite definitive and easily understandable. I'm not defending this, just noting the obvious. I think what the founders had in mind is that a citizen army requires that the citizens know how to use weapons, so their right to bear those arms shall not be infringed. It's outdated and needs to be amended, but denying the logic and meaning of clear English phrases won't work.
1
These conversations were not between people with opposing views. They all seemed to be gun owners or at least not unsympathetic to gun owners, so it is not surprising these conversations were civil and polite. Had the participants actually held opposing views, it would have been considerably different.
To Angela:
I am not scared of the person who wants a 100 guns. I am scared of the person who only wants one.
Because honestly, Angela, you have come to your decision by making the conscious choice that you are prepared to kill someone.
I on the other hand, own ~10 guns, all of them modified exclusively for competition target shooting. Most would not be practical to carry. Ever since I left the military, I have made the conscious decision not to carry for 3 main reasons: First, the things are heavy and inconvenient and I can minimize the likelihood that I would ever need one by proactively avoiding situations where that becomes a factor. Second, the likelihood of making a mistake is just too great, short of me being in my house and the lynch mob amassing outside. Then, yeah, I have enough time to make an assessment and I would defend my home and my family. Third, I don't want to live with the burden of having killed someone. I don't even hunt, although if I were hungry I would.
I know that I am outlier, though.
1
I'm still waiting for the conversation that involves asking someone who believes civilians should have no limits on the kinds of arms they bear whether they would be okay logically extending the right to bear arms to the right to bear nuclear weapons (modern arms)--and if not, why not? It's true that I get a little cranky now and then, but if you were just to allow me to own a few atom bombs, uninsured and unregulated, I promise I won't put them to misuse. After all, nuclear weapons don't kill people; people kill people--so it shouldn't be a problem, right?
Let's please have that conversation. And arms are arms, people, so please don't begin your counter-argument by trying to pretend there's some difference.
4
The 2nd Amendment does not ever mention the right to own a cannon, a man-of-war, a missile, a torpedo, a bomb, an army, a navy-- so the anti-gun rights argument that gun owning rights extend the right to ownership of nuclear bombs is a logical absurdity. The letters of just about any law can by an extreme applications eventually offend the spirit of the laws. Indeed, under the 1st Amendment, you cannot blare political speeches to your neighbors all night the way that our CIA - Army acoustic team blared loud music 24/7 to force Panama dictator Manuel Noriega out of the Vatican Embassy to capture him. The spirit of the 2nd Amendment's meaning is clear: Amercan citizens have the legal right to own firearms without government infringement for self-protection and to defend our country. Government may infringe on our right to own and use a firearm, and confiscate the guns used illegally. But that's the only time when government owns our guns as though the government bought them.
This was very informative. It shows that even people from opposite ends of the issue can find some way to talk, and reach at least partial understanding.
And there are really good points made by both sides, though I'm not sure that all of them can be reconciled. At least being able to air them and get the other side to hear them is a good beginning. If instead of coming at this issue from an "I've got to win" POV, but rather, "How can we solve this?" POV, we might be able to make some progress. These conversations were more along the lines of the latter POV, and it would be great if more of these discussions could take place.
Certainly, the diehards on each side will likely not give an inch, but the majority of Americans I think would be willing to compromise in order to see some progress made.
1
Firearm deaths in the United States are directly related to availability. In Canada by comparison they are dramatically less yet we are basically the same people. The only difference is in your country guns are easier to obtain. But availability of firearms in Canada is now also increasing thanks to smuggling and so by extension are homicides. The border that separates our country from yours, as it is with Mexico, bleeds guns.
The debate taking place in your country seems to be moving towards the realization that something has to be done. I wonder though, given the fact that everybody is already locked and loaded, if it might not be a bit late.
One last thing. A familiar argument that we hear in Canada by those opposed to gun control is that our laws unfairly target legitimate gun owners. The criminals they say will just ignore them. This argument overlooks an important fact. The majority of homicides occur in the heat of the moment and a great many are the result of domestic quarrels. Many of the criminals who commit these murders were not called criminals before they pulled the trigger. They were called legitimate gun owners.
1
It seems impossible. Personally, I hate guns. I never saw the value of being able to point and fire a high-speed, lead projectile at anything.
Maybe a small bb gun would be fun to fire, certainly a bow and arrow is fun to fire, but these mechanical death machines?
I don't get it. It seems totally irrational to me. The joy of firing a gun at a gun range? I think not. I think it's an excuse.
I think it possibly shows how powerless our population feels. They feel so powerless they need to know they can hurl lead into anyone they feel like at any time, just in case it's necessary.
We're uncivilized.
1
1. The registration of all guns have to come from the factory it's made at.
2. All guns have to have serial numbers. Any gun that has a serial number erased, arrest the person and charge the person with a felony. No less then 10 years in jail. It might seem rough but guns kill.
3. Every gun that is sold has to be fired the required number of times to have groove indentations that are photograph and put into a computer file with the serial number and the persons license to own the gun in the file also.
4. If you want to sell the gun you have to go to a police station to tell them who you are selling your gun to, and if that person has a license to have the gun. If not 2 weeks of school.
5. All gun owners have to go to a 2 week process on how to use and store a gun. They also have to pay out of pocket for that learning. It's not on the people who don't want anything to do with guns.
6. All gun owners have to sign a affidavit that they will do no harm to the population at large. Install in their license.
This is a common sense application to something that can kill, in the 21st century, not 17th century.
You do have a right to bear arms but in this era we need protections for all. Gun owners and people that don't own guns.
The basic problem is a matter of the separation of church and state. America is having a debate about the religious artifacts required to conduct a religion of blood-sacrifice. The orthodox, supported by scripture, naturally feel blameless; the do god’s will. Those who question the orthodoxy needs be apologetic, deferential, cautious.
This religion requires no proofs on either side; god’s will be done. The only terms of discussion are the ones that the orthodox have prescribed; any questioning of an enlightenment nature not just offends; it marks you as apostate. In some enclaves, the apostates gather; the orthodox, in their generosity tolerate this, but also remind these irregular individuals; we know where you live, we know what you think, we know that you go against our god. When the time comes for the next blood-sacrifice, we will try to please god.
Meantime, the religion thrives, and stimulates a healthy culture, of endless artifacts – movies, comics, television news, books, songs, catchphrases and slang – that all dutifully place the artifacts of the religion prominently at their centre. Historians write their histories, structured around the religious tenets of blood sacrifice; in the wars and in the stories of the frontier, the artifacts of the religion were transformed from mundane tools of work that all men would shun if they could, to the holy objects they unquestionably are.
Beyond the borders, others struggle to understand these beliefs.
My problem is that we have proven over decades that we, as a society are not mature enough to own guns. Are there individual who are mature enough? Without a doubt. Yet how would one go about testing for that, to say "You may own guns," "You may not, you lack the maturity and self control necessary." Year after year we kill between 14,000 and 16,000 people each year, many of them children. This does not include the 20,000 people who suicide by gun each year. In the face of such a slaughter how can one stand idle and allow it to happen?
The Constitution was never intended to be a straight jacket, locking our society into rules that no longer made sense, that's why we have the Amendments. Even the Amendments are subject to change, we have done that in the past. The 18th Amendment enacted Prohibition and the 21st Repealed it.
So how do we change things? I would suggest a two step process - Ban bullets, ban the sale and distribution of all bullets. It would not be perfect, but in a few years the death rate would plummet. When the case got to the SCOTUS they would rule accordingly. If they did not, then the 2nd Amendment would have to be repealed. Hopefully the improvement in people's lives as a result of the ammunition ban would make that possible.
The slaughter in our country is entirely preventable, so far we have chosen to not to. We have said "Yes, you may kill 25 children"
2
I am amazed at how wishy washy your pro-gun law people are. We should ban guns altogether except for a very few types and a very few people. Some farmers and ranchers have a need; police, alas, are not in a position to give up guns. Hunters I suppose must be allowed a rifle.
But having everyone else armed only raises the stakes. And we need to ban the manufacture of the guns as well. All over the world, people are killing each other with American guns. And while we're at it, why not ban arms in general? The USA ends up fighting in wars against their own guns. And so many civilians are killed in senseless battles with overarmed participants.
No more guns. No more bullets.
1
Angela appeared to have her mind made up that Gun Control was the 'only' answer despite not being aware of both legislation and guns with modification in general. She was also surprised at the level of knowledge that Tom had, that she herself did not.
James pointed out to Gabby that the Gun Show Loophole was a misnomer and explained why, which she didn't know. If the uniformed public and Gun Control advocates were totally honest, they'd own up and state what both Angela and Gabby stated, that they were not as informed on these issues as they believed.
Break down the so-called Gun Control 'Loopholes' and they proliferate by the day, one would see they all are just 'propaganda' or so-called 'Red Meat' for the Gun Control side.
"Anne-Marie: I do believe that most gun owners are responsible people. But in general, owning a gun for “protection” is a mixed bag. It’s dangerous and, in many cases, foolish." Well, I believe this quote pretty much sums up what I just stated above concerning the Gun Control advocates.
The one thing Anne-Marie plus the Gun Control advocates and the Gun Rights advocates have IN common is Anne-Marie's next quote in her last sentence: "though I admit I’ve always wondered how a gun locked away can be effective as a self-protection tool." Of course neither side was going to budge, and I hope the authors knew this at the beginning.
4
Why bother having
-Speed limits
-Food labels
-Stop signs for school buses
-Properly labeled medicine / directions
-Levels of certain chemicals in water
-Etc.
Seems like each of these could kill but each have legally imposed limits or requirements and yet with guns, anything goes.
8
As an example of one, I have never had a need for a gun even when living for 60 years in wild and woolly Texas. Nor did any of my friends and family.
I can, though, think of several instances of when a gun would have made the situation worse if not tragic. (Examples provided upon request)
Life is not a movie, but many gun-carriers fantasize that they, like Clint Eastwood, will save the day and restore law, order, and justice in the final scene. No bystanders will be injured, just eternally grateful. And they will all live happily everafter.
Lot of that goin' around in Texas and Oklahoma. So when open-carry came in, I left, never to return. Even here in the Gunshine State, we don't allow open-carry.
2
@Jim Muncy
I have never seen anyone carry openly in Texas, except police and other shooters on the gun range.
Almost ironically, on my gun range the rule is that any gun that is carried outside the sanctioned shooting areas must be unloaded. So someone who has a carry license could come to the gates of our range with a loaded 45 strapped the thigh, the moment he crossed onto the range property, he would have to unload it.
1
@Captain Nemo
I spent a nervous meal in a sandwich shop seated below a guy with a gun in his holster pointed in my direction. His seat was a bar stool; my chair was regular.
I've found that no matter what people in favor of universal background checks and banning weapons designed solely to kill human beings say to those opposed it makes no difference. As someone who feels this way I'm told I'm ignorant about the Second Amendment. I'm told that the police aren't quick enough. I'm told that I'm stupid and don't understand that gun ownership is a right. Here's what I don't understand: when did it become fashionable to have a gun as an everyday accessory on one's person? When did the safety of others become secondary? And since when is the NRA allowed to quash realistic concerns about guns, gun violence and its costs? How does that serve the society in which they live?
Does it serve us well to fear being in public because our friends and neighbors were shot and killed that way the day before or a year ago? Does it serve us well to be so frightened that our first response to a person walking over to us to say hello is to pull a gun? I don't see law enforcement agencies supporting concealed carry or open carry permits with unrelieved joy. Could it be that they know something we don't? It complicates their job when the "wrong" person has the gun.
The difficulty is the NRA and its supporters and the GOP. What's truly sad is that even after one of their own was shot and seriously injured they didn't change their views. Then again, it's tough to listen when your pay is based on a lie.
11/11/2019 6:14pm first submit
2
@hen3ry
Dear H.,
You state and I quote: " As someone who feels this way I'm told I'm ignorant about the Second Amendment."
"I'm told that I'm stupid and don't understand that gun ownership is a right."
Yet, in the article none, I repeat none of the Gun Rights activists stated a single bad word about their counter-part. Yet, the same was not true of the Gun Control activists.
Angela to Tom: "But our current situation — and your arsenal — seems to go way beyond what the forefathers may have intended. I’m shocked that anyone would need 20 guns." Please read Tom's response!
Gabby to James: "I see your point on unchecked powers, but I believe there needs to be some sort of check on gun ownership. Violent felons and domestic abusers who have been convicted or people who have been involuntarily committed for mental health issues, or those on terrorist watch lists, should be prevented from easily purchasing guns." Does anyone really believe Gabby doesn't know violent felons and domestic abusers who have been convicted or people who have been involuntarily committed for mental health issues, should be prevented from easily purchasing guns." aren't allowed to own guns, and the NRA solidly supports this! As a Gun Control activist she should've have known about the so-called No-Fly List, yet it says volumes about the ignorance in terms of not knowing the Gun Control law in effect of this group!
1
@Dennis and this proves what? I'm writing based on my own experience. Are you trying to tell me that I'm lying?
@hen3ry
Dear H.,
Why the extreme reaction,"@Dennis and this proves what? I'm writing based on my own experience. Are you trying to tell me that I'm lying?" when I used your own quotes? Remember this, our responses are supposed to be based on what was in 'this' column.
As I showed in my response with the quotes I outlined by the three Gun Control advocates to you, it was the Gun Control advocates that leveled such as you claimed to receive against the Gun Rights advocates, yet all three Gun Control advocates ended up admitting they were not as knowledgeable about the laws in effect as they believed. Nor I might add did the new information mean a hill of beans to the Gun Control advocates!
1
Every day there are a number of shootings in America’s cities. As long as we care more about the second amendment than we do about public safety,the carnage will continue. There was a recent slaughter of a Mormon family in Mexico. The weapons used came from theU.S. The last time I fired a rifle was in the army, a “well regulated militia . most people who own weapons know nothing about a well regulated militia.
1
You call this a debate? These people have no idea about the meaning of the 2nd Amend. It NOT about hunting.
4
Sure and what's next ? registering cars? Did you register ownership of that valuable weapon with your insurer? Think they won't rat you out if Google or Zuckerberg asks them? How much should an AR-15 bullet cost? Choose 50 cents or 250 dollars.
Can someone explain to me what "gun violence" is? And is it the same as pressure cooker violence, semi-tractor & trailer violence and knife violence?
5
Sure. Procuring any of these appliances with the intent to inflict injury on a person and /or their property. Example: If you were to get a Claas B license for the sole purpose of running people over, even if they broke into your house, that would be a clear case of TT violence.
My question is this. Once you bought a gun did it change you? Did you begin to think that the gun made you stronger? Did it make you want to play with it, to clean it like a Pontiac Firebird, or fire it off at targets in your back yard or the local shooting range? Did you give up bowling for firing your gun? Did you suddenly feel akinship to people you normally might not agree with, but now they and you have guns?
Did you begin to think that a gun is like becoming a black belt? Where, confronted by an evildoer you don't need months of karate or ju jitsu but to just pull out your gun and show them who is boss? Did the dream of doing that make you think of how that woman standing next to you might feel? That, with a gun you were more manly than you would have been without it? Do you view gun control laws like laws limiting your access to Viagra?
And when in the darkest of your moments, whether you wish to kill yourself or the supervisor, ex spouse/girlfriend, child, parent or society that constantly makes you miserable, did you think that gun, with its rapid fire and high capacity magazine suddenly looked like the answer to all your problems?
I only ask this, because each years hundreds of men, and a few women, think to think this. Why is that?
2
Stop the sale of bullets now. Texas a GOP hot headed state has this year become known as the mass murder state of America and the free world. That title alone should scare tourism and hurt their economy forever. When i heard a few years ago they passed the right to carry guns i knew it was going to end up a failure. To top that the conservatism ideology has a violent side. The NYT’s had an article in the paper not long ago discussing that. When the Dems take over the senate we need to stop the sale of bullets so no other state holds that disgusting title ever again.
1
There really isn't anything that can be done about guns already out there. I hunt and have guns of my own. I am also very progressive politically and support some form of gun restrictions. I own a 20 gauge Shotgun, .308 rifle, .22 rifle and a .22 hand-gun. Most of my guns are limited by the number of bullets a magazine can hold. Instead of a ban how about a really steep tax on any gun that has a magazine that holds more than 5 bullets. This should be levied on the manufacturers. Also hold gun retailers accountable. It they sell more than one magazine with a firearm there are steep penalties. The money would then be applied to gun violence research and mental health issues. I'm saying a very steep tax that would raise the price of these guns beyond what most people could afford and at the same time, not limit second amendment rights since there are plenty of firearms that can still be purchased. I do support an outright ban on armer piercing bullets. There is no excuse for these. I know this won't solve all gun violence, but its a start. Make it hurt in the pocket book for both manufacturers and people who want to use those guns.
1
Face it, dear friends, the data tells us that if you are filthy rich, you needn't fear guns at all. There is no serious discussion here. I have been in a number of countries where owning a gun is not an issue at all. The real problem lies elsewhere. Of course, no one wants to talk about that, not in the USA, not where it's perfectly legal to blast your neighbors away if you don't like their looks, that is to say, their color.
The real problem is a peculiarly American paranoia that our persons, property, and liberty are under constant and significant threat and that we have the right, as individuals, to choose to use deadly force to neutralize those perceived threats.
This is just nuts. Get rid of the paranoia and everyone will understand that owning or carrying a gun for self-defence is rarely a rational choice. Then we can, like sane societies, ban all but the most innocuous sorts of firearms.
2
Anne-Marie said: "I’ve always wondered how a gun locked away can be effective as a self-protection tool."
Probably because gun-owners don't lock up all their guns, just some of them. They may wear one at all times and have many more locked away. No, they don't unilaterally disarm themselves.
4
Few people seem to talk about requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance for their guns. (I’m required to carry it for my car. So why not for my guns?)
The only arguments I’ve heard opposing insurance are:
“You can’t infringe on my Constitutional right”
“It’ll cost too much”
7
What seems to be a big right to guns is self defense. Why in open carry states when a mass shooting occurs the only person seem to be carrying is the shooter.
2
The just released FBI Uniform Crime Report (Expanded Homicide Data Table 8) shows that in 2018
— handguns were used in 6,303 murders,
— knives were use in 1,515 murders,
— 722 Americans were beaten, kicked or stomped to death by unarmed assailants,
—blunt instruments were used in 443 murders,
—and rifles (including assault rifles) were use in 297 murder.s
Rifle fire accounts for a small percent of murders and rifles like the AR-15 account for an even smaller percent.
The Second Amendment was written to ensure Americans are armed when weapons of war so they could form militias and fight on battlefields. AR-15s—not handgun—are the type of weapons the Second Amendment was written to protect.
I think the Second Amendment is outdated and should be modified or repealed. But we should not pretend that it doesn’t say what it clearly says. If we pretend it doesn’t say what it says, we can pretend to misunderstand the entire Bill of Rights.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
8
It turns out, the first amendment has limits too: the common example is yelling “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater.
And it seems the first amendment is a bit outdated with “deep fake” videos and political advertising on Facebook.
So, Heck Yeah, the second amendment needs some updating.
You left out the politicians. In order for this to be a true model of a meaningful dialog on achievable gun violence solutions, you need to have politicians both left and right involved. They need to stand next to each reader, and shout in their ears in a loud, exaggerated, and extremely polarized way that obscures and demonizes the other person's views.
This is done, of course, to further the politician's own personal power and advance their political agendas. Nothing to do with the individual readers involved, except to scare them one way or the other, and preclude any rational solutions that might hurt both sides a little, and help all sides a lot.
You know, what used to be called "compromise". No room for that kind of foolishness in American politics anymore... you sure don't see it very much.
1
Discussing guns is difficult, so let’s approach the subject from a different perspective. Congress and presidents (past and present) have been ineffective in taking any appropriate action. There are many billionaires that have proven they want to use their fortunes to improve society. I would like to see one of them step forward, propose and fund a non-governmental gun violence commission. Properly moderated, this cross section of America would be charged with: 1} defining the issues/problems we are trying to address, 2) identifying and evaluating possible remedies, 3) spelling out in detail obstacles to solutions, and 4) proposing in rank order concrete actions Americans, States and/or Congress should implement.
Does this sound naive? Does the current circular debate and denial sound both stupid and naive? We must take an open, objective bold step and stop nibbling at the edges if we expect different results. Where are Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Howard Shultz, Tom Steyer and...? Yes, we are dealing with a difficult issue, so let’s get on with it.
Gun owners ofter cite “freedom” as a reason for owning a gun. They also strive to associate “patriotism” with the ownership.
Meanwhile, millions of their fellow citizens live with a lingering fear that is unique to America, i.e. The fear of being slaughtered by a wacko (who exercised his right to own an AR14) at their place of work, school, Wal-Mark, county park, etc.
Children are taught how to hide via “active shooter” drills.
None of these feelings are associated with “freedom”. The opposite is true. Their selfish needs subtly terrorize their neighbors.
Countries like Japan and Australia reject guns and their murder statistics show a huge benefit. Thousands of lives are saved each year. Amazingly, their populations still enjoy “freedom”.
Our existing limp gun laws corrupt the social order, and need to be improved.
4
People have had ready access to guns in this country from the very beginning. We've had access to hand guns since the days of the Wild West.
If violence in our country gets out of control, it won't be because of access to guns. It will be because something else has changed. If anyone thinks the violence will go away if guns are removed yet the "something else" remains, they are deluding themselves.
4
It’s true; taking guns away won’t stop violence, any more than banning slavery ended racism.
But without banning slavery, whatever other racial progress has been made, would be impossible.
You make the point that the cautious pro-safety, anti-anarchy advocates are afraid to; banning guns can only be the beginning of rebuilding a rational society. Any society that expects and structures itself around violence, as the default obligation to a self-governing people, is one that has no claim to civilization.
Sorry John a six shooter is not as dangerous as an AR-15. We have also police forces to protect us.
Every conceivable rational argument for and against guns has been made thousands of times for the last 50 years.
What I don't hear about much is the deep symbolic value guns have for Americans. Don't laugh; symbolism, in its ineffable way, can be more powerful (because it is less understood) than rational argument. Symbols define who we are: imagine the French without wine or the Russians without vodka, chess, and ballet. Americans have baseball, cowboys, and guns, all of which speak to our origin and our history. American Indians, American buffalo, and American presidents have in common that guns killed them. This is not the story that the French or the Congolese tell about themselves; it's uniquely ours. Guns built this place and because of that, they occupy a special realm in our collective unconscious.
Try taking wine away from the French and you'll see how deep the problem lies. Legislation, plans, and policies do little to confront the symbolic nature of our attachment.
4
@GP
Nonsense. Guns built the French empire more than it built the American empire.
Our Constitution’s Bill of Rights is not a Bill of Life, so the discussion about guns in America is more than difficult. It’s impossible to find a general point of agreement. On one side, guns are weapons that take away life, and the right to take a life is and ought to be reserved for the state. On the other side, one’s gun represents the right to self-defense of one’s life, hence the right to own a gun is the meaning of the right. Thus taking away the right is to take away the right to self-defense with a gun, leaving one defenseless among potential killers.
All the Constitution states is that one has the right to own a firearm, in the same way that the Constitution stipulates that one owns one’s political opinions, one owns participation in electing our government, and one owns one’s religious beliefs without government interference.
There are rights to freedom, protection of property, and to a speedy trial, among others. But there is no right to life per se expressed in the Constitution. If there were, perhaps we could agree that everyone deserves the right to protect one’s life, and no one has the right to take another’s life except to legally protect oneself, or to protect one’s other Constitutional rights. It would then be perhaps easier to achieve agreement on the prohibition of weapons going beyond a right to life in personal self-defense, We could easier agree then on exceptions to the universal right to own a firearm that government cannot infringe.
I would have thought “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” did, in fact, mean the Constitution provided exactly that right, before and above all others.
Dan, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is the opening "unalienable rights" phrase from our Declaration of Independence. Our Constitution is the basis of the government created to secure those rights, but only the last two rights of the 3 are secured in our Constitution's Bill of Rights. The "right to life" is a presumed but unstated right still contested in debates over a mother's right to terminate her pregnancy, whether the unborn fetus or unborn embryo is a person with a right to life, whether the state has the right to take away a prisoner's life when the prisoner is no longer a clear and present danger to us.
Our Supreme Court's divided majority decisions interpreting the application of our presumed right to life affirms it on a case-by-case basis, but challenges to the decisions continue. A Right to Life Amendment would secure the right to life, the right to defend it, and the limits to that right in forced sterilization cases and capital punishment.
As in my last comment unpublished here, I succinctly repeat: "Life trumps rights, except the right to defend both of them."
Too many gun control advocates approach this issue without the basic understanding that their "policy solutions" are infringing on people's civil rights. They are then surprised when people resist. We could crack down on racist rhetoric with policy solutions that infringe on the first amendment. We could solve crime easier with policy solutions that infringed on the fourth amendment. We could expedite the justice system with policies that infringe on the fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments. Just because we could, does not mean we should, and solutions that do not take our rights seriously will ultimately create more problems than they solve.
Moreover, the commentators here that replicate the "ban weapons of war" gun control discourse very much fail to realize the second amendment is specifically about war and dispersing military capabilities among the population for use in a last-resort situation.
6
I think we should make every gun owner be part of a "militia" where each member of such militia has joint liability for damages caused if one of their members does something against the law or civilly.
These militias will therefore be self policing - if they choose badly, each member could face serious financial or even criminal charges.
Responsible gun owners should have little problem with finding like-minded responsible adults who understand gun safety and mental health rules and there would be every incentive to check up on one another as a community. The best ones would have gun and hunting safety seminars and strong enforcement policies.
It'll never happen but at least it would bring meaning to the Constitutional right as originally intended.
1
Guns and gun ownership are not the only things it's difficult to discuss in America. Abortion, reproduction, discrimination, slavery, workers rights, appropriate levels when it comes to taxes, universal health care, the right to a decent education, the right to affordable housing, the right to be treated with dignity and respect. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." No, we don't. We pretend and then we proceed to ignore it. Why should we handle guns any other way?
4
My impression on these "conversations" is that the gun-control advocates are one the back foot from the get-go.
Only one of them had sufficient knowledge of firearms to argue specifics of firearm control measures, and none of them presents anything deeper than the politicized rhetoric gleaned from the tabloid-like presentation of the issue.
That's a shame. The criticisms fall on the shape and look of the firearm, not what the firearm actually does.
But what is most alarming is that the gun-control advocates choose not to address the salient issue of firearms in the hands of those who are not predisposed to follow the line in the first place.
That oversight, for me, bodes poorly for them all from participation in the development of solutions on the grounds that they have no understanding of the REAL problem...illegal guns in the hands of those intent on their illegal used.
3
I grew up shooting as recreation in a rural area. I now live in a high-density neighborhood in a major city. I have two observations:
1. We need the ability to set rules in relation to local needs and preferences. Our strong need in big cities to restrict ownership of guns should not be applied in rural areas that have different needs needs and preferences (and, vice versa). The NRA and the hard-core nut jobs who think they need to be ready to fight the government thinks that restriction anywhere is equivalent to restrictions everywhere. Just not true.
2. The safety of my children trumps (no pun) your hobby. At present the only realistic way to eliminate the risk of mass murder in schools is to confiscate 90+% of firearms. If you want them as history, art, or whatnot, then have them made permanently non-functional. Otherwise, if you can't offer a better solution, expect to hand them over some day.
4
As a liberal progressive democrat and US Army veteran who own several firearms, I have no objection to limits on high capacity magazines, universal background checks, and proscription of gun ownership for high-risk individuals. Unfortunately, the public argument is based on emotion rather than rational compromise based on actual data.
The suggestion in one of the discussions in the article regarding an easily used public process for assuring background checks without creating a federal database seems well worth pursuing.
2
I find the arguments from gun owners suggesting that you must know how to own/shoot guns in order to regulate them, ingenuous and a false argument.
It is FAR more relevant when considering public policy decisions, to know the societal impact and damage (or lack thereof) of gun ownership at the scale we have in the US. And comparisons with other countries is absolutely helpful - any scientist would do the same regarding any public health issue without the same political stigmas.
It doesn't matter how many guns you own, how long you've owned them, how accurately you can hit moving targets at the range. All of that is irrelevant compared to the real issue, which is SOCIETAL IMPACT.
Gun owners need to cease with their fake and misplaced criticism of non-gun-owners as being clueless about guns, and take a hard honest look in the mirror and truly stop being intentionally clueless about the devastating societal impact of guns in the US compared to any other nation.
6
I think we need to address the second amendment. The clause is related to "well-regulated militia." I'm in favor of folks owning as many guns as they want, ammo too. Just keep the things in armories. Put at least one armory in every municipality. When law abiding gun owners want to shoot their weapons, have them go to the armory and tell the staff their plan - target shooting, gun show, hunting. Then, when the call comes for the militia, every able bodied person can go to the armory and prepare for the invasion!
2
I’m an ex-pat New Yorker living in a log cabin in the wilds of Montana. I can explain to my urban friends why my rural friends think that the loss of their guns, of any type, is an existential threat to them. Read: We live in extreme isolation with our nearest neighbors miles away. Big predatory animals who want to eat our horses and cows are common. There are bad people out here with guns. They burglarize isolated cabins to support their drug habits. The nearest sheriff’s office can be *many* miles away. The response time to any 911 call we make can be measured in hours. Taking our AR-15s from us is a death sentence. Plus, there is the ideal of Rugged Individualism which is endemic to folks who live on the remnants of the Wild West Frontier. My neighbors are proud inheritors of a gun culture which goes back to their pioneer and cowboy ancestors who had to fight Native Americans and cattle rustlers. In the rural West, a father giving his son his first gun is equivalent to a bar mitzvah. I’ll role-play one of these folks and channel his thoughts for you: “I am John U. S. Smith. I am a free citizen of the USA. As such, I am a *sovereign political entity in my own person.* I AM the sovereign person-state of John U. S. Smith. Because I am a sovereign state in my own person, the final arbiter of the use of deadly force in my immediate vicinity, must be, has to be, can only be—me.” My urban friends need to understand the intensity with which my rural friends hold these views.
3
@S. Richey
Another commenter addressed the need for the distinction between the needs of the rural vs city dweller regarding guns.
I grew up in Chicago and have lived for years in a Washington DC suburb. I do not see a need for a gun but if I lived in the middle of nowhere ,I certainly would want one and would learn how to use it properly.
I don't necessarily believe that city dwellers want to deny rural citizens their guns but at the same time, city dwellers do not want rural dwellers telling them how to live their lives and to impose their guns on urban culture. It seems like the arguments always go one way- Red state America wants to be understood on guns and more but never extends the courtesy the other way.
Why is that you think?
1
@S. Richey Why is losing your AR, or any other semi-automatic with a high capacity magazine, a "death sentence". It is extremely unlikely that you will be attacked by an organized platoon of miscreants. It is even more unlikely that you will be attacked by a group of grizzlies. Semi-automatics with high capacity detachable magazines are nothing but dangerous toys. For practical self defense, they do nothing that couldn't be accomplished just as well with a bolt action. They do, however, give one the ability to fire many rounds and kill large numbers of people very quickly, something that would be difficult to accomplished with the bolt action. There is no need for civilians to own these weapons of war. And let's not pretend that you are going to fight off the government with your dangerous toys. If the government wants to take you out, you won't even see the drone that fired a missile through your living room window, much less get a shot at the person flying it.
1
@David Stoeckl Kindly re-read my argument. Here are the salient points repeated: 1. There are bad people out here who burglarize isolated cabins (like they burglarized mine; I happened to be away at the time), most usually to steal items which they can sell to support their drug habits. 2. These bad people have access to AR-15s and we must assume the worst case that they possess AR-15s. 3. Because of the extreme isolation in which I and people like me live, with dozens of miles separating us from law enforcement people--many of these miles being primitive dirt roads which fill up with snow--it can take hours for law enforcement people to arrive on scene. Therefore, the presence of government law enforcement where we live ranges from impotent to, for practical purposes, non-existent. 4. In this milieu, the Wild West tradition of law and justice being a do-it-yourself matter persists. Once, I was severely rebuked by a rancher whom I was visiting unannounced because she saw me driving on her private road in a strange pickup truck. She sharply told me she would have been within her rights to shoot me. 5. Bottom line: If the bad guys out here have AR-15s and if the sheriff is helpless to deter or intervene against said bad guys in a timely manner, then, it would be suicidal for law-abiding isolated cabin, ranch, and farm dwellers to give up their AR-15s.
I wish the retired Army brigadier general Tom Kolditz would have pushed back on the "weapons of war" and "designed for the battlefield" comments. The AR style (AR doesn't mean "Assault Rifle", it shorthand for ArmaLite, a manufacturing company).
The rifles available for sale retail between $500 and $1500. The military pays a much higher price for, wait for it.... higher grade equipment designed for a battlefield. Most trained soldiers would revolt if you asked them to defend themselves with a commercial grade product.
3
As always when these conversations occur, I think a lot would be cleared up between gun owners and gun -ontrol advocates if we knew where the line would be ultimately be drawn. What are "reasonable, common sense" gun laws? The definitions keep shifting.
For some people, "common sense" is no guns at all. For others, universal background checks is enough. How do you negotiate with that range of opinions?
As a gun owner, I am open to some empirically-driven proposals. But what if they don't succeed in lowering gun violence? Will we continue to ban and regulate more and more? What is the goal here? This is what worries many gun owners; the slippery slope of "common sense"...as if some monolithic form of it applied to the whole nation.
Or is this freedom to own firearms simply a impediment, to be chipped away at, until it's effectively gone- much like the slow erosion of free speech and expectations of personal privacy?
1
Easy. Firearms for hunting, sport and self-defense easily protected. Military grade weapons such as assault rifles should be restricted to Military use. Firearms, as automobiles, should be regulated through State Registration and mandatory safety requirements. We are all tracked and traced through our cell phone activity. Any concerns about registering gun ownership through state and Nation wide data bases belies the facts that our personal data is already available. Use existing finger print tech. to make weapons completely use-able to the legal owner only.
4
Guns are not, in themselves, a problem. People are. Therefore, I propose not licensing the guns but the owners.
Shooters licenses should be issued like drivers licenses. There should be an objective written test, followed by a practical exam where the potential user demonstrates the ability to use the firearm safely. There should be classes of licenses for the different types of firearms; at a minimum pistol, shotgun, and rifle. Learner's permits should be available, allowing limited usage under the supervision of a licensed instructor.
Like cars, firearms should only be allowed to be taken off the owner's property if the owner is currently licensed to do so. Also like motor vehicles, an unlicensed individual could own one and use it on his own property. However, if the owner does not possess the proper license the firearm must be delivered to the property by someone who does.
Violations of usage requirements should result in fines, suspensions, and even revocations of the license depending on the severity of the offense.
5
Thanks to Ms. Harris and Ms. Tarchak for providing a very informative series of discussions.
1
As a proud native born white American male, I believe we should all defer to the founding Fathers on this as on all issues. After all, they were all straight shooters, and practiced open carry. They faced the same issues we face; after all that was the US of A too. They did not outlaw bump stocks or large capacity magazines. They valued the right of individual citizens to carry weapons automatically.
And every one of them...every one, said the same thing when confronted with the latest massacre at the local elementary school...
Let's get something straight about the 2nd Amendment, recent court decisions notwithstanding.
If the framers of the Constitution had intended to limit the possession of arms to the militia, the 2nd Amendment would have said just that: "The militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms." Simple! So why didn't they write that?
The reason for the well-regulated militia clause is not to limit the RKBA; it is to clarify that the RKBA—which is presumed to already exist—also applies to personally possessed arms in militia service. The clause must be read in the correct cultural and historical context. The states were skeptical of the newly formed federal government and the expansive powers granted to it by the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to equip and govern the militia, while Article II, Section 2 places the President in command. The militias, at the time, were the armed forces of the states. The militia clause was added to the 2nd Amendment to prevent Congress and the President from abusing their powers and disarming the militias.
At the time the 2A was written, it was well understood that the states had the power to regulate arms. The 2A was never intended to allow anyone to carry any weapon at any time for any purpose whatsoever. The 2A is intended to limit the federal government's powers over the people and states, as with most other clauses in the Bill of Rights.
3
Which Federalist paper lays out the point of view you laid out. I can’t find it in the papers i have read.
I keep reading "Well regulated Militia" and comparing it to modern definitions and organizations. That is incorrect. "Regulated" refers to standardized. Until the 1850's firearms were hand made to very general specifications. Each gunsmith had his own idea about proper caliber, length, and everything else. The standard military musket was .69 caliber (give or take a few hundredths) . And militia is purely a local organization- usually more social than trained military. A militia member was required to appear when called with 3 days worth of food, flints, powder and bullets. After that the organization supplied them. If everyone had a different caliber gun it was impossible to supply them, so regulated meant using the "regulation caliber". It had nothing to do with the militia or it's members being regulated by an government entity. In fact, the purpose of the militia and the 2nd amendment was to supply a check on the power of a government whether local, state, or federal. And now you can see why corrupt politicians want to disarm the peasants.
3
Since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were enacted just a few years after the national government struggled to put down a “peasants’ revolt” (the Whiskey Rebellion), it strikes me as highly unlikely that the men who wrote these documents did so with the idea that they were arming citizens to fight the new federal government.
1
In this day and age of instant everything right on your smartphone, it would seem trivial to require instant background checks via the "Instant Background Check" app. No permanent records kept, a $5 fee via Paypal. Cmon, this is a democracy, put that to a vote. I own guns and that is exactly why I dont want to have to shoot somebody who is coming after my family with a gun who wouldnt pass a background check but bought it privately at a gun show. I am confident that a large majority of gun owners feel the same way. Having said that, I sincerely wish folks and more importantly journalists who dont own or thoroughly understand guns would take just a little time to understand more than read the headlines and rail against guns generically. "Semi-Automatic" means NOT automatic, but the very term is made into an anti-gun rallying cry. Unfortunately, It wont make a bit of difference if you out law AR-15s, so very very many rifles use identical or similar ammuntion, are also "semi-automatic" and do exactly the same but without the military "style" look. If you buy back an AR-15 what is to prevent the person you just gave that thousand dollars to from purchasing an MR556A1? The slogans may be compelling but the nuance is required for real understanding and possibility of positive change that both 'sides' can live with comfortably.
2
Kolditz implies that he's not in favor of an assault weapons ban but he would be in favor of a high capacity magazine ban. I don't see this as contradictory. The 1994 assault weapons ban focused inordinately on features that are essentially irrelevant to the weapon in practical use. Flash hiders, muzzle breaks, barrel shrouds, threaded barrels, pistol grips.
The manufacturers and end users simply changed their weapons or shifted to other models. The underlying fact remained that these were semi-auto rifles that could be reloaded quickly and therefore are capable of sustained fire. Reducing mag capacity directly correlates to reducing the ability to get off a lot of rounds.
A magazine ban could reduce fatalities in shootings but not significantly reduce shootings. Focusing on features and models will have negligible effect and alienate the pro-gun community more than a magazine ban already would. A ban grounded in real capabilities would be banning all semi-autos with a detachable mags over 5 rounds. I admit that as a mostly pro-gun individual but there is too large a constituency that would never accept this.
The best focus is on access. More background checks, red flag laws grounded in due process, an educational or licensing component, waiting periods. The pro-gun lobby needs to acquiesce to some of these compromises in the public's and their own interest or they'll be left with nothing. These measures would leave the right to bear arms intact and save lives.
1
@Nick
Can you name a semi-automatic weapon with a detachable magazine for which a six-round magazine is impossible? There are, after all, silly things in existence like Beta C-Mags compatible with standard 9mm handguns. That's an utterly absurd application given the
weight and bulk, but they exist.
Ive been discussing this lately. In this day and age, we are being tracked constantly. Our phones, facebook, our credit cards are all being traced all the time. My idea is that this tech can be applied to the 10 million semi-automatic, high capacity assault style weapons that are in the US. I don't want to ban these guns but tracking them could be a solution to the threat of mass shooters. Govt. Requires tracking chips, cities choose to ban these types of weapons from populated off-target areas, the tech sector provides the coverage (cell tower, broad internet service, GPS tracking). Military style weapons could literally be tracked in real time. And, there's no need to address the ARA since there would be no bans on any weapons. I'm just thinking how we all can actually "do something" instead of just looking away. Americans are not responsible enough with their rifles. These things should be tracked at all times. What do you all think?
I've worked in politics for years and always seek out the middle ground. These are some of the most reasonable people I've seen debate. It's nice to see so many people considering themselves to be on fully different sides actually having minor disagreements. Especially the first man, Tom.
But not James. Racism is an issue, as is police violence. Tying these two things to gun ownership is ridiculous. Black people in America are roughly three times as likely as whites to be shot by police. That's bad. I agree. Horrible, actually.
They are ten times likely to be killed by a gun in general. TEN TIMES. I think it's 90+% across the board (80ish for whites) that the perpetrator and victim are the same race. The rate of police shootings where the perp has a gun is just as staggering.
I'm not at all getting the argument. Gun ownership is killing our minority population. Please stop tying them together as a solution.
Also, the gun show loophole is not a misnomer. But that's a whole other argument for a different day.
When gun lovers decide that human life is worth more than their toys and hobby, and self-defense fantasies, we will make progress on this issue.
Somehow people in other developed countries get along JUST FINE without hundreds of millions of guns kicking around.
7
@Hmmm
Hmmm, never gonna' change...I assure you those "people in other developed countries" have their own self defense fantasies. It's statements such as "Hmmm's" that fuel the NRA rhetoric.
How can we ramp up the enforcement against illegal trafficking of firearms? How can we better prevent those who are not legally entitled to "keep and bear" from getting access to firearms? Why can't we have universal background checks?
And most importantly, why can't we have universal registration? I hear the objections, that registration leads to confiscation. Well, only if we allow it to, and I quite frankly don't see that as something we would allow. Or that registration is not appropriate for a constitutional right. Well, we have voter registration, so that argument goes away quickly.
38
@Kevin Brock
This line of argument is called a "logical fallacy". It is common on the right. If you allow 2 men to marry, the next step will be allow a person to marry a dog. If you take one gun away, the next step will be to take all the guns away.
@Kevin Brock Stop and frisk worked pretty well in NYC...
@Kevin Brock
Yeah if only us rubes who keep believing that politicians who say they want to confiscate out firearms would just ignore what they say, y'all could put in place the infrastructure required to make it happen
3
I was really hoping the conversations would seem more productive, it doesn't feel like they were, unfortunately. I find it interesting that the people advocating for absolute freedom in gun ownership often come across as more fearful than those who want guns controlled. I'm scared of guns and the people who might use them to harm me, but many of the gun advocates seem downright scared of life and paranoid about people, like me, who simply want a less violent and destructive world. Seems like I should be more scared than them, because, ya know, they have guns that could kill me.
Also the impression that I frequently get is that those looking to control guns are way more willing to compromise than those advocating for guns, and that appears to have been borne out in these conversations. Again, this seems backwards: we're essentially wanting not to die at someone else's hands, which seems like a very reasonable request, and they want to own things that could kill, a pretty huge request and responsibility.
4
I have friends who are absolutists about this, and there are a lot more like them. They think there are too many laws and restrictions already. They want to be armed better than the police or the army. They can't imagine being disarmed. I know someone whose mantra is "A man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a slave."
All the pragmatic reasoning in the world won't budge such people.
49
@Bejay
Y'know, I and a lot of people like me grew up getting the snot beat out of us by cops who were bored. They'd get sheepish when my mom would show up and they realized I wasn't poor.
Yes, I want to be better armed than those people. Just like the people in Hong Kong getting shot and killed by police officers, beaten and slashed by mobs of "totally not police officers", and disappeared by the gov't in the dark.
Yes. I want to be armed. I'd rather not have to worry about such things, but such things let themselves into the world whether I worry or not and the well-armed populace gives the people in charge pause when they consider how much easier their lives would be if they just eliminated those voices who oppose them.
4
@Bejay
I know people on the opposite side. Look on this comment section and others relating to gun control topics. Clarion calls to "ban all guns" and nationwide gun confiscation proposals are not uncommon.
All the pragmatic reasoning in the world won't budge such people.
(both extremes are ridiculous, and evidence of group polarization...but surely you knew that already, right?)
1
@Gideon Strazewski But the thing is, clarion calls to ban all guns aren't in the form of serious legislative proposals. If you look at serious proposals, you will find proposed bans on certain categories of guns, and things like silencers and high-capacity magazines. And certain categories of people who would be prohibited from owning guns. But talk about banning all guns is analogous to the talk you hear about vastly expanding the death penalty... plenty of people might like the idea, but it's not really on the table.
With every right comes responsibility. If you think that gun violence killing (depends on whose statistics you use) between 80 - 100 people a day is ok there is no point in discussing the issue with you. But if you are a gun advocate and think this much gun violence is wrong it is your responsibility to work on solving the problem and protect what you claim is your right. Just screaming its my 2nd amendment right isn't helping. Criticizing every idea put forward by people who do not support gun violence isn't helping. What solutions do gun advocates support? How do gun advocates propose paying for their proposed solutions?
"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." The solution that is not working is making it easier for outlaws to get guns. The drug cartels in Mexico are using guns purchase in the USA. We are successfully exporting our gun violence issue and supporting violent crime in other countries.
We can do better, but we have to want to, and we have to try. Gun advocates, what do you propose? Gun violence belongs to you, and you need to address the problem. If you fail to do so, eventually the body count will reach a tipping point and I doubt you will like what ever the solution may be. So take a proactive stance and protect your rights.
45
I've always wondered when I hear the phrase "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", why other countries have many fewer gun issues than we do. If that phrase is correct, other countries should have a huge outlaws problem. The fact that they don't seems to me to suggest that our problem is the vast amount of firearms loose in our country. We need to find a way to reduce that number.
These discussions are absurd as they are always only about the rights to own guns - not about responsibilities that come with the ownership. The incredible number of lost and stolen guns that are actually known every year in this country is shocking and highlights the very issue most gun right promoters do not want to talk about: a large number of gun owner's in this country is not capable to control their weapons and to keep them secured and locked away. Killings due to incidental discharge of weapons are actually outnumbering those in self-defense. Anyone who has a bit of inside knowledge what common weapons are capable of doing to human bodies has certainly a different perspective about this problem. Privately owned guns are used to injure and kill citizens in numbers way higher than anywhere in the developed world and the 2nd amendment advocates are not even able to admit that this problem needs to be addressed. They should be the ones being proactive fighting gun violence - but they are not and hide behind their claimed rights. That failure to act will ultimately lead to the very changes of the gun laws they are trying to prevent.
34
@Thorsten Fleiter
>Killings due to incidental discharge of weapons are actually outnumbering those in self-defense
I don't believe that's the case Thorsten, though there may be additional purpose in the conversation.
1
@Thorsten Fleiter: Right: to read the remarks of gun-lovers, you would think they were all highly responsible, sober, maybe even kind of boring, they're so obsessed with the rules. As they should be.
Nobody ever writes in about how they sometimes lose track of where they left the spare Glock, in the glove compartment or behind the clock. Or about how they like to take a few six-packs with them when they drive up the canyon with some assorted weaponry. And yet obviously substantial numbers of guns are stolen to supply the criminal market, are left for children to find and play around with, are handled carelessly... that's just reality. But the gun lovers are in denial about it.
2
Both sides are filled with bad information and lots of scare tactics. Here are some facts from the CDC for 2017:
1) There were just under 40,000 gun deaths, about the same as cars.
2) 60%, just under 24,000 were suicides, which was just over half of all suicides (51% of 47,000. The other 23,000 were non-gun). Suicides don't require high-cap magazines, or semi-automatic firearms.
3) Of the other 40%, about 16,000 gun deaths, most were with hand guns or "unknown" firearms.
4) Just over 400 gun deaths were with rifles. This includes single-shot, bolt-action, lever-action (think The Rifleman), AR-15 types, AK-47 types, and other semi-automatic rifles. This does not include shot guns but DOES include every mass shooting with a AR or AK type.
5) Rifles deaths are 1% of all gun deaths, and 4% of all non-suicide gun deaths.
From the results of NJ lowering maximum magazine capacity from 15 to 10 rounds. The first three months saw a decrease in gun deaths compared to the previous year, but the next 2 months were greater than the previous year. This doesn't constitute proof, but merely indicates that this law MAY be ineffectual.
We all want to lower gun deaths significantly, just like we want to lower deaths from cars, smoking and heart disease. Banning ARs will only AT BEST save 400 lives. I'd rather save 4,000, or 15,000. To do that you need better intervention programs, background checks, and recognize that mass shooting is a 1% part of the problem, as horrible as they are.
28
@Dadof2 On one "side": 83% of Americans who support universal, no-nonsense background checks. And 86% who support "red flag" laws.
What's the other side?
3
@Kevin Brock The other side is reality. Are you trying to prevent gun deaths or win some sort of contest against gun owners?
6
@Kevin Brock
"83% of Americans who support universal, no-nonsense background checks. And 86% who support "red flag" laws."
That support starts to fall apart once those laws are defined, because they are always written to be way more intrusive than advertised.
E.g.
I fully support having to run a background check on my neighbor should I decide to sell him one of my firearms. I do not support having to run one should I let him borrow one when we're out shooting.
I support "red flag laws" in theory but only if they provide due process to the accused BEFORE any action is taken and have stiff penalties when used capriciously.
4
The problem isn't normally the individual gun-owner. The gun owners represented in this article all generally have reasonable reponses and concerns.
The problem is the general climate created by the NRA, pro-gun groups and gun manufacturers around gun ownership. They have turned the 2nd Amendment into a culture war issue, like abortion, where you are either for it or against it and there is no middle ground. .
The NRA has done a superb job of injecting a radical right-wing ideology into the pro-gun, anti-regulation message. So discussing firearm regulation now includes charges of socialism, government tyranny, insurrectionist fantasies and conspiracy theories about disarmament.
As a gun owner I think the position of the NRA is fantastically disingenuous. The position that guns have nothing to do with gun violence is simply unbelievable. The sheer number of guns in this country is a problem in itself. Quantity has it's own quality.
4
Caveat: I am a victim of gun violence. I was ambushed and gunned-down in NYC in an effort to put the brakes on an internal audit.
Having said that, I owned a handgun for self-protection many years ago when I was living in the Detroit suburbs. To legally possess the gun I had to bring it (unloaded) to the police station and have it - and me - registered. Not for a second did I consider registration to be unreasonable. Nor did I think that registration compromised by constitutional rights.
The NRA has drilled into people's heads the mantra that "registration leads to confiscation." It is nonsense.
The handgun that nearly killed me was presumably purchased in the Southeast US and made its way to a presumably prohibited purchaser. The ONLY way we are ever going to get a handle on gun violence is to keep track of every WMD sold.
In spite of strict laws in Illinois and Chicago, the weapons that are used to murder countless citizens were LEGALLY purchased in parts of the country where guns are a fetish.
Some people are gun crazy who do not own guns. They are simply reacting to the passion of more liberal people (and some Democrats) for gun safety.
Even crazier is the constant promotion by the NRA that the solution to gun violence is more guns. It is insane. As a nation, we are irrational about guns.
Ultimately the solution might be to elect more people who favor gun accountability.
74
@David Cary Hart Thanks for your very powerful comment. I could not agree with it more. I am sorry to hear about your attack though!
@David Cary Hart
I too agree with your conclusions. Today there is a story about a multiple shooting in Fresno, CA. Countless gun advocates posted cynical comments about how California's restrictive gun laws didn't prevent the shooting. Many referred to California as a communist state because of, among other things, the gun laws. Not one of them knew who the shooter was or, more to the point, where the gun or guns used in the shooting were purchased. It demonstrates how weak, biased and influenced by propaganda the gun rights supporters are.
Unless we have a concerted effort by all states and the federal government to control gun proliferation, gun violence will continue to increase.
In 1934 the Congress was able to discuss gun control and pass the National Gun Act which modified what type of guns you could own.
So the question is, were they more concerned about the safety of the people back then, and if so why aren't we today.
20
@BTO
Curiously, at least from today’s perspective, the NRA was instrumental in getting that 1934 legislation passed.
The automatic weapons, in particular the Thompson guns associated with John Dillinger, Al Capone, Bonnie & Clyde, and Cosa Nostra in general also helped to get that legislation passed.
7
@BTO
In 1934 the people, and through them the Congress, were much less concerned about basic Constitutional rights than they are today. This was the era when inter-racial and same sex marriages were against the law. This was the era when Japanese-Americans could be locked up en masse without any major dissent. This was the time when police routinely beat confessions out of suspects, especially if they were lesser races like Blacks or Italians.
Do we really want to go back to that viewpoint of what the government is allowed to do? I, for one, do not.
3
@BTO Most of us are still just as concerned with safety, but a faction of the NRA put together a determined legal team and informational strategy that led to the current situation. They concocted the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that was finally endorsed by the Supreme Court in the Reagan era. Before that, individual gun ownership was pretty routine: it wasn't considered a Constitutional right, but ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns was a normal part of life. There wasn't any paranoid fantasy about the government coming and taking them away. (They were mostly for hunting or target practice; lever-action or bolt-action rifles, pump action or double-barrelled shotguns... nothing like today.)
It's interesting that a couple of comments down, someone conflates the lack of a recognized Constitutional right to the Jim Crow era suppression of the black vote, and commonplace police brutality. I don't think the logic works: nowadays what we see is such a proliferation of guns out there, that police feel, with some reason, that gunfire is going to break out at any moment, which makes them all too quick to shoot first... well, it's a sick and sorry world, and all these guns make it worse, but some people want to see more of them. Too bad.
As a gun owner (1 handgun, 1 shot gun, 1 rifle) I'm empathetic to both sides' opinions and, while I can argue either side equally well, I tend to lean more towards gun safety regulation - as opposed to gun control. In other words, I want to reduce the number of people killed or injured by their use or mis-use.
Guns can easily kill a number of people. The only other device that Americans own which can achieve the same result is the automobile. To drive one of those, we must take a course to learn to use it safely, pass a test to ensure we learned it, purchase insurance against it harming others (most states), and have it's safety checked regularly (most states).
Is the only reason that we don't treat guns in the same way is because it's in the Constitution?
44
@Brian: There is nothing in the Constitution or in SCOTUS' Heller decision that prevents the same restrictions we put on the use of cars or hazardous materials being applied to firearms and their ammunition. Besides mandatory nationwide FEDERAL licenses for users, universal registration of all guns and magazines and ammo, and robust compulsory safety training, requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance is probably the real game changer. Want a single shot .22 target rifle? The market would set a low cost on that insurance. Want an AR-15? Pay through the nose, because the risks of misuse are so much higher. And just as a person can be compelled to account for hazardous materials and their disposal, we could require gun owners to account for each piece of ammunition they buy, with restrictions on how much they can stockpile. Again, none of this conflicts with 2nd Amendment or Heller standards.
7
@Addison DeWitt True, but what allows the federal government to require insurance on guns? Don't get me wrong, I'm strongly in favor of gun restrictions. But as it is, the Supreme Court only narrowly upheld the requirement set by the federal government for health insurance. I have to wonder how the government would get a universal gun-insurance requirement on all gun owners through. Commerce clause would be the clearest route, but this court has proven that the commerce clause is not nearly so wide as it was once thought.
Having read Heller, it actually says a lot less is allowed than many people seem to think think it does. It fairly strongly notes that there are many, many reasonable restrictions on gun rights that can be put in place. And this is SCALIA who is saying this. A more pro-gun SC justice you'd be hard to find. I agree that there is nothing against gun-insurance requirements in there. In fact, it seems to fit fairly well within the bounds of the ruling.
The one thing I would worry about is this: would this limit the poorest American's access to guns? Because to be honest, often those groups are in the demographics that have the strongest argument to need them against police violence. But insurance costs money, and if they can't pay, then what? No gun?
Also, we need to take a long look at people who are getting convicted of felonies, and how that would impact gun insurance. Because an overly large amount of those people are racial minorities.
Brian, let’s not forget that our automobiles also have to be insured. If we could get insurance companies involved, the same as they are with automobiles .... and yes, I know, there are plenty of uninsured drivers ... but maybe a baby step?
We too, here in rural Oregon, have guns, mostly for bird control in the vineyard (and lest bird enthusiasts think we’re killing birds, all the shotguns are loaded with clover seed shells), and also some antiques. Both my husband and I have taken gun safety courses.
As responsible gun owners, we wouldn’t mind at all registering them. And insuring them.
1
I’ve read the article, and many of the comments. There are different points of view, and I agree much more public discussion is needed to reduce the ignorance and emotional reactions to a complex subject.
On thing seems to be skipped over, even in “Dad0f2”’s contribution: AR-15 type weapons were designed for the military and to kill and maim people in devastating ways. The impact of that high-speed bullet can tear limbs off or damage a body irreparably. That is a major reason they (and high capacity magazines) should be restricted to the military. The fact that one person can inflict so much damage to so many people so quickly is the other reason to keep those weapons out of civilian hands.
39
@Mike the Moderate Mike I just spent three weeks hunting, and it's illegal here to hunt with the AR-15 because it's simply not powerful enough. The AR type rifle was chosen because of the light weight of the cartridges, one soldier can easily carry 300 rounds. Because that cartridge, the 5.56 doesn't work very well at killing and maiming the military has been wanting to move up to something larger for quite a while. Don't believe most of what you read about guns, most articles are click driven and written by people who aren't familiar with what they are writing about.
10
Do you understand that AR-15 style weapons are small caliber firearms. More “standard” hunting rifles can do far more damage. Suggesting that somehow A-15s are abnormally deadly is inane and reflective of a lack of understanding of firearms, or intentional distortion of facts.
What distinguishes so-called “assault rifles” from other rifles are purely cosmetic features, like a pistol grip and muzzle shroud (designed to protect the shooter from eye damage). They look scary to those without knowledge, but they are no more dangerous than any other semi auto rifles.
What made the AR-15 popular were it’s reliability, accuracy, firing mechanism, and weight.
It sort of sounds like people just don’t like guns that don’t misfire.
9
@somsai ask any trauma surgeon who's ever worked on AR15 wounds and test your theory that "the 5.56 doesn't work very well at killing and maiming". That's nonsense. There were some very good articles published by ER docs and radiologists in the wake of some of the recent mass shootings. Take a minute on Google to educate yourself. I'd also direct you to any of the ballistic gelatin tests on YouTube showing the devastation of the 5.56. You're way off base here.
16
Discussing guns is not difficult. It's difficult only in America. It is abundantly clear that guns and Americans don't mix.
Discussing access to health care is not difficult. It's difficult only in America.
Discussing a great many things that "...promote the general welfare" are only difficult in this country.
What's really difficult is admitting to ourselves that we are behind the curve on many social issues the rest of the developed world figured out (or, at least, is working on) a long time ago. We are a young country and it shows.
97
@A. jubatus Perhaps the word arrogant should replace the word young in your last sentence.
Many other countries (or governments) have been founded since 1776. Even when dragging centuries of history and the Catholic Church behind them, Ireland has become more progressive than we.
20
@A. jubatus -- I think that what has made things more and more difficult is that we have been told that "American individualism" and "American exceptionalism" are what are most important. Way back when, that might have instead been "the common good". But it's hard to give up what you want for "the common good" when you are -so exceptional-, and that's why it is so difficult now. All of us are exceptional individuals, and every one of us has forgotten about our common obligations, and "the common good" in the pursuit of our exceptional goals.
7
@A. jubatus
"A young country"? More like a rogue state IMHO. As the 900 pound gorilla in the room the US Government is the designated enforcer for the Multinational Oligarchic Empire, and it addles our minds.
1
I'm an upper middle class apartment dweller in an NYC doorman building and therefore live in a bit of a bubble when it comes to guns. I've never seen one on a civilian, let alone owned or even touched one, and I have no interest. But one of my dearest friends lives in rural Wisconsin, in a home at the edge of the woods, with no close neighbors or nearby police station. She is as liberal as I am in her politics - votes Democratic, supports abortion and gay/trans rights, doesn't like Trump and his immigration policies (or any of this policies for that matter), but when it comes to guns, she does not believe that any kind of restrictive laws will make any difference whatsoever. Like Tom in the article, she and her husband use their guns mainly for hunting. The guns also protect them from wild animals around their property, including bears, coyotes, and mountain lions. She believes in personal responsibility and does not want the government to do anything that would make it harder for her family to restrict their gun ownership. I am trying to be understanding and respectful of her point of view, and for the most part I see where she is coming from. I understand she needs them to protect herself from bad people and wild animals and that she eats the food she hunts (one big deer gives her many months of venison). But I still don't understand why civilians need weapons of war in their home.... We will keep talking.
67
Your statement is exactly correct
To your friend a gun provides food and protection
And in her world this is true
In your world it’s an instrument of war
We need to be aware of both sides.
This is a big country with different worlds.
2
@SGY, Your liberal friend's inability to view the gun issue rationally is unfortunate and puzzling, even bizarre. She has a huge blind spot when it comes to guns. Car owners understand the need for registration and drivers licenses. You shouldn't try to be understanding or respectful of your friend's position. She is as irrational andcextreme as the NRA. More evidence that the pro-gun side is not interested in ANY kind of gun control and therefore should be ignored.
If she lives where there aren’t any people around, she is far less likely to need protection from people.
“Do people like that guy really exist?!”—13 year old niece watching the movie “Hush.” As I explained to her, they CAN, but they (psychopathic home invaders) are extremely, extremely rare. But in America, adults don’t get that they are more likely to be killed by many things besides a psychopath—such as a relative who accidentally shoots them, or accidentally shooting themselves, or a mass shooter in a situation where their (the victims) are at such a disadvantage that even with a gun they could probably not save themselves. See the Las Vegas concert massacre.
1
Great article. Have one each week like this.
The three most powerful reasons why nothing will be done about gun violence are
First: there are no good data on what works. Most of the data that are available are highly flawed--they are correlational. For example, many people tout Australia's gun laws as being proof that gun control works. However, the rate of gun deaths was already plummeting before Australia passed its laws. A correlational observation is not proof. Same with comparing different states.
The second reason is that many of the people proposing gun controls don't have guns. As Mark Twain noted: "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits." So people without guns have all kinds of ideas about gun control, but they don't have to make changes--only other people do.
The third reason is that gun owners know that the ultimate goal of many so-called laws about gun control are really a subterfuge for removing guns completely. Gallup polls show that an extremely large percentage of people want to completely take away all guns. So, while the discussion at the surface is about gun "control," gun owners know that they had better hold the line on any type of gun control legislation because the ultimate goal for far too many Americans is gun confiscation. Read the Gallup polls. See for yourself.
1
Please note that you don’t need to be a gun owner to die from a gunshot wound. People who don’t own guns have just as much right to be concerned about their safety and that of their loved ones as gun owners do.
@Travelers
Excellent summary. I would add that almost all gun control proposals I've recently heard argue for confiscation programs and no grandfathering for current owners of "prohibited" weapons.
How can you argue for police seizure of property without compensation? That seems antithetical to many who read this paper!
2
@Jane Scholz Jane: I will note that, as you request. Have you noted the three points i made?
Discussions about guns are the most irrational exchanges in a society that is not exemplary for its rational discussion of issues. The real issue is avoided by factors that have little relevance to it. The issue is guns. Guns are not discussed but, "background checks," "mental health," "military rifles," "hand guns," etc. Purposely, the Second amendment is read omitting the phrases "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," etc. The Constitution was written and amended before the country and the states had proper agencies of security in place: local, state, and national police forces for the enforcement of laws issued by proper agencies of legislation. People mostly are not killed by criminals or mentally ill people, but by normal people who have a personal reason to kill or who are accidentally killed (by children for example) because guns happen to be lethal weapons within reach of virtually everybody in the country.
People don't need guns. They want guns but they don't actually need them for survival the way our ancestors did. We hunted for food and chased away wolves and other predators to protect our flocks and, occasionally, our children. That was a long, long time ago. Times change and we must change as well.
9
@Larry That depends on where you are. In an urban environment, you have a point. In rural America, not so much.
3
@Larry
Then why do police need guns? The answer to that question implies an answer to yours.
People don't need free speech either, but it sure is desirable, and can prevent atrocities. We don't worry about free speech most of the time, but when we need it, we need it.
3
Any discussion of banning weapons must address enforcement. A gun law is just a law unless there is a virtual army out there penalizing offenders. You can hire more police or create a special force. But, for some time, you are likely to need countless law enforcement types seizing illegal weapons.
It is not unlikely that many guns made illegal will be held on to in protest by non-violent individuals. Banning guns, any guns, is highly unpopular among many. The effort to enforce could be violent and could raise the question of whether a ban is worth it.
Those who seek bans are often upscale. Those who would enforce the bans and those they target are often not. And they have a lot in common with one another. So careful attention to strategy and logistics is essential. And maybe it will become clear that the whole matter is better off left alone.
1
I'll make 2 points.
1. i haven't heard one valid reason not to have background checks for all gun purchases. not one, because there isn't one. It doesn't infringe on anyone's 2nd amendment rights to own a gun.
2. for the first 240 yrs of our country's history the 2nd amendment was held to relate to the military ie "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state".....in 2008 the SCOTUS turned this upside down by holding that the 2nd amendment said anyone should be able to own any weapon they want. a horrendously terrible decision. "a well regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state" is clearly, CLEARLY, intended to establish/maintain a well armed military.
lastly, no matter how persuasive the argument that there are lots of version of automatic weapons there are no good reasons why a civilian should own an AK 47 or any other military style weapon. you don't need it for sport and you don't need it for protection. the fact that 9 justices held otherwise doesn't make it a good idea. ask anyone who's been in a mass shooting environment. ask any parent who lost a child in Newtown.
Combined, france, germany, the UK, and Japan have roughly the same number of people at the US and less than 500 deaths by guns in a year. in the US we have 30K. guns kill, that's their only purpose.
12
Right on about the 2nd Amendment. The prefatory clause is clearly there for a reason, The Supreme Court has said as much. No other Amendment is qualified like that, no other right placed into context to allow for its regulation. The idea that “A well-regulated militia” is just flowery language and has no bearing on the right to bear arms is utter nonsense, revisionist history from an industry lobbying group bent on keeping people ignorant and afraid and advanced by a clearly co-opted Justice.
Article I, §8 of the Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to regulate the militia and how they’re armed and trained. Why would the founders include this language, as well as the prefatory clause, if they did not intend for firearms to be regulated? They knew even then that not everyone should have a gun.
Back in early May, a little over 6 months ago, our small town buried a "good guy without a gun." Riley Howell charged the shooter that opened fire in a classroom at UNC-Charlotte, sacrificing his life so that his classmates might be spared.
I don't know the answers. But I knew Riley Howell, who grew up in our church.
9
@Kevin Brock Now more of us know Riley Howell, so thank you for this.
Just about all gun owners describe themselves as “good guys,” who present no risk to those of us who are unarmed. Nonetheless there is no such thing as a firearms owner who could never present a risk to an innocent person, either by accident, neglect, mental breakdown, or other means. There are numerous documented examples of these “law abiding citizens” committing mass murders, leaving their weapons available for a minor to find, committing suicide and sometimes murder/suicide, etc. Additionally, the examples shown by some of these respondents illustrate how fear, whether of being the victim of a crime or of government overreach often drives the decision to buy and carry a weapon, even though statistics clearly show that a privately owned firearm is much more likely to harm the owner or an innocent person than it is to protect someone from harm. Until it is understood, by both firearms owners and the general public that all firearms pose a risk to public safety nothing significant can be accomplished.
22
@Mikes 547
The statistics I'm familiar with do not show that firearms are more of a risk to the homeowner than a boon to their defense.
More importantly, it's very true that firearms are a risk, as is almost every activity that we engage in throughout our lives. The question is not whether there is risk, but whether that risk is necessary, useful, and a net gain for us as a society. This is, of course, the foundation of the discussion which generated the 2nd amendment of the US constitution and all of the discussions which have flowed from that decision over the years, including this one.
I believe most of us firearms owners are familiar with the risk and believe it to be at least "worth the risk" if not necessary for the US version of social stability which is dramatically different from mono- or near-mono-cultures which do not have the cultural clashes and associated violence that the US does.
The crime issue is, of course, arguable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
shows an extraordinary number of defensive uses for guns even at the lowest estimate. I've personally used a firearm twice in this regard, never fired a shot (well, outside of the military), and never been noted by police in doing so.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
If there's a concern, it's suicide which is the vast majority of firearm injuries in the US, but I'm out of space.
2
@Mikes 547 right....everyone is a good guy until they aren't. and they might never be if they didn't have a gun at the ready when they lost control of their emotions.
2
You are absolutely right that a kind of cost/benefit analysis should be applied to this issue but unfortunately it is unlikely to lead to any consensus especially when there is no agreement on the facts. Firearms owners/enthusiasts often refer to dubious studies purportedly showing that private firearms are often used to deter crime. If this is so why don’t we hear about it more frequently, as opposed to the numerous reports of privately owned firearms used to harm innocents? I suspect that the reason is that the studies they cite are based on self reported incidents that rarely come to the attention of law enforcement or the media because most are not truly occasions when a real threat of harm existed.
In my more than 70 years I have never been in a situation where having a firearm would have made me safer. That includes the many years I worked in the criminal justice system supervising people who had broken the law, many of whom lived in high crime urban areas which I was required to enter to do my work. The only private citizens I have ever known who claimed to use a firearm for self defense were not actually threatened, but merely brandished their weapons to intimidate someone that looked suspicious or threatening to them.
What’s there to discuss?
One of these exchanges mentions the National Firearm Act 0f 1934, which among other things, severely restricts private ownership of fully automatic rifles, like the M16. But why is that weapon under such tight control when its kissing cousin, the AR15, is not? They both fire the same round with the same lethality. They are both capable of accepting detachable, high capacity magazines. The argument that one is a weapon of war while the other is for something else (sport? protection? because the 2A says I can?) rings hollow.
Here's what to write to your Congresspeople:
1. Implement a ban on new sales of any semi automatic rifle that accepts detachable magazines.
2. Implement a ban on new sales of any magazines for any weapon with capacity greater than 10 rounds.
3. For existing semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines, require a system of licensing, registration, and insurance.
4. Require universal background checks for all sales, whether through a dealer or private party.
I'm not in favor of some large scale, mandatory buy back. But an approach like the one above will keep a lot of these guns off the streets. The ones already in circulation will increase in value and people will tend to hold onto them. Furthermore, most mass shooters bought their ARs in the last weeks and months before the event. Banning new sales will curb these atrocities.
It's not perfect, but there is no silver bullet here.
5
@Vic
If you banned all rifles of all types and could completely eliminate them from the US in an instant you would only eliminate a tiny sliver of the firearm deaths and only if no other firearm were available.
It's not the assault rifles. It's not even rifles in general.
...and that's assuming that you've eliminated violence and murder by eliminating the gun.
3
In my opinion, the root problem here is economics, not guns.
What proportion of folk, who commit violence with guns, live distorted lives due to an economy that serves then poorly? If those folk were economically secure, what would be the rate?
The very term "gun violence" seems like a misdirection. Guns do not cause violence. If the cause is an economy that warps lives, then we should treat the cause, not the symptom.
Taking away a citizen's ability to cause harm to a few, rather than addressing the greater harm of an economy that benefits mainly the rich and harms many, seems ... faintly evil.
3
@Preston L. Bannister
Not a bad argument in general, but it doesn't hold up. While there's no good country to compare ourselves to (we are very, very diverse in every way a country can be), we don't need the full breadth of economy to make this comparison. Extreme poverty does not make you seek out weapons.
An argument could be made that it makes kids easier to manipulate into using weapons (not unlike recruiting suicide bombers), but, again, this doesn't start triggering at the numbers we would be talking about.
Not that you're wrong about social economics in general. Didn't RFK describe it as more deadly than the shot or the bomb in the night?
I agree that a great deal of the gun conversation in the US is about economics— but the reasons that many US gun owners are so adamant about their right to arms is the HIDDEN right to BUY & to SELL guns unobstructed by oversight or regulation. It is a very active & alive Underground economy here, esp in the west. Untaxed, I believe?
Guns do not protect. They are used in robberies and to intimidate far more than self defense. How often do we see yahoos wandering around with open carry guns in order to make everyone else feel uncomfortable. Boyfriends use them to kill their girlfriends and bullies use them on victims.
For the people who are afraid of the dark and need a gun to keep cozy, I suggest a nightlight.
19
@Ray
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
It's apparently a bit more than you're making out.
You can argue it's not worth it, but defensive uses far outnumber murders.
You can insult the people who lie awake afraid in their homes as the break-ins occur week after week, but they know you won't be there to save them, and they know that the police aren't there either...they only file paperwork after the fact and often won't even show up.
They know that the people coming into their homes are often after more than just "things" and robbery and are looking to while away time causing them harm, torturing/murdering/raping/just having their way with someone defenseless. Often this is in passing, just breaking an old woman's arm because they can.
Should she get a night light? I knew that woman twenty years ago in Detroit. She's not alone in her decisions about guns.
3
After the Rodney King verdict, the riots in LA and nearby towns made it crystal clear that people have to be ready to defend themselves and their families because the LAPD allowed the mobs to go crazy, loot, and burn for the first day, especially in neighborhoods where police protection is marginal at best. Furthermore, the streets of our megalopolis are rife with un-arrested murderers, drug addicts, savage gangsters, untreated mentally ill convicts. Call the cops in my town and you never know when they will arrive. We can't trust the government to provide security for all citizens in all cases, so I'm all in with 2nd Amendment rights until our communities are made far safer from violent criminals.
7
Scared little men swallowing scared little lies.The NRA mantra.
1
My friend recently arrived at her suburban home in a good neighborhood late one night after spending the day and evening with me and another friend. Her husband met her in the darkened hallway of her home with a loaded rifle. I can't get the --what might have been-- scenario out my head.
Home defense is popular reason for owning weapons. In everyday life, how often have most gun owners, especially those in relatively safe neighborhoods, truly felt the need to pick up a pistol or grab a shotgun in fear of your life, or in defense of your property?
I've met too many "good guys with guns" whose aggressive attitudes toward the slightest threat scare me.
23
That’s funny, because for every “gOoD gUy WiTh A gUn WaS bAd” there are far more stories where good guys actually stopped people from getting robbed, raped, or even killed.
4
@Caden Christianson no there isn't. There's one bad research report from 25+ years ago that lead you to believe that, otherwise that 'fact' is very difficult to prove. It's far easier to prove crimes that actually happened than crimes that were avoided because the criminal was shot or scared off. Think about it - which incident is more likely to get reported?
2
@Caden Christianson
Well, by all means, provide some of them. Because every time somebody makes this claim, they never back it up with anything.
1
Remarkable that none of those advocating in favor of gun control get anywhere near the current Democratic Presidential positions.
And remarkable that the biggest Democratic victory in last week's elections - Kentucky Governor - said he would not favor a ban on semi-automatic rifles.
Contrary to the polls, almost no one favors these broad-based bans and absolutely no one goes out to vote on them.
4
Almost all murders and suicides in the USA are committed with the firearm that Angela of the first conversation owns, a hand gun, not the AR-15.
What I heard no one in your conversations suggest was a permit system such as many places used to have for concealed carry. A free permit system paid for by all the anti gun advocacy groups would have a series of escalating permits with corresponding levels of education, qualification, and frequency of renewal. All without any sort of registration. One could have the highest classification of permit and not even own any guns at all. Frequent bi-annual renewals for things like conceal carry would deter people from gratuitous carry, and a simple safety course such as every hunter is required to take would help the casual owner to be a lot more informed.
The NRA would love such a program, they have the infrastructure in place to implement such a widely inclusive program. They'd double membership.
1
@somsai Why would anti-gun advocacy groups have to pay for this? And why, if this is so supported as you say, did so many states pass permit-less carry bills in the wake of mass shootings?
First let me say I am what is usually referred to as a responsible gun owner. I've had more that 80 hours of training, safety and situational, and have fired 10s of thousands of rounds at the range. I own 3 handguns, all Sig Sauers, all 9mm; one for home defense, one for concealed carry, one I use only at the range, and one assault style weapon, a Sig MPX. I straddle the line when it comes to gun rights, believing much more needs to be done.
While I applaud the measured conversations reported here, I find some of the positions taken to be at odds with the facts. Tom Kolditz, for example, says he would turn in his weapons if he thought a ban would be useful. We actually have evidence that an assault rifle ban reduces gun massacres.
From the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/opinion/assault-weapon-ban.html): "we identified the number of gun massacres over a 35-year period. (And following the F.B.I.’s approach, we excluded crimes of armed robbery and gang or domestic violence in evaluating public active shooter incidents.) Compared with the decade before its adoption, the federal assault weapon ban in effect from September 1994 through 2004 was associated with a 25 percent drop in gun massacres (from eight to six) and a 40 percent drop in fatalities (from 81 to 49).
In the decade after the ban, there was a 347 percent increase in fatalities in gun massacres, even as overall violent crime continued downward."
We must agree on the facts, before progress can be made.
1
@Andy Sure - how about the fat that "assault rifles" account for less than 1% of gun violence?
In fact, gun violence since the end of the assault rifle ban has dropped. But you only cite "massacres." Is the issue violence, or massacres?
And if it is only massacres, why do you only concern yourself with such a small percentage of the violence?
4
@Vincent
Your assumption that I am only concerned about massacres is flawed. I was addressing but a single point of the conversation, the effects of the assault weapons ban on massacres. The last statement in the Times article I quoted alludes to that exact point, gun massacres have increased since the end of the ban, even as violent crime continues a downward trend. The fact is that I support universal background checks, red flag laws, bio-metric safeguards, and would have no problem registering my firearms. I would even go so far as to suggest that irresponsible gun owners be liable for acts of violence committed with their firearms, since many violent crimes involve guns which were stolen.
Finally, there is a character limit for the length of comments, my initial response to the article reached that limit.
@Andy
They changed the number they used to count "massacres" because the previous one showed the reverse of what you're saying.
Assault rifles are so near-totally unrepresented in violence in the US that even a few incidences well significantly affect what a curve looks like.
Assault rifles are not even remotely an issue to anyone who actually cares about violence.
2
"These are violations of the Fifth and 14th Amendments.
Gabby: I actually didn’t know that about the no-fly list. But there are other considerations beyond the law."
I'm sure there is a Latin term that would describe an "extra legal" process. A process to side step the US Constitution. OK, maybe there a reasons to go around the Constitution, but we'll have to wait.
The chronically sick RBG isn't getting younger and Justice Thomas has had some issues of late. There could be multiple openings between now and election day. I would not hold out, for some "extra legal" end run around the 2nd Amendment.
But, if there is some move to abrogate the Bill of Rights, it will happen soon and it will happen in Virginia. For those outside the loop, Virginia is the state you can smell Trump voters in the Walmart.
1
I consider myself part of the gun rights crowd. I'll be more amenable to discussing "common sense" measures, when the other side of the aisle recognizes the equally common sensical proposition: that every law abiding, mentally stable adult should have an absolute and unfettered right to carry a concealed handgun outside the home for self defense. As long as the my "common sense" right is still routinely disregarded by the opposition, I see no reason the NRA should even attempt a discussion.
8
@Derek The real question is how do we ensure that only law abiding, mentally stable adults are exercising that right.
4
@Kevin Brock Your questions are sophistry. "Law abiding" means no criminal history. There's an existing mechanism for that. "mentally stable" means not in a national mental health registry. No such registry exists today, but I'd be there's exactly zero appetite on your side of the aisle for creating the registry and at the same time, passing nationwide concealed handgun licensing for anybody with a clean criminal record, and no presence on the registry.
1
@Derek Common sense gun control is not about common, sense or guns.
2
this is an informative historical perspective: https://bigthink.com/videos/jill-lepore-guns?jwsource=cl
1
@MAKE-LYING-WRONG-AGAIN During the Revolutionary War, American colonists preferred the "Brown Bess". The Brown Bess was the standard issue weapon to British troops. It may or may not have been the very best rifle, but, it was in mass production, widely available and from 1722 until the mid 1800s.
The point is, the colonists were equally armed, but not necessarily as well supported. It all worked out in the end.
What's to discuss? 40,000 Americans die from bullets yearly. If Americans want to play around with back-round checks, waiting periods, semi automatic weapon bans, bump stock bans, multi shot magazine bans, non-dealer shows and sales, and other silly non solutions, we'll still have 40,000 dead Americans every year. Keep your precious gun rights and have more dead Americans, there's no middle ground compromise solution. And if we stop selling them today, how do we get 350 million guns off the street?
4
1. Gun availability isn't the issue it's made out to be. The #1 problem is income inequality and economic hopelessness.
2. The NICS fix sounds good. The Democrats won't go for it. I like having your state ID tagged with an identifier that anyone can look at at any time without even going online. Now THAT would be easy and prevent a registry at the same time.
3. Restricting weapons of war make you feel better, it doesn't help. Most mass shootings, including the big ones, are done with pistols.
4. Mass shootings aren't the problem, they're the symptom.
5. Having weapons you can use against the government really does keep politicians on their toes. Why do you think this is still in the news when assault rifles kill fewer people than fists in a barfight, by a lot, and always have? They're not stupid. They're not trying to do evil, they're trying to make their jobs easier. The evil comes later when you elect Trump and there's no guns useful for resistance.
6. I don't want a civil war. You don't want a civil war. No one wants a civil war. So stop trying to leave us defenseless in the face of a civil war. It won't be us making the decision. It'll be politicians and civic leaders and very few of even that group are plugged in enough to affect the decision. Stop trying to make the job of the bad people coming later easier. Please.
8
'assault rifles kill fewer people than fists in a barfight, by a lot'. I can find no statistics to back this up. Care to cite some?
2
@Sam Best comment
@Cheri
This is representative.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12
Note that "other firearm" is very large compared to rifles and this is used to disregard the very general claim about rifles vs other weapons. If you find this to be an issue as some do please also note the 27x value for pistols and add 1/27 of the "other" column to rifles.
If that still causes some consternation please seek out additional google resources as they'll all back this up.
Rifles are so dis-used in crime and murder that they're less than a blip yet it's all the politicians focus on.
There aren't a lot of good reasons available for that. Assault rifles have features that make them vaguely better for mass shootings, but not much, than the average pistol. Those features are what make them functionally useful for maneuver forces in a conflict with a well armed enemy and it's why the government wants to remove them from civilian hands.
NOT because they kill so many people. They are in no way a danger to the general populous in comparison to other weapons, they're just useful for fighting gov't forces/police. That's all.
I'm not a Republican. My stake in this fight is the country, not politics, and removing useful guns lets politicians push us to closer to serious oppression without having to think twice. I want them to think twice and with enough guns in circulation that's all we need.
4
Want a solution?
Ban the sale of ammunition. Then ban gun powder and related equipment needed to reload your own.
Dry up the market.
Soon enough the gun violence ends as there is nothing to shoot.
3
@AutumnLeaf Sir. You have done an excellent job of articulating exactly why the 2 opposing sides have so much difficulty in reaching any sort of agreement.
6
@AutumnLeaf
Yep, this person's comments are why I distrust the phrase "common-sense gun laws."
Group polarization is a scourge on modern society.
2
@AutumnLeaf
Exactly why so many "believers" have amassed home arsenals and enough ammo to last 10 lifetimes!
next step: Get them to argue the other sides position!
2
Repeal the Second Amendment.
4
@Matt What about all those state constitutions, around 44 or so, that guarantee their citizens firearm rights? Also, repealing the 2nd Amendment is easily typed, but...
4
To maintain the 2nd Amendment, and ameliorate the firearm menace at the same time; all that needs to be done, is to treat all firearm sales, ownership, use, and possession, in much the same manner as all motor vehicles are now dealt wi.
Let the insurance companies, and especially insurance underwriters, determine their rates, and firearm insurance is too costly for a KKK white Nationalist, the NRA could start its own insurance company, so that it could insure, what would otherwise be, someone uninsurable.
Let the free market and capitalism, take care of our firearm cancer.
3
@William Dusenberry You can't insure against an illegal act. The NRA is already the largest firearms insurance carrier. They cover theft and accident.
1
@somsai
In the state of Massachusetts if one is involved in an automobile crash with a drunk driving who is DRIVING ILLEGALLY (s)he is liable. If they good coverage the insurance company is responsible for any medical expenses or funeral expenses and lawsuits against the driver. Why should gun deaths be any different?
Far be it from me to get involved in the interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
It is too bad though that the Founding Fathers had to write this. It is after all based on English law and after all, the Revolution was fought to get free of English law. They flubbed this one.
But you're stuck.
That being the case, the US should join the rest of most of the world if they allow weapons for private citizens (as opposed to police or military):
Every weapon should be licensed and a license is given by the police (!) and municipality (state?) only after medical/psychological vetting, as well as proof of competence (and continued competence). That also includes a course in safety. There has to be a valid reason to have a weapon. Hunting might be a reason but hunting rifles and the like should also be licensed. This all goes into data bases. Privacy be damned when one wants a deadly weapon. The weapon must be stored in a secure, locked place at home. Licenses have to be renewed every number of years.
I have owned and carried a licensed handgun, although not in the US. Eventually I got rid of it; I donated it to the local police. Everyone is safer.
7
Many people here think the well-ordered militia clause obviates an individual right. Moot point: SCOTUS has decided otherwise. So we deal with what restrictions on that right would be reasonable and effective.
Intense media coverages creates the impression that mass shootings are common and are done chiefly with military-style rifles. Neither is true. The vast majority of gun deaths are one-on-one killings and suicides carried out with handguns.
Banning the sales - not the possession - of military-style guns is justifiable, but the real focus ought to be on airtight background checks and unlawful possession of any kind of firearm.
3
The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1787…think of it. That’s when ‘arms’ mean single shot muskets and pistols. Clunky and difficult to reload, no magazines of any type. Most people shot didn’t die from the bullet, they died from the subsequent infection. The current regulation arguments don’t begin to address the simple fact that arms then aren’t arms now.
Anne-Marie, it’s not a well ordered militia, it’s a well Regulated militia, a fact conveniently overlooked by the ‘as many and as much as I want’ crowd.
James: ‘...that’s money that should be spent on reducing our prison population, establishing universal health care and funding public education.’
‘...money could be better spent elsewhere’ is an old saw that isn’t relevant. Just because Congress doesn’t spend on X doesn’t mean Congress will spend it on Y.
Angela Dean is robbed at gunpoint, her solution is to carry a pistol and buy a shotgun. She may want to realize that carrying means she’s near six times more likely she will be shot. The Branas study also found that for individuals who had time to resist and counter in a gun assault, the odds of actually being shot actually increased to 5.45 fold relative to an individual not carrying. Source: The Guardian, Guns don't offer protection Mar 25, 2013) And trained New York City officers achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged zero to six feet away. (NYT A Hail of Bullets, a heap of uncertainty, Dec 9, 2007)
9
@Dasha Kasakova
California has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the books and as a result they have a very low gun ownership per capita [20%]
Yet - somehow they have one of the highest gun murder rate in the nation.
How does that make sense?
2
@SteveRR Maybe they are lax at the checkpoints at every highway coming into the state?
@SteveRR
More bars so more bar arguments?
People coming from out of state?
One inexplicable bad month that wrecks the curve?
Heat waves?
Someone who knows statistics could probably come up with more reasons.
1
This should be a lot simpler than people are making it. Guns are dangerous. They have legitimate uses and illegitimate ones. They can be used to hurt people; they can also be used in other ways.
We regulate dangerous products like these all the time, and we limit the people who can use them to those who have the necessary skills and demonstrate the necessary responsibility. Why can't guns be treated the same way?
4
America needs an absolute ban on military weapons in civilian hands.
I would ask people who feel a need to possess these devices, designed along with their ammunition for no other reason but to kill human beings, to be honest about the emotions they feel or seek when they hold them in their hands and when they shoot them.
I don’t fault anyone who finds pleasure in legal hunting, marksmanship, antique firearm collecting, or displaying great-grandfather’s rifle above the mantelpiece. That’s part of American culture. I have zero tolerance for those who desire to possess firearms designed solely for the form of murder we know as war.
The Second Amendment is outdated and must be revised. It was written soon after American revolutionaries, including thousands of volunteers who brought their own weapons to war, won our independence from Great Britain as foreign threats to our sovereignty persisted. Today, the only “well-regulated militia” we need is the one we already have, the National Guard.
If we are to reduce the mass murders and gun violence now routine in our land and below our southern border, we must tell the NRA and the play-soldiers whose mental health determines whether some of us will live or be murdered that their day is over.
It’s time for Americans to stand up for the right to live in a society free of the mercurial, unreliable culture of gun fetishists. Make ownership of a military assault weapon flat-out illegal.
33
@Mhmllr
You're clearly, objectively incorrect if you think that they have no purpose beside killing human beings considering how many millions of Americans own and operate firearms and how much ammunition is expended each year thatn never puts another life in danger, let alone takes one. That you do not have other purpose for them does not mean that other people do not.
3
@LW The purpose of military weapons and the ammunition designed for them is to kill people, not game. Yes, we pop off a lot of ammo in America. I said I'm fine with that -- reread my comment. It's the military hardware in civilian hands that I deplore. And tell me, LW, what are the "other purpose" [sic] for military weapons in civilian hands? I'd like to know.
7
@Mhmllr
How is the use of an AR-15 in a multiple-victim shooting not hunting?
1
As with so many things "American," guns are somehow bestowed with the "god-given" label. The right to have guns is god-given, and therefore, to suggest anything other than total subjugation to the arms fetishists is blasphemy. They threaten, "Don't you dare even thinking about putting any constraints on guns because it's a slippery slope" in taking our guns away!
This is what allows 2nd Amendment fetishists to say without irony or shame or compassion, that all the carnage associated with weapons "is the price we pay for freedom." This, my friends is the ultimate conceit, the ultimate betrayal of freedom itself: to hold your fellow citizens hostage to your irrational need to have unrestricted access to whatever kind of weapon you want. (Talk about a slippery slope.)
In the end, Americans demonstrate that they aren't the great people the believe themselves to be. They are literally prisoners in their own (gun-laden) land.
34
@mrfreeze6 Sounds similar to the abortion arguments.
4
It will be easier to take several billion (more) dollars from Gates, Bezos et al. than to take one assault rifle from an armchair ideologue in red country. Somehow, some-when, someone will have to figure out how cure the Oppositional-Defiant defense mechanism of so many angry people, so they can see it's OK and good to compromise on this particular issue.
3
From a European point of view, the whole gun discussion is mind boggling. The second Amendement says „a well regulated militia“ - where does it say everyone can own any gun? Then on one side the „need for self protection” because the government won’t help you, but on the other side we need guns to protect against government intrusion? And we don’t want registration because then they will confiscate the guns one day? I understand hunting and shooting as a sport, but then why not background checks and licenses?
23
These debates prove it’s hopeless. Americans have it in their DNA, thanks partly to the NRA and our “Manifest Destiny” racism myth which resulted in the near annihilation of Native Americans. And as slave owners, Americans needed to keep their “property” under control and subdue abolitionists. Despite the rationalizations of gun owners, the facts indicate that Americans are in love with guns. This situation is hopeless. Americans will continue to kill. Usually one another.
9
Gun ownership should be at least as regulated, taxed, licensed, and insured as car ownership.
The purpose of a car is to transport people from one point to another; a car can be misused, and there are fatal accidents, but the primary purpose is transportation--yet we have fairly extensive regulation with respect to licensing drivers and requiring insurance on cars.
Guns, on the other hand, have killing as their primary purpose. Some are used for target practice, granted, and some are used primarily for hunting, but many have the express purpose of killing human beings.
It truly does not seem at all unreasonable to require at minimum the same level of regulation for guns as for cars.
18
Gabby: "My husband has been to dozens of gun shows in order to expose how easy it is to purchase guns from private sellers without a background check. I don’t understand why one person sitting at a table has to do a background check and the person sitting next to them does not. One out of every nine people looking to buy guns online has a background that would prohibit them from buying one at a store or from a licensed dealer."
A couple of things here. One, a person doesn't have to go to a gun show to conduct a private transaction. It can be done in a house, a car or even a boat. Gun shows don't have some magical geographical power that allow for these transactions to take place. That's a myth, pure and simple. Also, when a person conducts an online transaction, they don't just have FedEx, DHL or the USPS deliver it to their door. By federal law, it has to be mailed to a licensed dealer in your area where you'll have a background check conducted before having it released to you. This is something I see misrepresented all the time.
4
@Independent Observer I think the point of the gun show thing is that I can go to a gun show, where there are lots of gun and gun people, and find somebody pretty easily who isn't a dealer and will make me a private sale, perhaps in the parking lot, and perhaps even one with the exact gun I am after, and even be able to compare prices.
Where else can I go to do that? Advertise in the local newspaper? Go door to door asking, "any guns for sell?"
A gun show is a gun market place. The easiest place to find anything is in a marketplace devoted to that sort of item.
Perhaps people misunderstand what is meant by the "gun show loophole" but I for one always understood it to me the "private sale loophole" with gun shows mentioned as the easiest places to make a private purchase.
4
@Independent Observer Second, I understood the reference to online sales only to be making a statistical point: that a lot of people seeking to buy guns are not legally entitled to own them, not that a lot of guns are sold online without checks. And there is nothing to stop a person from finding a gun for sale online from a private persona and going to pick it up personally. I don't know about gun sales per se, and I am sure there is a lot of difference from state to state, but I have certainly seen lots of merchandise sold online which the vendor will not ship, requiring the buyer to come and get it.
@Bejay "Private sales" or as you put it "Private sales loophole" is exactly correct as far as to what people object. Gun shows are just the market where local laws are applied.
2
Solving our cultural abuse gun sickness that results in 100k+ deaths and injures a year is simple in theory.
In practice it is the hardest thing.
The reason is so hard is that America both left and right does not want to cure it.
The right blames the left ie they want to take our guns away and if the inner cities were wiped out, the crime would stop.
The left blames the right and says regulate, regulate, regulate, ban, ban, ban that is the magic formula.
They are both wrong. The formula is legality, regulation, responsibility and non promotion of the gun. It is just like we did with cig smoking and drunk driving.
America are you ready?
1
@Paul I believe you caricature the positions of the extremes.
83% of Americans support universal, no-loophole background checks for all firearms purchases and transfers (Quinnipiac, 9/9-13/2019)
86% of Americans support confiscating firearms from those adjudged to be a danger to themselves or others. (ABC News/Washington Post 9/2-5/2019)
11
@Kevin Brock --Thank you for you reply but again you are falling for the easy solution just like the right does.
Firming up background checks or taking weapons away from certified insane people would have a minor effect on our 100k+ people killed and injured by guns every year. (Not that should not be done).
App. 50% of all gun deaths are done by minorities in inner cities. (App. 50% are done by whites outside these areas). The gun culture by both sides are so ingrained ie by the right, the 2nd amendment and by the left Hollywood's serial production of grat. R rated gun gang entertainment to kids that only the proven formula mentioned above that has worked so well with drunk driving and cig. smoking and failed miserably so far with drugs and guns is the cure.
1
@Paul I'm pretty happy with a minor effect. We have to start somewhere.
2
The single most important truth to be discussed is that prohibitions, or bans can only INCREASE the number of deadly weapons on the street. It's been proven, time and again in this great country of ours, that bans, or prohibitions on dangerous, even deadly products that are BELOVED by Americans inevitably result in black market criminals coming in to supply the demand for those products, and realize billions in profits WITH ZERO REGULATION. Those billions in profits (made possible only by the ban itself) fund additional criminal enterprise. As a nation, we need to come to grips with the unequivocal truth that such "bans" or prohibitions on products CANNOT EVER result in LESS of that product being sold, and bought. Anybody that floats that notion is a liar, and the left floats it every time there is a shooting. And, of course, every time the idea of a "ban" gets floated, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF ADDITIONAL GUNS ARE PURCHASED LEGALLY, just in case.
5
@kmk How can we prevent those who are not legally entitled to owning firearms from getting access to firearms?
2
$64,000 question @Kevin Brock.
This nation's problem is not preventing those that are not "legally entitled to own a gun" from accessing a gun. There will always be access to guns in our society, and as mentioned in my original post, prohibitions on guns will only make them more available, cheaper, and more deadly via inevitable black market channels that will pop up to rake in the billions in profits.
We need to focus on preventing people with guns to use them criminally, and again, banning the gun only makes it more likely that more criminals will use guns criminally, and to the detriment of innocent people.
It is a paradox that will not go away no matter how many heads remain hidden in the sand.
2
@kmk
Your argument is based on prohibition of easily reproducible consumable goods(drugs, alcohol) that had high demand. Therefore, it is not a good comparison to a non-consumable good. It also completely ignores the real economics of the situation at present.
Instead of looking at guns, look at something else that is banned for sale-ivory, for example. Do you know how difficult it is to acquire ivory on the black market and at what cost? It's an astronomical amount of money, because there's relatively low demand.
Now consider the price of a gun on the black market is right now. Probably a 10% markup of the retail price. Same with getting black market microwaves, sneakers and baseball bats. Things that can easily purchased on the open market don't create a demand on the black market.
If the retail sale of guns were dramatically reduced or eliminated for individuals, the production and availability would go down and the price would skyrocket. Yes, you'd see some amateur machinists and gunsmiths making some-and you'd periodically see lost/stolen service weapons from law enforcement/military getting introduced into the market, but for the most part the market would dry up. Heck, even the cartels would become significantly weaker if the US arms market dried up.
1
Recently, the Supremes decided that the state could deny a person their right to vote if that person did not return a postcard within a certain time. Those laws are the result of an aggressive push to make sure that only those eligible to vote are actually allowed to vote. Not returning a postcard was considered adequate due process to deny our most basic right.
If only we were as aggressive in denying firearms to those who are legally disqualified from exercising that right.
74
There won't be progress on this issue until both sides compromise. On the one hand, there needs to be recognition that the Second Amendment supports the right of individuals to own guns. On the other side, there needs to be acceptance of reasonable restrictions on that right.
Whatever we do should be based on data and not emotion. For example, as one of the authors noted "assault weapons" are not functionally different from many other weapons. In addition, an assault weapons ban would have a negligible impact on homicide rates, and zero impact on suicide.
Homicide and suicide are two different problems with different issues and need to be addressed separately. While mass shootings of mostly white people makes the news, the day-to-day carnage in the black community accounts for most homicides. On suicide, despite high gun suicide rates, the US suicide rate is in the middle of that for developed countries. It seems that the presence of guns affects the means of suicide, but not the rate.
And finally I would note that safe storage laws are fine, but won't make much difference. The same folks who don't use seatbelts, drive motorcycles without a helmet, or let their infants sleep in the same bed with them are the ones who will ignore safe storage laws.
15
@J. Waddell The Supreme Court did not conclude that the 2d Amendment provides an *individual* right to bear arms until 2008. Prior to that time, it was generally accepted (including by conservative jurists) that this was not the case. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said that the idea that the Second Amendment conferred a right for individuals to bear arms was “a fraud on the American public.” (Burger was a Nixon appointee.)
5
Insurance. Why can't gun owners be required to have it? We do that for cars and lots of other things that are not, by design, lethal weapons.
77
@SM Driving a car isn't a Constitutional Right, it's a privilege (like hunting, actually).
8
@Independent Observer Since voting is a Constitutional Right, can we impose the same regulatory/registration rules for exercising the 2nd amendment right as we impose on voters?
16
@SM - agree on insurance (liability for gun owners, just like I buy for my home and auto). We also need taxes like we have for tobacco and alcohol to help with the costs to society when people get shot (health care for injuries, lost wages for people killed).
2
One of the major factors in the gun control debate is the sheer volume of firearms available in the United States now. There are 120 guns for every 100 residents in America, so I think practicality has to come into play.
How do we go about repossessing and restricting hundreds of millions of guns? I am not necessarily saying the government should not try heavy regulation, but that policy is going be extremely difficult to implement due to the numbers involved.
Not too mention the Charleton Heston-ites who will only let the government repossess their guns from their "cold, dead hands."
2
@DeeSmitty
They can keep their guns.
Outlaw the sale of ammunition, cartridge, bullets, gunpowder and primer(which is NOT protected by the 2nd amendment) and the problem of gun violence shrinks dramatically.
1
The thing that I never understand with gun control is why (a) I should care that someone wants to own something dangerous to me because it enables a fun, leisure-time hobby for them (hunting) and (b) why I should care what our bill of rights (drafted at a time of slaveowning and non-universal suffrage) has to--arguably at best--say on the subject?
These are probably two of the BEST arguments in favor of anyone having guns, aside from the fanciful but appealing notion of using a weapon to defend against violent, racist, and militarized policemen, and they don't hold much water under any 21st century analysis.
1
@M :"why I should care what our bill of rights (drafted at a time of slaveowning and non-universal suffrage) has to--arguably at best--say on the subject?"
The Constitution and its amendments (including the Bill of Rights) provide the legal framework for our country. Calling the authors "slaveholders" doesn't obviate that. But it does make for a good polemic.
9
@Jp Sure. But that's the same energy as "we're a Republic not a Democracy" rejoinders. Technically true as a historic fact but holding no moral weight or rational modern defense, and therefore no sacred cow or favorite of mine.
1
At one time I used to thought I needed at least one gun, then “Well, I not only need a long gun, I could use a handgun for close-in protection”..... after that it was, “well, a medium gun is for those situations…“
Nowadays, the pleasures I get are from the release of endorphins that are produced when I purchase — some more tools, or stereo equipment, something not quite so lethal (although, another compact tractor could roll over on me and kill me that way).
Words matter.....
The discussion should be about GUN SAFETY...NOT GUN CONTROL
The word CONTROL turns many responsible gun owners off
Few gun owners would be against GUN SAFETY.
17
@Philip
The problem, however, is when words are used to mean something else. When GUN SAFETY is "removing function", "tracking", "keeping you from buying", "taking guns away", "requiring tech that doesn't exist", "preventing you from protecting your hearing", "eliminating gun safety programs for kids", etc etc etc...
Then it doesn't take much to notice the CONTROL and that it's not SAFETY.
There's a lot of virtue signalling that goes on in most gun debates. People want to be "right" and a good person. That's good, but it often causes them to make statements that don't necessarily follow from their arguments so they don't look terrible to the people they're talking to.
I'd like to remove most of the restrictions on firearm function. Small arms aren't more evil if they fire faster or quieter or have shorter barrels. Full on belt fed machine guns are nearly impossible to set up and use more effectively in a murder than a .22 revolver. Las Vegas was such an outlier that it's difficult to even discuss. If a person doesn't understand the statistical insignificance of the event for guns then it's difficult to continue.
In the interim we have NPR talking about all the money the NRA dumped into VA...and not a word about the 8:1 more that Bloomberg dumped there...and I like NPR.
I hate having a tinfoil hat on but this is a mess of manipulation. The guns are all the common folk have at the end and that's what we're looking at losing.
5
@Philip Some gun safety examples are as follows:
- Always point a firearm in a safe direction (eg downrange)
- Always unload and open a firearm's action when handing it to another person
- Never put your finger inside the trigger guard until you're ready to fire. Have it rigidly fixed in the direction of the barrel outside the trigger guard
That's "gun safety" and has been for many generations. What you want is "gun control," regardless of any negative connotations that might be involved.
3
@Philip - I agree - gun safety. I don't care what you buy or own, I care when someone gets shot.