One thing that bothers me about the debate about gun control is that we don’t put enough focus on the role of state governments. We have some gun tragedy and naturally the media starts asking federal officials what can done to prevent a recurrence. But the truth is that the federal government can’t do a whole lot both because there is no political will and because of Supreme Court rulings that sharply limit the federal government’s range of action.
There is nothing to say that a state like Arizona couldn’t devise solutions that would never be possible on the federal level. I noticed that Howard Dean was completely fatalistic about efforts at gun control in appearances he made after the Tucson Massacre. He went on several cable outlets and said that the Republicans and the NRA had won the debate about whether the Second Amendment protected a citizen’s right to bear arms. That may be true, but they haven’t won the debate about whether the Second Amendment is binding on the states. And that’s really where the action should be.
It’s very hard to devise gun laws that are satisfactory to both the people of Philadelphia and the people of coal country in Western Pennsylvania, let alone the ranchers of Montana and Wyoming. I don’t have a problem with letting gun laws be decided on the state and local level. However, I think there should be regulation of the sale and transportation of firearms because lax laws in one area undermine stronger oversight in other areas. Many of the guns used in crimes in Philadelphia come from Virginia, for example. I’m not saying it is easy or efficient to have a patchwork of conflicting gun laws, but we can’t throw up our hands and resign ourselves to being helpless to regulate firearms.
What has basically been decided is that the federal government is not the forum where gun laws will be debated. So, let’s stop asking federal officers what can be done everytime someone kills a bunch of people with a gun. Go ask the governors, mayors, and the state senators and reps.
An additional thought I have is that it might be a good idea to focus a little more energy on ammunition than guns. There might be more political will to limit the type and amounts of ammunition you can buy than the type and amounts of guns you can buy. Chris Rock had a comedy routine about doing this, and it actually made more sense than anything else I’ve ever heard about controlling gun violence. As Rock said, if a bullet cost $5,000 you wouldn’t use more than one at a time. And then you’d go dig it out of your victim so you could use it again.
Fareed Zakaria/GPS had a great roundtable on this this morning. One of hte panel has written a book called ‘going postal’. In writing the book he found that you really can’t profile the people who go postal instead you have to profile the culture that surrounds them.
Of the many arguments still the one no one can ignore is that people who go postal turn to guns to express their insanity.
Rachel Maddow brought up the Chris Rock segment and played it. In the end the NRA argument that it’s not guns that cause death but people is so profoundly off the mark (ha!) that it quite purely demonstrates how powerful a lobby they are that it has become their argument-ending mantra.
well, technically, it’s the bullets that kill people. Unless you are pistol-whipped to death.
point re-taken
By the NRA’s claim, bombs don’t kill people, grenades don’t kill people, ricin doesn’t kill people, missles don’t kill people, defective cars don’t kill people, in fact nothing but people kill people. The success of the argument is the prime example of how reason gets trumped every time by intimidation, organized fanaticism, and bribery.
I think Dean a bit too glib about the victory of the NRA/small arms manufacturing industry. VT is both remarkably free of loons and a long way from anywhere else, so I suspect his perspective is a bit distorted. I lived near DC in the late 80s and early 90s, and the lax gun laws in VA were a significant factor in the epidemic of murders in that era. (The murder rate peaked at 80 per 100,000 in 1991, vs Vermont’s peak of 3.6 per 100,000 in 1993.) So I don’t think that Democrats should stop pushing for restrictions at the margin (magazine sizes, bullet types, etc.) at the federal level.
I see very little happening in the states. Every state, including IL, NY, CA, and MA, have large rural areas. Every rural area has rural reps.
The amazing thing to me is the degree to which the gun lobby and the gunsel lunatics are simply unwilling to accept even the smallest restriction. About 4 years ago in MO, a guy went “postal” and killed some of his co-workers. In this rampage, he ran out of ammo in the middle of going from one locale to another, and stopped in Walmart to buy more ammo and kill more people. He was able to buy 3-4 boxes of ammo and went on to kill 3 more people before offing himself.
Why do we have instant access to ammo? What is the value of having instant access? Why can’t we require that people inform the ammo sales locale that in 24 hours they would purchase 3 boxes of ammo?
The whole issue is that the CONVENIENCE of gunsels cannot be impeded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBjUDCyDCuI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31vm3-BQRJU
Every time there is a whiff of control people run out and buy more guns and extended clips and worse.
These people know nothing else. That genie is out of the bottle.
Ban all you want and they will show up pissed off and armed to the teeth.
Or some shitbag like Christie will just pardon him when he knowingly breaks the most basic of gun laws. http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=14578
Might be best to actually follow their advice and arm yourself.
I actually don’t mind that pardon. If you go to jail for 3 years for having a gun in your trunk, that seems excessive. Set it up to be a fine, not 3 years in jail.
Except the law is pretty clear and he admits he knew the law because he called to ask what it was.
Jersey can’t keep all sorts of guns from coming into the state, legally and otherwise, but they can make it pretty much illegal to do anything with it except keep it at home.
Lots of bad guys can and are taken off the street because they feel the need to carry a gun. Good guys are supposed to know enough that seriously bad stuff happens to you if you have a gun. Period.
As the fiance of the cop executed in Lakewood, NJ on Saturday how she feels about people having guns on them.
Someone is not paying attention;
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28/court-rules-for-gun-rights-strikes-down-chicago-handgun-ban/
The court will strike down anything that threatens republican money.
That is why people like Dean seem so discouraged. The NRA has won. Guns, bullets, clips, it won’t matter.
nalbar
A zillion years ago my father (now long dead) said: “The problem isn’t guns, it’s bullets.” There is absolutely nothing in the constitution about bullets (I don’t think). How about some strict construction!
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” can probably be interpreted to include guns and the bullets, since you can’t really arm yourself very well with an empty gun (unless it has a bayonet attached).
Boo, this has to be among your all-time personal bests for obliviousness. Chicago and many of its close-in burbs has had gun bans in place for decades. So the assault guns come in from Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, and downstate Illinois. If the whole state of IL had a ban the guns would still come in from other states.
There is no argument for letting anybody have any kind of weapon they want, in any quantity they want. The current NRA hegemony is simply a subset of a government that runs on corruption, bribery, and intimidation. And a population that apparently grows dumber by the year. The refusal of the gun nuts to accept any kind of solution is not a reason to give up the fight for rule by reason. It’s the reason to ramp up an absolutist anti-gun movement with some teeth.