Time to change 2nd Amendment

[Saintly_Loser]

@Oakminster

The overwhelming majority of gun owners are never going to use their guns in an unlawful manner. Yet you and your ilk seek to punish us all for the actions of a few maniacs.

No, the overwhelming majority of legal gun owners are never going to commit mass murder. Or stick up the liquor store. Or commit any kind of crime at all, with or without guns.

But here’s the thing. Someone else might. With those very same guns. That’s exactly what happened yesterday. A law-abiding woman, an upstanding and responsible member of her community, owned several guns. At least three. Why she felt the need for three guns I have no idea. But she had them.

And someone else – her insane son – came to her house, took those guns, and killed a whole bunch of people with those very same legally-owned guns.

I know I wish she’d never bought those guns. I bet she would too, if she had survived. Don’t you?

[Lumpy]

@Saintly_Loser

Well, maybe you could. But you don’t have to. The Constitution contains a process for amending it as our society and its needs change. We can certainly decide that a free and robust press, with many different means of production and avenues of distribution, is a very healthy thing, and at the same time decide that easy access to powerful guns, and especially handguns, is not a healthy thing. There’s no contradiction there at all.

Well obviously if banning guns is popular enough that the supermajority necessary to pass a constitutional amendment is there, then they’ll be banned and that will be the will of the people. My point was that you can’t use the technological argument by itself as justification. If our society was still as moralistic as when the Comstock Act and the Hays Code were passed, we probably would ban (or heavily censor) the Internet.

[Evil_Captor]

@aceplace57

One well placed bullet would have ended that shooters rampage at the school. Security guards are becoming more common at schools. I wish that school would have had them.

Taking away guns doesn’t stop highly disturbed people. China had 22 kids injured yesterday by a sicko attacking a school using a knife. Disturbed people will find some weapon even if it is just a tree branch.
Chinese man attacks 22 children, 1 adult with knife outside primary school – New York Daily News

Thank you for that link, I’m definitely going to save it. It makes the argument for banning handguns beautifully. Because farther down in the story it states that ALL of those kids that were attacked survived. NONE are dead. Killing people with knives is MUCH harder than killing people with guns. I wonder how many Connecticut parents would make the trade: a stabbed but living kid in exchange for their dead kid.

Banning guns would make mass killing MUCH more difficult.

[Saintly_Loser]

@Lumpy

Well obviously if banning guns is popular enough that the supermajority necessary to pass a constitutional amendment is there, then they’ll be banned and that will be the will of the people. My point was that you can’t use the technological argument by itself as justification. If our society was still as moralistic as when the Comstock Act and the Hays Code were passed, we probably would ban (or heavily censor) the Internet.

I’m not using the technological argument by itself as justification. Lots of things are different now. It is undeniably true that the founders could not have foreseen the America of today in many ways, some good and some bad. Techology is one of those things, that’s all.

[Oakminster]

@Saintly_Loser

I know I wish she’d never bought those guns. I bet she would too, if she had survived. Don’t you?

Nope. She had every right to own the weapons she had. She is not at fault for the criminal actions of her son. Had she not owned the guns he used, he could and probably would have obtained them elsewhere. The shooter is responsible for his actions. No one else.

[wonky]

@Oakminster

Nope. She had every right to own the weapons she had. She is not at fault for the criminal actions of her son. Had she not owned the guns he used, he could and probably would have obtained them elsewhere. The shooter is responsible for his actions. No one else.

It’s like you’re so afraid of looking politically weak that you won’t even allow yourself to react normally.

[elbows]

he could and probably would have obtained them elsewhere.

Perhaps not if the laws were changed and there wasn’t a gun in the hand of seemingly every citizen.
That’s the whole point. What you say is accurate only in a place where guns are widely and easily available, even to a guy too crazy to get one from a store.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Oakminster

You always have been in that camp, judging by your positions expressed in this thread. You’ve admitted knowing nothing about guns, you obviously know nothing about law, and you apparently reject political reality.

Did you know Lewis and Clark had a semi-automatic rifle capable of firing at least 20 rounds without reloading? Of course you didn’t. You know nothing about guns. Rapid fire technology has existed since 1780.

I noted that you wrote “without reloading” but made no mention of the rate of fire. Seemed like an important piece of information (or you know less about guns than you like to think). So I looked it up. That gun could fire 20 rounds in several minutes. I’m fine with that rate of fire. In fact, upthread I suggested one round every ten seconds. This gun falls below that. You are welcome to have it under my rules.

See, we are making progress on rational gun control.

[Oakminster]

@jsgoddess

It’s like you’re so afraid of looking politically weak that you won’t even allow yourself to react normally.

What exactly do you find abnormal about the statement you quoted?

[Martin_Hyde]

@Saintly_Loser

Yes, but here’s the difference.

The technology does change things. In 1789, I don’t think that there were hundreds of thousands (at least) of easily concealable repeating small guns just lying around everywhere. While there were likely just as many (on a per capita basis) psychotics in the population, they couldn’t just drop by their mom’s house and pick up a couple of handguns and an enormous number of bullets.

Technology and society have changed in ways the founders coudn’t foresee. That’s a fact. What is it about us that makes a schoolteacher who lives in a nic, affluent, relatively crime-free town feel the need to have at least three guns in her home? Along with enough ammunition to blow holes in a hundred people? (Yes, I know a hundred people weren’t shot in this incident, but I did read a newspaper account that said at least a hundred shots were fired. I have no idea whether that’s accurate or not).

Maybe that cabdriver’s rampage wouldn’t have been prevented if we had really stringent gun control laws. But maybe yesterday’s horror would have. The fact that we can’t prevent every mass murder isn’t an argument against trying to prevent some of them.

Who said it was? Try to respond to arguments made, not arguments you want made. But keep in mind semiautomatic weapons with up to 15 round magazines are legal in places like Germany, with extremely low crime rates. The existence of these weapons does not guarantee high rates of gun crime. There are certainly arguments to be made about regulation, as acquiring such weapons is more difficult in Germany.

[wonky]

@Oakminster

What exactly do you find abnormal about the statement you quoted?

You can’t even say, “Gosh, I wish this one particular woman hadn’t bought any guns.” You fall back on her right to have them as if the right to have them trumps all human desire that she hadn’t taken advantage of the right.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Fiveyearlurker

I noted that you wrote “without reloading” but made no mention of the rate of fire. Seemed like an important piece of information (or you know less about guns than you like to think). So I looked it up. That gun could fire 20 rounds in several minutes. I’m fine with that rate of fire. In fact, upthread I suggested one round every ten seconds. This gun falls below that. You are welcome to have it under my rules.

See, we are making progress on rational gun control.

I thought you were “done with this discussion?” As you ignored, and as I’ve said, rational gun control isn’t related to weird concepts about “rate of fire.” There is no way to “make” a gun that can only be fired once every ten seconds. You could stipulate only 18th century muskets be sold legally, but there is no way to modify existing gun technology to just make such a thing work.

Why have you ignored the points about countries like Germany and Norway, which have extremely low gun crime, but have no weird regulations on “one shot per ten second” firearms? It’s probably because you don’t accept that you simply know not only nothing about guns, but nothing about gun control. You really ought to read about gun control internationally before you start spouting ideas here. America will never become the most controlled gun country in the world, so why are you advocating a position that would give America stricter gun control than any other western country? That’s like arguing America abolish free speech or America becomes a one party state. You are advocating a political position that has no basis in the reality of legislation that could pass in this country.

[Evil_Captor]

@Martin_Hyde

I thought you were “done with this discussion?” As you ignored, and as I’ve said, rational gun control isn’t related to weird concepts about “rate of fire.” There is no way to “make” a gun that can only be fired once every ten seconds. You could stipulate only 18th century muskets be sold legally, but there is no way to modify existing gun technology to just make such a thing work.

Why have you ignored the points about countries like Germany and Norway, which have extremely low gun crime, but have no weird regulations on “one shot per ten second” firearms? It’s probably because you don’t accept that you simply know not only nothing about guns, but nothing about gun control. You really ought to read about gun control internationally before you start spouting ideas here. America will never become the most controlled gun country in the world, so why are you advocating a position that would give America stricter gun control than any other western country? That’s like arguing America abolish free speech or America becomes a one party state. You are advocating a political position that has no basis in the reality of legislation that could pass in this country.

People used to feel that way about same sex marriage and legalizing marijuana, Martin … never happen. But … things change, Martin. They really do change.

[kidchameleon]

@jsgoddess

You can’t even say, “Gosh, I wish this one particular woman hadn’t bought any guns.” You fall back on her right to have them as if the right to have them trumps all human desire that she hadn’t taken advantage of the right.

Why are you so hateful?

[Martin_Hyde]

@Evil_Captor

People used to feel that way about same sex marriage and legalizing marijuana, Martin … never happen. But … things change, Martin. They really do change.

Yes, but you’d be a moron if you said same sex marriage would never be legalized in say, 2000. You’d be blind to the trend. If you said it’d never be legalized in 1970, well, I’d argue there was no trend to say otherwise.

With gun control we do actually see a trend. Most States are becoming more permissive not less, just like more states are approving same sex marriage, more and more states have adopted looser gun control laws. In my own State of Virginia, already one of the most liberal gun control states (liberal as in not restrictive), recently removed a prohibition we had on purchasing more than one handgun every 30 days. Now that prohibition has been removed and you can buy as many handguns a day as you’d like.

What do you think is more likely, that we can get some sort of licensing regime in which people are required to pass exams, and sign documents asserting they will properly store firearms or face stiff legal penalties, or a regime in which all guns are banned?

And seriously, the common sense question I have for you is this: “Do you see the United States becoming the country with the strictest gun control in the western world, yes or no?” If you say yes…well, you’re entitled to your opinion. I just do not see that as the reality.

Aside from the practicality argument, no one has really made a good argument for banning guns. If the United Kingdom has a gun death rate of 0.22 per 100,000 versus the U.S. rate of 9.0 per 100,000 but the UK has not adopted a complete gun ban, wouldn’t you think moving to a system more like the UKs is a bit more reasonable than a complete ban? Which you know will just make anything you try to do that much more difficult to pass.

Half the Democrats in the House are opposed to firearms registration and support concealed carry. You are not going to get a gun ban, not even if you take back the House. A gun ban may be anathema to a portion of the GOP base, but it’s a non-starter with a large chunk of the Democratic party as well. I just don’t know why you guys want to talk about things you could never achieve. Is it just a desire to try and rile up people who you feel are “gun nuts” but embracing the position that they (out of paranoia) have feared for years? If that’s all your doing, I don’t really want a part of that sort of nonsense.

[thelurkinghorror]

@denquixote

Are you saying that sales at gun shows between private parties are regulated in the same way that you describe above? If so, why the outrage at gun shows?

I go to bed, and see 70! new replies. Now that I sorted through them, I don’t think you’ve been answered.

People support closing the “gun show loophole” because they are uneducated and don’t understand that there is no such thing as a gun show loophole. To clarify, there are three main ways to buy a firearm:

1. Through a dealer, signing the forms and getting a background check. Either in-store, or shipped.
2. The “other” category; having a C&R license, or buying an antique firearm, black powder, or air gun that do not require anything beyond age requirements.
3. The pertinent one: people can purchase a firearm from another face to face with less requirements for a check. They can do this at a gun show, or they can do this at a Starbuck’s. There is nothing special about gun shows, they just provide a central location. If people have a problem with F2F transfers I might understand, but no, they repeat the mantra that gun shows are a magical place where the law doesn’t apply. It does bother me that people are willing to make wide claims about something, but refuse to actually learn how a gun works because “they don’t like them.” I don’t like Scientology, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to learn more about their beliefs, even if for simple curiosity.

@elbows

Your cousins to the north weep to see this horror afflict you.

Snip, but for the rest of the post you have a point. Even in “Bowling for Columbine,” Michael Moore conceded that gun ownership rates cannot explain the difference between US and CA. Something else is going on.

[Knorf]

@Oakminster

Go ahead and run on repealing the Second Amendment. I think you’ll find a lot of the more reasonable members of the Democratic Party moving to the GOP.

If they’re willing to move to the GOP over that issue, then they aren’t at all reasonable.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@elbows

Your political predictions have not proven either accurate or reliable unfortunately, or did I miss where President Romney was swept into power by the changing tide of public opinion?

Gun control- at least right now- is ultimately a losing issue for Democrats, however, just as gay rights and abortion are ultimately losing issues for Republicans. It’s no coincidence that Obama has mostly stayed far away from the topic, other than making occasional supportive noises. If we see a rash of these killings (we usually do :() then maybe things will change, but right now public opinion is firmly against gun control. Fortunately for Democrats, there are very few gun control single-issue voters.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Knorf

If they’re willing to move to the GOP over that issue, then they aren’t at all reasonable.

It takes 38 states to repeal an amendment, that’s a non-issue for this matter. And as I explained, most likely (at least until a court case shows us otherwise) even UK style regulations of firearms would not be prohibited under the second so even trying to repeal it is a waste of political capital.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Where did you explain that? You’d have a hard time arguing that UK-style regulation would not violate the Second Amendment in light of Heller.