Sadly, Representative Shays was correct.
During the January 8 Tucson Massacre, a lone gunman used a Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol equipped with a high-capacity ammunition magazine to shoot 19 people at U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords' event at a shopping center to meet with her consitituents. He killed six people, including a federal judge and a nine year old girl. Because his ammunition magazine held up to 33 bullets, he was able to commit all this carnage very quickly and without reloading his gun.
When the gunman opened fire, Mary Reed shielded her daughter with her own body, taking three bullets before the killer moved on. Incredibly, Ms. Reed did not suffer critical injuries and her daughter was not shot, due solely to her mother's bravery. Patricia Maisch knew that the gunman was aiming for her next, but he had just emptied his first ammunition magazine, so he tried to reload his weapon. As he did, Ms. Maisch grabbed the magazine from the killer. Two other men, Roger Salzgeber and Bill D. Badger, then tackled the killer, and the massacre ended. Fortunately, Ms. Maisch, Mr. Salzgeber, and Mr. Badger all survived.
The courage of these Tucson heroes is astounding.
This massacre, however, could have been avoided had our politicians had the courage to stand up to the gun lobby in September 2004. Large-capacity ammunition magazines (defined as those holding more than ten bullets) that were manufactured after September 1994 were prohibited by the federal assault weapons ban. But Congress allowed that law to expire in 2004 because too few members of Congress were willing to stand up to the NRA.
Nor did American politicians have the courage to stand up to the NRA in April 2007, when the same type of large-capacity ammuntion magazine was used in the Virginia Tech Massacre to kill 32 people and leave 17 injured.
To staunch the flow of blood in this country, we must help our politicians find the courage to oppose the NRA and other elements of the gun lobby.
Representative Carolyn McCarthy has just announced that she will introduce a new bill in the U.S. House, "Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices Act," which will prohibit the transfer, importation, or possession of large-capacity magazines.
Ceasfire Oregon strongly supports Rep. McCarthy's bill. We also strongly support a ban on assault weapons, including the Tec-9, AK-47, and Uzi.
Please tell your congressional representatives that it is time to have the courage of the Tucson heroes and take genuine steps to prevent future shootings. Click here to send your representative a message.
Yesterday this country honored a great man of peace, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was killed by an assassin's bullet in April 1968. His assassination, and that of Robert F. Kennedy two months later, led Congress to enact the Gun Control Act of 1968.
In memory of Dr. King and Attorney General Kennedy, please take a moment now to urge Congress to take action to prevent gun violence. Ask Congress to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons.
Link to an article on the bill's introduction, from Congresswoman McCarthy's website: http://carolynmccarthy.house.
I believe the gunman at VA Tech used regular and reduced capacity magazine, not extended capacity magazines.
ReplyDeleteAmericans have a right to peacefully assemble and to assemble IN PEACE without fear of slaughter! The second amendment does not trump all others!
ReplyDeleteWrong, Heather. Seung-Hui Cho, the killer, used a 9 mm Glock 19 and a Walther P22 (.22 caliber). So how many bullets are you willing to face for the nra?
ReplyDeleteCan you please explain to me how extending the AWB when it expired in 2004 would have prevented the recent crime in Tucson? That is what your initial quote suggests, at least. Being a gun-toting knuckle dragging neanderthal from the frozen hinterlands I guess I just can't understand the linkage. Maybe I misunderstood you?
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, in the post-Heller and post-McDonald world, your side -- which seeks to impose restrictions on the exercise of a Constitutionally enumerated right -- needs to start justifying proposed restrictions. Rights can be limited but you need some sort of rationale.
Please explain to us how the proposed ban on standard capacity magazines and certain firearms (including antiques from the civil war) will further an important government interest, like, say, reducing overall violent crime. Again, I don't understand the linkage. Surely if banning standard capacity magazines is so effective, then there must be a few peer reviewed studies to support that view, right?
Chris, extending the AWB would have prevented the gunman from legally purchasing the extended magazines, as well as preventing legal sale of other weapons used in other mass shootings.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't believe you need a peer reviewed academic study to understand the needless destructive power of these weapons for civilian self-protection. No one's right to protect themselves is infringed by this ban, with so many other legal firearms options available.
"Chris, extending the AWB would have prevented the gunman from legally purchasing the extended magazines, as well as preventing legal sale of other weapons used in other mass shootings."
ReplyDeleteFalse. He could have easily bought a used or pre-ban magazine or firearm like many other gun owners did during the assault weapons ban. The only thing that would have been different is that he would have paid more money for it.
And I can't support this ban. Just because a handful of individuals abuse a product, it doesn't mean millions of people have to be deprived of it. We haven't banned OTC medication or high performance cars, despite their high rate of abuse, so why should we ban assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, standard capacity magazines, or any other firearm related accessory?
AztecRed, it's not a question of abusing a benign product. OTC medication and high performance cars are not *intended* for killing large numbers of people, unlike those weapons and extended magazine clips.
ReplyDeleteFirst up, you talk about 33 round magazines, but the McCarthy Bill would ban magazines that hold 11 or 12 rounds. Let's be honest.
ReplyDelete2nd The Magazines used by Cho in the VT shooting were bought on Ebay that only allowed "Ban-compliant" magazines to be sold (they now no longer allow gun parts to be sold)
So Sung Cho was 100% compliant with the Proposed McCarthy Law.
Thank you Baldr for this post. At some point, we must decide as a country that we are going to do the right thing, plain and simply, to stop seneseless shootings. You are right- the public isn't demanding peer reveiwed studies to know that what happened in Tucson was just wrong. Just as Virginia Tech was just wrong. Columbine was just wrong. To say that we can't stop these is also just wrong. We can if we have the will and we stand up to the special interests guarding their rights over the rights of the rest of us to be safe in public places. The new polling data from Mayors Against Illegal Guns clearly shows that the public is with you and me and common sense. What else do we need? This polling data repeats what almost all other polls on the subject of "gun control" have shown. The majority of Americans understand that reasonable gun laws are right and that they CAN happen at the same time as protecting second amendment rights. To say otherwise is just WRONG.
ReplyDelete@Baldr: You hit the nail right on the head and I'm not sure you even recognized it:
ReplyDeleteYou said (emphasis is mine):
"...extending the AWB would have prevented the gunman from LEGALLY purchasing the extended magazines, as well as preventing LEGAL sale of other weapons used in other mass shootings."
How does preventing the legal sale of ANYTHING prevent someone willing to break the law from getting it?
Does preventing the LEGAL sale of marijuana stop people that want it from buying it illegally?
Your other statement is completely false:
"OTC medication and high performance cars are not *intended* for killing large numbers of people, unlike those weapons and extended magazine clips."
As someone posted in an earlier comment on another one of your blog posts, guns themselves (including their magazines, NOT "clips") have no intent by themselves. Their purpose is COMPLETELY dependent on the person using them.
"Assault weapon" is also a political term that describes a firearm's physical appearance, not "intent" or actual function.
...Orygunner...
Oh, and the other statement in the original post:
ReplyDelete"This massacre, however, could have been avoided had our politicians had the courage to stand up to the gun lobby in September 2004. High-capacity ammunition magazines (defined as those holding more than ten bullets) that were manufactured after September 1994 were prohibited by the federal assault weapons ban."
It's an error to assume that if the AWB wasn't allowed to expire that it would have done anything to stop this massacre. Change slightly perhaps, but that's really all you can speculate.
There was nothing in the AWB to prevent the shooter from:
*Purchasing a pre-1994 33 round magazine.
*Using 3 post-1994 10 round magazines.
*Driving a car into the crowd or building an explosive or incendiary device.
We can speculate about what COULD have happened if we had stricter gun control, or no gun control, but all of that is really moot: The point we need to keep in mind is that the shooter intended to kill people that day, and there is no evidence that ANY change in gun control laws would have changed the outcome significantly.
...Orygunner...
eumenides said:
ReplyDelete"Americans have a right to peacefully assemble and to assemble IN PEACE without fear of slaughter! The second amndment does not trump all others!"
"So how many bullets are you willing to face for the nra?"
Sorry to tell you this, but out of all of our unalienable rights the founding fathers of this country discussed, there is no such thing as a right to be free of fear - That's something you're using as an excuse to try and infringe on someone else's rights.
The Second Amendment doesn't give any right to slaughter people, so I'm not sure why you should think it trumps any right to peaceably assemble. The 2nd Amendment is EQUAL to any of our other unalienable rights. When someone kills innocent people with a firearm, that is ABUSE of the right. We have laws to punish those who ABUSE their rights and cause harm to others.
You have a right to be free of harm or threat of harm. You have a right to do whatever you choose to make yourself feel safer, as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others to do so. Nobody has the right to harm or threaten you, either. However, someone simply possessing a firearm is no threat to you or your safety. ONLY if they use it to threaten or harm you with it, period.
A couple of questions: You seem to be stating that keeping the AWB in effect would have reduced the size of the magazines Cho's guns had. Please answer:
1. Cho was able to reload his magazines with ease, as he was facing no armed resistance until police arrived. How would changing magazines every 10 rounds have differed from changing them every 15 rounds?
2. The AWB that expired in 2004 didn't prohibit possession or ownership of standard capacity (15 round for Glock 19) magazines manufactured before 1994, so what prevented him from buying some used 15 round magazines?
3. It was already illegal for Cho to have a gun on campus and shoot people, yet he chose to break those laws. How would making standard or high capacity magazines illegal have stopped him from getting them?
...Orygunner...
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteAnd here is another question -- in the spirit of compromise of course.
Let's say that you might be able to convince me to support this bill.
That's a might but there has to compromise on your side of the fence.
What current law -- not a proposed law -- but an actual on the books law would you be willing to strike in order to get support for this bill?
Wouldn't that be compromise?
So, what do you get rid of?
Out of the 32,000 gun related deaths per year, how many could be prevented by banning magazines with over 10 rounds? 10? 20 at the most? If those magazines were intended for killing large numbers of people, then surely the numbers would pan out and show large numbers people being killed a large number of times with these magazines. On the contrary, it's a rare occasion when more than 10 people are shot in one incident.
ReplyDeleteMcCarthy's bill is just an emotional reaction to the Gabby Gifford's shooting. It's not based on any sound logic or reasoning. It's not supported by any data. Its just "happy, feel-good" legislation.
"Wrong, Heather. Seung-Hui Cho, the killer, used a 9 mm Glock 19 and a Walther P22 (.22 caliber). So how many bullets are you willing to face for the nra? "
ReplyDeleteClearly you did not understand that my comment was about magazines. Nowhere did I mention the gun used. Since both the glock 19 and the Walther accept standard, reduced, and extended mags, how does your comment prove me wrong?
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteAs I posted on japete's blog, this ban (intentionally or through ignorance) would ban some entire guns. Specifically some lever action (cowboy) rifles can hold 11 rounds in a tubular magazine, which is permanently attached to the weapon. Rifles of that design have existed since the 1890s.
Further, the proposed bill would make it illegal for me to transfer banned magazines, or my example cowboy rifle to family members, either as a gift or bequest.
Thanks for your comment on these 2 points.
Of course, the gun apologists won't acknowledge the NRA gets millions of dollars from companies who manufacture and sell high capacity magazines.
ReplyDeleteWRT justifying restrictions--actually, no--we don't need to. Heller and McDonald clearly stated such restrictions are Constitutional. So let's not pretend Heller said something it did not.
Besides, isn't having a gun homicide rate many times more than any developed nation justification enough? If not, how about the fact everyone--you, me, everyone--gets to pay more for everything because of gun violence and the threat it poses? Right now, we get to pay more for healthcare, consumer goods, security, etc. On purely economic grounds, gun violence makes us poorer and less competitive.
Of course, the gun apologists won't acknowledge the NRA gets millions of dollars from companies who manufacture and sell high capacity magazines.
ReplyDeleteCitation needed.
Heller and McDonald clearly stated such restrictions are Constitutional.
Citation needed. Heller and McDonald say no such thing.
Chris, extending the AWB would have prevented the gunman from legally purchasing the extended magazines, as well as preventing legal sale of other weapons used in other mass shootings.
ReplyDeleteFalse. The AWB did not ban possession and transfer of pre-ban magazines or firearms.
And I don't believe you need a peer reviewed academic study to understand the needless destructive power of these weapons for civilian self-protection.
Please explain why McCarthy's law exempts law enforcement, then. Do police require "needless destructive power" as part of their job responsibilities?
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteCould have sworn that I left a comment here asking about compromise.
Let's try again.
What law, regulation, rule or restriction currently on the books would you support dropping in exchange for the support of the McCarthy bill?
You want to talk about compromise, let's talk.
What are you willing to repeal?
I'm sorry, but the correct reply to your request is "No".
ReplyDelete"The courage to stand up to the NRA..."? The NRA, as much as the anti-gun people love to demonize them, are composed of honest, decent people who are sick of being blamed and punished for tragedies, and I daresay, rightly so.
To "stand up" for an irresponsible restriction is not courageous or brave, it's dishonest and unscrupulous.
And it is irresponsible, there's no disputing that. One man murdered several innocent people. One. And for that, thousands of equally innocent people should be restricted?
You can beat about the "need" excuse all you want. They may not "need" them, true, but there's no "need" for a ban. If there were, if any of the claims were accurate, there'd be no exemptions built into the ban.
The less moral members of the anti-gun community just see this as an excuse to punish the average, *innocent* gun owner. Please tell me you're not one of them.
Jadegold wrote:
ReplyDelete"Heller and McDonald clearly stated such restrictions are Constitutional."
The Heller decision stated:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
(copied from the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller)
Standard or high-capacity magazines do not make a firearm any more dangerous or unusual, and that's the closest thing I see in the decision that even comes close to what you suggest.
Jadegold also wrote:
" On purely economic grounds, gun violence makes us poorer and less competitive."
Besides the fact that gun control has never proven to reduce "gun violence," our protected right to keep and bear arms also makes us one of the FREEST countries in the world.
I would rather live in a free country where my rights are protected by laws than a country that tries to protect me by taking my rights away.
Perhaps most relevant is the NRA gets millions of dollars from private citizens. For starters, you can multiply # NRA members * $50 for annual revenue figure. Add to that ad-hoc donations (many online merchants have "donate $1 to NRA" options on checkout pages), and that's just want private people spend.
ReplyDeleteWho cares if Glock or Ruger give them $0 or $1 billion?
We should compare membership numbers and/or private funding for groups on either side of this debate. That's a more meaningful measure of support than an online opinion poll.
Baldr: “Ceasfire Oregon strongly supports Rep. McCarthy's bill. We also strongly support a ban on assault weapons, including the Tec-9, AK-47, and Uzi.”
ReplyDeleteHow about the Glock used for the shooting? Do you support banning it? If not, can you give your reasons why it is an acceptable weapon for civilians?
"high performance cars are not *intended* for killing large numbers of people, unlike those weapons and extended magazine clips. "
ReplyDeleteThis gets to the crux of the reason we have a hard time finding common ground. You believe that weapons are "intended" for killing large numbers of people. We believe that weapons are "intended" for the protection and defense of innocent life and only in the hands of a mad man or a criminal does that use get perverted. In essence we see it as a tool to equalize the strong and the defenseless but not something to be used for evil. You see only the evil and want to ban the tool. The unintended consequences of such a ban would put the weak at the mercy of the strong, the elderly at the mercy of the young, the one at the mercy of the many. If men are intent on committing evil then only the deterrent of an equalizing force will stop them.
*Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 per day.
Would you ban the ability of these people to prevent crimes against themselves? Are you willing to be morally libel for the consequences of disarming them? If NO ONE needs a high capacity magazine then why does the McCarthy Bill exempt the police and the government?
* Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.
Brett:
ReplyDeleteHigh-Capacity Magazine Sellers Raise Millions for NRA
and
From Heller: "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Glad to help!
--JadeGold
TS, the Glock used in the shooting, without the extended magazine, is not considered an assault weapon. It is not designed to kill a large number of people in a short time like assault weapons.
ReplyDelete"It is not designed to kill a large number of people in a short time like assault weapons."
ReplyDeleteThis argument is ridiculous. How long does it take to change a mag? 3-4 seconds? Do you really think that someone who is hell-bent on turning a public place into a shooting gallery really cares if they discharge 30 rounds of ammunition from a hi-cap mag or 10 from three regular-cap mags?
It's like saying that an alcoholic is more dangerous with a keg than a case of 12 oz'ers.
And the kicker of this legislation is that it's being introduced by Carolyn "the thing that goes up in the back" McCarthy.
You keep blaming the implement...we'll focus on the individuals.
Bob, it's a fair question. Where would our side compromise?
ReplyDeleteI admit, I haven't seen much I could get behind, out of concern for safety issues, but I want to be open to suggestion. In the comments on this post, for instance, commenters suggested exceptions for antiques and collectables, or exceptions for family-owned guns to be gifted to relatives. I see no problem with those exceptions. Another area where I am generally less concerned about is the regulation of hunting rifles. Hunting rifles are rarely used to commit gun-related crimes, and often require more extensive training regulation and registration.
Molon, I blame the individual for the action, but restriction of the extended clip would have led him to have to reload sooner. It was during the reloading that he was stopped. He may have been able to be stopped sooner. This is pretty obvious. Would such a restriction stop everyone? Of course not. But in cases like this, it would help.
ReplyDeleteGun Control Laws only make law abiding citizens less able to defend themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe details of how much gun regulation you support, misses the point entirely. Like arguing how much slavery is ok, and under what conditions, and how many generations, and what percent blood. Such discussion is offensive.
There shall not be slavery. And the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Baldr: Did my response to Brett get eaten?
ReplyDelete18Echo, once again you guys confuse a ban on assault weapons with a ban on all guns. You can protect yourself without having to use an UZI or an extended clip. As for comparison with law enforcement or military, it should be obvious to anyone that they put themselves in harm's way, either in arresting the bad guys or on the battlefield. They are generally better trained than the average citizen, and strictly regulated with internal oversight. It is not likely that the average person walking on the street or sitting in their home is going to have to defend themselves against a large number of combatants.
ReplyDelete"*Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 per day"
ReplyDeleteBaloney. Even Kleck has quickly walked away from that number.
Kleck's 2.5M DGUs annually is debunked by Kleck's own numbers. Kleck states that in 8% of all DGUs, the gun is fired and an assailant is wounded. Kleck also says 15% of all GSWs are fatal. If you do the math, this means there are 30,000 justifiable homicides each year. Since 30,000 is about the same number of gun murders, suicides, and accidents annually--Kleck's numbers are way off. Plus, you can go to FBI UCRs and find justifiable homicides (from all causes, not just guns) rarely exceed 250 in a year--it means Kleck's DGU numbers are bogus.
Sofa: Actually, arguing gun control is akin to slavery ranks pretty high on the offensive meter.
ReplyDeleteConsider the facts: in slavery, you--or any member of your family--could be bought or sold. You could be physically and sexually abused. You could be kept in conditions worse than prisons in third world countries. And you could be punished, up to and including death, for offenses such as talking back or being "indolent" And you had no access to courts, schools, medical care, etc.
Contrast that to gun control where no US group is proposing banning all weapons and only seeks to ensure law-abiding, mentally competent people have access to guns.
It really takes some gall to equate slavery to having to fill out a background check or not being able to buy a 30 round magazine.
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteIn the comments on this post, for instance, commenters suggested exceptions for antiques and collectables, or exceptions for family-owned guns to be gifted to relatives.
Sorry Sir but those aren't current laws (or at least in most places).
Antiques are not considered firearms. They can actually be ordered online and mailed to your house.
In Texas and at the Federal Level, there is no requirement to perform a background check if the person is a private seller.
I asked about current laws -- and you can't think of a single current law you would repeal?
Why does it sound like your idea of compromise is for us not to gripe and complain as you take away our rights?
"Antiques are not considered firearms."
ReplyDeleteUntrue. Some antiques are subject to federal laws and the laws regarding antique firearms vary wildly from state to state.
"For starters, you can multiply # NRA members * $50 for annual revenue figure."
ReplyDeleteActually, the vast majority of NRA members obtained free or discounted membership. You're also ignoring that turnover of NRA members is about 80%.
@Jadegold - perhaps. I personally got a 1/2 price membership when I joined. I'll be honest, if I find a discount or a gimmick to get a free flashlight or hat, I often do.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow... let's adjust to $25/per head to be conservative.
Wikipedia suggests membership as "nearly 4 million". Maybe that's total crap, so can we call it 2 million?
...and if 80% do not renew (which seems far fetched to me, but I'll play ball), and an equal number become new members at the 1/2 price discount:
80% * 2m = 1.6m new members
1.6m * $25 = $40m in annual membership fees from new members at the discounted rate.
That's a low ball exercise, as we used 1/2 the stated number and 1/2 the typical membership price.
Even so:
$40m is 10x the Brady Campaign's budget
1.6m members completely dwarfs the best estimate of 28,000 BC members.
NRA can literally remove decimal places from any indicator of support, and still keep up with the combined efforts of the various "gun violence prevention" groups.
molonlabe:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona/2/
You can protect yourself without having to use an UZI or an extended clip.
ReplyDelete(1) Uzis are machine guns, not so-called "assault weapons".
(2) You're either ignoring or derogating the legitimate sporting uses of so-called "assault weapons" and extended magazines. To wit: AR pattern rifles are some of the most popular sporting arms in the entire country.
As for comparison with law enforcement or military, it should be obvious to anyone that they put themselves in harm's way, either in arresting the bad guys or on the battlefield.
So? Your side's original assertion is that the sole purpose of extended magazines and so-called "assault weapons" is to kill as many people as possible. So either:
(1) LEO's have no legitimate need of these items, since killing as many people as possible is not part of their job description notwithstanding the fact that they put themselves in harm's way; or
(2) You're being less than honest, and so-called "assault weapons" and extended magazines can in fact be of some legitimate use to people who do not have murderous intentions.
Pick one.
They are generally better trained than the average citizen, and strictly regulated with internal oversight
You can't possibly be naive enough to actually believe this, can you? A private, weekend-long CCW class often involves more focused instruction and more range time than many LEOs receive before being issued their duty sidearms. The average recreational shooter who makes a couple trips to the range a month will put thousands more rounds downrange than Officer Friendly in just a single calendar year. And the idea that police are, where the instruments of lethal force are concerned, better supervised and thus more deserving of the public trust than the public itself is completely giggle-worthy in light of the never-ending parade of police abuses and corruption.
And remember the oft stated comment.... "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away". You cannot argue with that. :)
ReplyDelete"Another area where I am generally less concerned about is the regulation of hunting rifles."
ReplyDeleteDo you realize that most of those "assault weapons" are functionally equivalent to hunting rifles?
How about this for compromise: I'll take your political advocacy more seriously once you learn about the laws you purport to support. You obviously have no idea how key parts of the AWB of 1994-2004 worked, for example. You also have apparently don't have the details on how Rep McCarthy's ban would work; you claim to be ok with heirlooms and curios & relics but mere possession of those items would become a felony for which the gun owner could only try to mount an expensive and uncertain affirmative defense.
ReplyDeleteHarsh? Perhaps. But you decided to go down this road. Joan has the excuse of being a victim advocate. She has made it clear that she doesn't care about the law, evidence, facts, etc. Ok, fine, I get that. There is a role for the "softer" side of victim advocacy that emphasizes emotions over facts. But you purport to use statistics and approach things from a "harder," more serious and technical perspective. In that case, it is fair to expect you to actually understand what you're talking about.
I don't mean to be insulting or overly aggressive. I just genuinely don't understand the linkages you're trying to create. It is like we are reading two different laws.
They are generally better trained than the average citizen, and strictly regulated with internal oversight
Maybe police do, but military not so much. It is not uncommon for military personnel to be armed 24/7 and out and about in a war zone having fired fewer than 200 rounds through their duty weapon (80 rounds in basic, 80 rounds just prior to deploying, at least for Air Force types). Even Army personnel, especially if guardsmen or reservists, get insufficient range time.
Sean: Of course. The NRA is a lobbying outfit that gets massive support from the firearms industry. Gun Control groups don't have an industry subsidizing them.
ReplyDeleteIt is funny that Jadegold links a post about a manufacture that allows ME to round up a donation on a purchase to go to the NRA and calls THAT a donation by the manufacturer. IF I pay MidwayUSA 22.48 for their merchandise and they allow ME to pay 23.00 and send the extra .52 to the NRA, I'm making the donation. They are just the delivery agent.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I think I'm going to start sending a donation to the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation every time I see a post by Mike, Jade, and Japete. It will certainly make me feel better.
@Baldr - Honestly, I'm not getting rid of all my magazines because of this bill. I won't do it. I have two magazines for my Marlin .22 that hold 10 rounds. My other rifles and pistols all have 12, 20, or 30 round magazines and those were the standard mags purchased with the firearms.
ReplyDeleteWhatever I have to do to defeat this bill, consider it done. I don't believe it will do anything to help anything and it is simply a knee-jerk reaction.
No, Heather, they aren't equivalent.
ReplyDeleteAbout Bob's compromise, I say no, nothing. This is not a question of compromise, this is a question of deciding what's right and what's wrong and doing that.
ReplyDeleteTo Orygunner I say, we are less free all the time thanks to all the guns. You might not believe this, but there are places where you can go out of your house and walk down the street without wondering if the approaching stranger has a gun and if he's fit to responsibly handle it. Sadly, those places are fewer and fewer in the States.
"Antiques are not considered firearms."
ReplyDeleteUntrue. Some antiques are subject to federal laws and the laws regarding antique firearms vary wildly from state to state.
Actually, it is quite true. Antique firearms, as defined by the BATFE, are not "actual" firearms, do not require background checks, and are not subject to any of the federal regulations surrounding firearms. I can have one shipped straight to my door, no FFL, no nothing. But, then, the facts were never your strong suit.
@mikeb302000
ReplyDeleteYou say "we are less free all the time thanks to all the guns."
You can choose to let your fear control you, or you can control your fear.
Gun control has practically no effect on violent firearm-related crime rates, so perhaps we should focus on fixing the REAL socio-economic causes of violent crime.
I would rather live in a free country with higher crime than a nanny state where my rights are restricted to try and make me "Safer."
...Orygunner...
Patrick: Your response seems to be saying that people who wish to donate to the NRA aren't bright enough to put their cash or checks into an envelope and send it to the NRA HQ. Instaed, these folks are compelled to buy something and add a donation.
ReplyDeleteOf course, you're denying the fact that companies like Midway incur costs to administer their "round up" program. Business 101.
And let's not forget the "round up" programs aren't the only way industry funnels cash to the NRA. The NRA receives "grants" from various firearm manufacturers as well as purchasing materials from the NRA.
Anyone who claims an assault weapons is functionally equivalent to a hunting rifle is neither a hunter or a soldier.
ReplyDelete"The NRA is a lobbying outfit that gets massive support from the firearms industry."
ReplyDeleteAnd SEMA is a lobbying outfit that gets massive support from the automotive industry. Imagine that. Companies donating money to organizations that help keep them in business.
"Gun Control groups don't have an industry subsidizing them."
No. They just have George Soros and the Joyce Foundation. What a pity.
Baldr, this post didn’t make it through, so I am trying again. Open and honest dialog is the name of the game here- I am not indenting this as a “gotcha” but I would like some elaboration on why exactly a Glock should not be banned but a semi-auto Tec-9 or UZI should be. Since Tucson, some people are calling Glocks “assault weapons”:
ReplyDeleteBaldr: “the Glock used in the shooting, without the extended magazine, is not considered an assault weapon. It is not designed to kill a large number of people in a short time like assault weapons.”
Thanks for you response. Can you follow that up with why a Tec-9 or Uzi without an extended magazine IS designed to kill a large number of people in a short time?
The NRA is a lobbying outfit that gets massive support from the firearms industry.
ReplyDeleteCitation still needed.
"this is a question of deciding what's right and what's wrong and doing that."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely right. Unfortunately, the anti gun groups almost always decide to do what's wrong.
If it penalises law-abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals, it's wrong, period.
Bob has asked a fair question. The reason is simple. For years, you've gotten whatever you want, and now the pendulum is swinging towards pro-gun, sensible laws, you ask for "compromise".
You're the ones in the wrong, there's no disputing that, so why shouldn't you give up existing laws to get what you want?
Guy Okhi: Basically, you're claiming that anything but unfettered access to all firearms for anyone penalizes gun owners. Don't you feel foolish saying this?
ReplyDeleteIn reality, there are very few gun regulations and the firearm industry is perhaps the least regulated industry in existence.
Gun apologists should answer these questions:
1. Do you believe mentally ill people should have access to firearms? If so, how much?
2. Do you believe substance abusers such as alcoholics should have access to guns? If so, why?
3. Do you believe felons should have access to firearms? Do you believe people with misdemeanor records involving violence should have access to firearms?
4. Why are gun apologists so afraid of their own Government?
@Jadegold/Guy Cadot - I walked you through step by step how private contributions to the NRA are massive enough to dwarf anything your side is doing. My numbers were extremely conservative and most certainly well below actual values.
ReplyDeleteIf "industry" money from midway, or anyone is also coming in, that's gravy.
@Jadegold: I can answer the first three questions with one easy answer, "YES."
ReplyDeleteNow I ask you, why would YOU prohibit the mentally ill, substance abusers, and felons their right of self defense? Do you hate those types of people so much that you would deny them an unalienable right that others are free to exercise?
The fact is, that if any of those three categories of people wanted to break the law and go harm someone, then laws prohibiting them from getting firearms aren't going to make it "harder" enough to matter. EVEN in cities and countries with the strictest gun control, someone with the motivation and the money can go buy a gun on the street, so "harder" doesn't do much.
The ONLY way to truly prevent dangerous people from hurting others (with a firearm or something else used as a weapon), is to incarcerate them or commit them into custody.
But instead of working to determine which of those are truly dangerous and incarcerate them for fear of stepping on THEIR rights, you would instead prohibit the rights of GOOD people to keep and bear arms?
For the last question, I'm not afraid of my government, I simply don't trust it. Its behavior over the last 70+ years has proven its corruption and lack of respect for the rights our founding fathers fought and died to protect.
...Orygunner...
"Don't you feel foolish saying this?"
ReplyDeleteNo more than you do when you call honest people "gunloons" for opposing irresponsible restrictions.
I'm talking about the law-abiding, not "anyone". I don't want to see criminals get a hold of masses of firearms, but the alternative you propose, where the law-abiding are forced to undergo more and more irresponsible restrictions, is completely unjustified.
Common sense dictates that misuse *never* comes before proper use. If there is a potential for criminal use of a firearm or related equipment, the law-abiding person's access to it must come first.
Punishing criminal misuse and preventing it is fine, but only if the law-abiding are not similarly restricted. Anything less is irresponsible.
To answer Jadegold's questions:
ReplyDelete1. Depends on the definition of mentally ill.
2. Depends on the definition of alcoholic and substance abuser.
3. Depends on the felony. Violent felony, no guns. But that wouldn't be a problem if they were in jail. Non-violent felony, sure you can buy a gun.
4. Carolyn McCarthy, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and all the other various gun banners that inhabit the government.
Jadegold,
ReplyDeleteYou are asking the wrong questions.
Not a big surprise.
1. Do you believe mentally ill people should have access to firearms? If so, how much?
Shouldn't you be asking
1.) If people are so mentally ill they can't be trusted with firearms, why are they allowed to walk around unsupervised?
Mentally ill people don't have to under go a background check to buy gallons of gasoline. Or diesel fuel and fertilizer. Or Knives. Or Chainsaws. Or Cars.
2. Do you believe substance abusers such as alcoholics should have access to guns? If so, why?
2.) Do you believe substance abusers such as alcoholics should have access to their children? If so, Why?
Substitute in there also heavy construction equipment or cars -- lets see you claim that substance abuse and autos isn't a bigger problem.
Again, we allow all sorts of people to have access to dangerous implements - why should firearms be different?
3. Do you believe felons should have access to firearms? Do you believe people with misdemeanor records involving violence should have access to firearms?
3. Do you believe that felons -- and by that I take it you mean people who have been convicted, served their time, thereby making restitution to society, right? -- should be allowed to talk, write letters, publish articles, attend church, drive, own tools, be free of unreasonable search and seizure, own property?
Basically what I see is that when it comes to firearms, nobody gets a second chance.
Rape a woman - no one says that a felon can't be around women forever.
Defraud people - no one says that a felon can't talk.
Mug a dozen people - no one says a felon can't walk the city streets.
4. Why are gun apologists so afraid of their own Government?
Why is our own government so afraid of gun owners?
Oh, wait. Most of them aren't. 49 states allow some form of Open or Concealed Carry.
As long as the government stays within the Constitutionally mandated limits, what does it have to fear from armed citizens?
Jadegold, with respect to your first three questions: I believe that those who want to deprive someone of a basic civil right should bear the burden of demonstrating that the deprivation is necessary, in the interests of public safety, in that particular case. So no, I do not believe that blanket prohibitions on gun ownership by felons, the mentally ill, substance abusers, and/or people with misdemeanor records involving violence are justified: such prohibitions are inherently overbroad and reach any number of people who pose no danger to themselves or to society whether or not they're armed. And better that one guilty man go free, etc.
ReplyDeleteAs to your fourth question: why are gun-grabbers so trusting of their government? What has it ever done to deserve your apparently limitless faith in its munificence?
Brett, it's particularly sick of you to suggest that those who have demonstrated themselves to be the worst of our society should be armed with deadly weapons. Strange, in previous posts, other pro-gun advocates had urged stricter sentencing of those offenders, or even execution! You don't even meet *their* criteria.
ReplyDeleteIt will always be true that some of those who have power will abuse that power, including our police. But the vast majority are good people who put their lives on the line for the common good every day, and I refuse to turn my denigrate them as you do. You're paranoid.
Good questions Jadegold. The answer is "no, of course not," to all three.
ReplyDeleteThe rationalizing of the close-minded gun crowd is funny to read.
The fear that Orygunner mentioned is the reason he and his friends think they need guns. By turning that around on us, he thinks he's being slick and we'll forget that the problem starts with unfit men who want to own guns. And, by they way, that's where the criminals get their guns.
Orygunner, I mentioned this to you before. You need to brush up, man.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
I don't accept that in order for you to enjoy those rights you need a gun.
@Baldr: Tell me, are THESE people, "the worst of society" ?
ReplyDeleteMartha Stewart, convicted felon, unable to legally own a firearm.
Tim Allen, comedian, convicted felon (felony drug possession), unable to legally own a firearm.
George Norris, an importer of orchids, who is a convicted felon for not filling out or keeping the proper paperwork for imported orchids. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/05/criminalizing-everyone/)
Throwing a blanket of derision over entire groups of people as dangerous, or "the worst of society" is not only inaccurate, but bigoted.
While it's absolutely true that SOME, or even MOST people convicted of felonies are dangerous, WHY do we prohibit people convicted of NON-violent crimes from legally possessing firearms? Is it because they have proven themselves to be dangerous, or because of arbitrary discrimination?
I believe that's what Brett is saying, that it makes more logical sense to legally prohibit firearms possession for DANGEROUS people, not just blanket entire groups.
...Orygunner...
Orygunner, I think it is a valid point, when put that way. Of course, as you point out, most felons are violent felons. But I would also point out that, though those crimes are non-violent, the criminals who did those crimes are of low enough morals to commit those crimes. Would it not stand to reason that their morals might be low in other areas, areas which could lead to misuse of firearms? I think it's debatable, and I would be willing to consider exceptions to the law there, but they would have to be VERY specific. Same goes for the mentally ill. Not all conditions are ones that lead to violent or impulsive behavior. As for those who have abused drugs, ex-addicts will point out that you never truly get away from the urge to "fall off the wagon" even decades later, and if they do they are more likely to misuse their 2nd ammendment right. Blanket laws like that are expedient, and it is better to be safe than sorry, but refining those laws can certainly be a good idea.
ReplyDelete@Mikeb,
ReplyDeleteIf you're referring to me as closed-minded, I'm personally offended. I am very open to any and all facts, evidence, and proof from any side of the discussion. I don't fall for emotion and opinions masquerading as facts, which in my opinion seems to be most of what your arguments attempt to do. I am always willing to admit when I'm wrong, but you have to show actual proof.
Tell me, do you wear your seat belt because you FEAR getting into an accident?
Do you have working smoke detectors in your house because you are deathly afraid of a house fire?
Just because the only reason that YOU can conceive that someone would carry a gun is fear, doesn't make it so. I don't carry a gun because I am afraid. I view my firearm EXACTLY the same as I do any other tool like my seat belt or my smoke detectors. A tool to be used as a LAST RESORT if needed, and I hope I never have to need it.
Before you suggest that those other things aren't meant to kill but guns are, you have to prove that the primary function of guns is to kill, which you have no evidence to support.
...Orygunner...
Apparently my comments are getting eaten.
ReplyDeleteBaldr and Jadegold assert that assault weapons and hunting rifles are functionally different. I assert that the differences are cosmetic.
The AWB defined a rifle as an assault rifle under the following terms:
"Semi-Automatic Rifles with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet Mount
Flash Suppressor
Grenade Launcher"
1. Detachable magazine. Cosmetic difference only. One of my hunting rifles has this feature.
2. Folding stock. Cosmetic difference, again. My rifle has this feature as well - it makes it so that I, a small woman, and my husband, a larger man, can shoot the same firearm.
3. Pistol grip. Again, cosmetic difference. Doesn't affect ballistics. I have this one on the rifle as well because it came with the folding stock.
Right there I have proven that one of my hunting rifles is considered an assault weapon for cosmetic reasons only.
Orygunner, Now that I've been reading your comments for a few days, I must admit I find myself liking your writing style more and more. But can you really claim to be open-minded. I know I am, but you? I don't know. :-)
ReplyDelete@Mikeb,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the compliment.
As far as being open minded, I believe I am. Whatever the subject I am interested in, I research the information on BOTH sides. As I learn more information, my view often changes as I learn more of the truth about the issue.
NONE of my beliefs are permanent. If I receive new facts that disprove my current beliefs, and they check out to be accurate and unbiased, then my beliefs change.
There's some things I DO believe that are more opinion than fact, but even then it's based on reason and logical observation rather than solid facts. For example, I believe all people have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I believe we have the right to defend our life and liberty, and I believe that the right to keep and bear arms comes directly from our right to protect our life and liberty. I do have evidence from the words and writing of the founding fathers of this nation that those are the principles and beliefs this country was created to protect. (Just because some of them also wanted to protect their right to own slaves doesn't discredit their other beliefs, in my opinion).
So yes, I believe I am open minded. I'll give my honest opinion, point out bias when I see it, and call BS when necessary.
I will always admit when I am wrong, but it has to be proven to me with facts, not opinion.
...Orygunner...