The framers of the U.S. Constitution were smart enough to make the document malleable. I believe it may be time to change the second amendment to make it very clear and to account for weapons the framers did not consider at the time. If enough of us write our lawmakers to show that we support reasonable limits on gun sales and ownership, we should be able to make a difference.
My proposed new wording: America’s long history of responsible gun ownership must be balanced against a government’s responsibility to protect its citizens. Congress may set reasonable national limits on sale and possession of certain weapons based on design, rate of fire, and size and impact of ammunition . Congress may also set national standards to restrict gun ownership based on documented mental condition and conviction for violent crimes. Local and state governments may limit gun sales and ownership in certain areas based on population density and violent crime statistics.
Any chance of making such a thing happen?
Maybe, but probably still not, if it was approved and submitted to all the states within the next 12 hours and they immediately acted on it. The news cycle is going to roll over pretty quick, though, so don’t expect the wave of outrage to carry it any farther than that.
This happens. States already do. Connecticut does. And especially rate of fire, this has been highly restricted since 1934. Most of the laws concerning this ban stupid stuff, like cosmetic or functional features that don’t make them more dangerous. Interesting you mention caliber though, most “assault weapons” laws target rifles with small to medium calibers.
This happens. BAM! (pdf). Lines 11b - 11i. Federal.
This happens. Indirectly, more populous states or cities enact more restrictive laws. Some do it related to high crime. Hence Las Vegas being more restrictive than the rest of NV, or Chicago having more laws than IL.
So basically you are proposing creating a law that doesn’t actually fix the problem it tries to solve.
What was it about this guy that made his ownership/possession of weapon/s “unreasonable”?
Fwiw, I don’t quite understand how a “militia” is going to save the country from Apache helicopters, drones, stealth bombers, and a military machine that spends more money than the rest of the world put together? I also don’t quite grasp why the USA needs that potential “militia” when the rest of the industrialised, democratic world appears to get by on democratic procedure.
Everything OP recommended is already in effect. What exactly would this remedy?
Also, who gets to define “reasonable?”
Yes, these are in effect and being challenged based on an ambiguously-worded second amendment. Maryland’s process for obtaining conceal carry permits was just deemed unconstitutional. More challenges will follow. And those challenges all have merit. Let’s attack the problem head on.
Let me channel President Heston… *cold reads the US *
Erhm… he’ll put it under advisement.
We can define “reasonable” by debating the most important aspect to all of these shootings, which is speed. This seems to be mediated by two factors: firing rate, and number of rounds fired. We sit down with sportsmen and hunters (and do not invite the NRA which has lost the moral authority to be involved in this discussion) and have a rational debate, without invoking the bullshit slippery slope argument, and discuss a legal limit to how fast a gun may fire, and how many rounds a gun and magazine can hold.
There is no doubt in my mind that had that gunman entered that school with a normal handgun, or even multiple handguns, that a number of people would have been killed. But that number would not be 26.
Also, none of the above will happen. In two weeks we will forget about all of this until the next one, when we will be told it is not the time to politicize the horrible events of that day.
Japan forbids firearms outright, their numbers for firearms-related homicides are paltry compared to ours. The numbers seem to run along these lines most years: Japan: 10. US: 10,000. So an outright ban is clearly the way to go. Good luck with that!
So someone will be fine with killing 20 kids, but won’t buy an illegal or unregistered gun because it’s against the law and he may get in trouble?
I hate to break it to you, but those WERE normal handguns. They had the same firing rate as any other legal gun: one shot per trigger pull.
Reducing magazine size might help a little, as these assholes aren’t usually practiced shooters, but changing magazines is quick. So if a shooter is willing to carry a few extra loaded magazines, he won’t be slowed down much.
The overwhelming majority of mass gun killings in the US have been performed with legal firearms. In this case, from his mother. His mother, the kindergarten teacher, would likely not have owned these guns had they not been legal. Hence, his easy access would have been removed. Similar situation in nearly all of these cases.
Make these guns illegal, with specific criteria, and the demand for them drops (kindergarten teachers don’t purchase many illegal firearms. I don’t have a cite for that). The supply necessarily drops. There are fewer of these guns in existence over time because they aren’t being manufactured at the same rate. Thus fewer are available illegally as well and they become harder to obtain through even back channels. Never impossible, but harder.
Maybe the hardcore guys who plan these things meticulously (Aurora) still happen. But maybe not. Maybe he sets off all sorts of alarm bells as he tries to obtain an illegal arsenal that did not go off because he got them legally. But certainly random little shits who grab their mom’s guns because they are easy get knocked back a peg or three and don’t go through with it or go through with it with smaller, slower weapons.
Besides we tried it this way and it isn’t working. That is reason enough to try it differently. If you need a gun that fires 100 rounds in seconds, then you suck at hunting and you shouldn’t be using a gun to defend yourself as you are a danger to bystanders.
How many trigger pulls per second?
If guns are banned, period, they would become much harder to obtain illegally.
About one - same as with a revolver, or a shotgun, or a rifle. As I said, all legal guns fire at the same rate. The gun fires just as fast or just as slow as the shooter can work the trigger. The jerk could have gone into that school with any legal weapon and achieved a similar rate of fire. There was nothing “special” about the guns he chose.
I support gun control, but this one argument does not follow as phrased based on the info we have. As indicated above, he DID commit his crime with just two perfectly standard off-the-shelf 9mm handguns (he left his rifle in the car) of the sort hundreds of thousands of civilians keep at home. Or are you thinking of something else when you say “normal handgun”? There is such a thing as fast reloading even for revolvers.
Great. That’s way too fast. In 1791, when the second amendment was written, guns couldn’t fire at anything approaching this speed.
These guns were only legal because our laws currently suck.
It’s no faster than guns have worked for about 150 years. If we’re having more problems with mass shootings now than we did in the past, it’s not because guns have changed.
I don’t disagree. There is more than gun technology driving these things. But as long as the gun technology allows this sort of rate and capacity, it will continue.
I really think that rational people (ignoring the 5% on the extremes on both sides. Well maybe the 10% on the pro gun side.) could come together and decide on criteria that satisfies everyone except the execrable NRA.
I think even the majority of NRA members have agreed that some of these solutions are agreeable.
I don’t think there’s ever been a mass shooting where the killer built his own gun from scratch. Every illegally owned gun was a legally owned gun at some point in its history. So when you control legal guns you’re also controlling illegal guns.