[Disclosure: I am a consultant for Democracy for America]
Longtime readers know that I have never used this page to advocate for tighter handgun control. I think if you go back and read my reactions to the mass gun killings that have happened over the years I’ve been writing on the blog, you will probably see that I supported the ban on assault rifles and bans on large ammunition clips. But, as a general matter, I have not supported the strict handgun laws associated with New York City and Washington DC. My main rationale is that we have a lot of urban neighborhoods where the police are simply incapable of protecting people in their homes or apartments, and as long as our cities are shooting ranges, people need to have the right to own a handgun for personal protection.
I also think federal gun laws are difficult to construct in ways that are equally appropriate in a city and in rural areas of our country. It’s even difficult for most states to create uniform standards.
On Saturday, I asked if people had changed their minds about the “politics of guns” since the shootings in Connecticut. I asked because my views had changed. But note that I asked about the politics, not the guns by themselves. There are a lot of things that concern me but that I don’t devote a whole lot of energy to because I know that there is no political will to address them. Prison reform and the war on drugs and Guantanamo fit into this category. That’s where gun control resided on my radar last Thursday. I was more concerned about the routine violence in our cities than the occasional massacre. But I wasn’t even on board with the classic liberal solutions to gun violence in our cities because I saw them as basically ineffectual as well as being a political dead end.
I haven’t changed my mind about everything, but I definitely feel differently now about the politics. I’ve heard the president’s call to action. For starters, we need to restore the Assault Weapons Ban. If you agree with me, please sign this petition. I think we can do it.
It won’t be easy, just look at the comments in this piece about my Saturday post. There are a lot of people who simply refuse to recognize that semiautomatic weapons present an unacceptable danger and should not be legal.
Some of those commenters assumed that I am only trying to take advantage of a tragedy to pursue a pre-existing agenda. That’s not true. The Assault Weapons Ban has never been high on my agenda, and I haven’t been much of an advocate for gun control of any type.
The Newtown Massacre changed some of my views; it changed my priorities, and it changed what I think is possible. I agree with the president. We can’t accept that we are powerless to stop these massacres. We have to change, and that starts with me.
Done. I’ve now signed the WeThePeople petition as well as Kos. Give me a dozen more and I’ll sign them.
Interestingly on the WeThePeople site looking at the list of petitions, there are ones along the lines of putting armed marshalls in schools. Fortunately, those are the petitions with the least amount of signatures.
I am going to sponsor a sermon prize as discussed at
http://www.boomantribune.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2012/12/17/92141/389
It is time to discuss the MORAL ISSUES involved with gun and weapons craziness.
I like this idea very much. Btw, in his speech yesterday Obama began with passages from Hebrews (which is actually a sermon) imo one of the most beautiful writings of the NT. Since it is rarely quoted I was even more impressed with his speech because he used that text appropriately and beautifully.
Repeal the 2nd Amendment. Let the states and cities decide what is best for their citizens.
I think what has inspired me to change and become more motivated was the response by President Obama. He seems ready to make a stand, and by doing so has offered a challenge and an opportunity for us citizens to back him up and get our opinions heard and acted upon.
If we unite and have some clear goals, I believe we can make changes that will build one on another to make the country safer.
Wasn’t the problem with the Automatic Weapons Ban is that it contained a ton of loopholes making types of auto weapons still legal? I hope the legislation proposed by Dems is stronger than the AWB. It should include closing the gunshow loophole and some kind of registry system for guns. If we can track all vehicles, we should be able to track guns.
It also grandfathered in all weapons already made. And because it gave gun manufacturers so much lead time, they used the time to make and stockpile all the guns that would be banned. There are huge problems with it, par for the course for a Democratic party that wants to look like the opposition and not jeopardize its campaign cash more than necessary.
I find it interesting that Americans are reading the president’s comments quite positively (positive as in pro-gun control) while Brits are hearing something else entirely. His speech was pretty much panned here, with correspondents pointing out the lack of any specifics, even the lack of the use of the word “gun”.
I didn’t hear anything in that speech to give me hope. And I’m a diehard when it comes to all that hopey-changey stuff. But I really don’t think anything much will come of this. Perhaps some mental health legislation, which everyone seems ready to sign up for. A good out for the Republican caucus.
Obama and the Dems pushed through health care reform, after 30 years of no progress.
In 1992 gays couldn’t be allowed to serve openly in the military. DADT was the result. It was a small victory and big defeat. In 2012 they can. It was the small victory that lead to the large victory.
In 1994 it was impossible to achieve a health care reform bill. But it forced the Republicans to go on record proposing a specific type of plan. It was a small victory and a big defeat. In 2012 we have a health care reform law that is being implemented. It is a big victory (though not finished) that sprang from a small victory.
Now we are addressing gun control again. Manchin has expressed support for banning assault weapons … however those are defined. There is the potential for big victory, but we are more likely to get a big defeat and a small victory. From small victorys come big victorys.
Sometimes you just have to be a Trotskyist.
I guess we’ll find out soon enough, but I think the lack of specifics is very smart.
When forming a situation-specific plan with clients, where there isn’t a standard amount to charge for something, I often ask my clients to suggest what they think is fair – because often the amount they state will be more than what i would have suggested.
So I see the lack of specifics from Obama as not wanting to limit the discussion to whatever specifics he has mentioned. I think he’s leaving it open for a wide range of possibilities – could be related to mental health services, assault weapons, ammunition, any number of things.
Obama is a really smart man, and a really practical one, and a smart leader doesn’t lay out their ideas first, because that limits the conversation. So I think Obama wants to see what options bubble up before he gets specific in public. I am guessing he does not want the media to limit and control this conversation, which they will try to do, if the specifics come from him.
I suspect Obama doesn’t want this to be about him or what he’s proposed; nothing good will come from him being the lighting rod on this. So I think we’ll see Obama supporting this or that proposal that’s made by someone else, and he’ll do most of his proposing/nudging behind the scenes.
I think we will see Obama come on strong for action though, and pushing some serious movement on this issue. I am not suggesting he will be passive in an effort to make changes. It’s just that we all lose as soon as the conversation starts to become about Obama rather than the children or the changes we make.
Using your analogy, President Obama is negotiating with the Republicans and there’s not a chance in hell that they will propose broader gun control legislation than the Democrats will.
This is a different situation than your analogy, and a leader isn’t afraid to set the terms of the debate.
I don’t think that speech was the time to make concrete proposals. It was the time to speak honestly and cogently about the moral questions such an event poses. And he did so very well.
I don’t think a “speech” at a multi-faith remembrance service was the place to present specific “political” proposals. It was the place to show sorrow and solidarity and, in general terms, to do better in the future. The specifics of how best this can be done are for another day. But that conversation has been begun. Gun control is no longer off the table as a political issue.
Legislators must put forward the legislation. And rightly so Obama expressed support but is leaving it up to the legislators from each state to propose specifics. after all, he’s a community organizer, (maybe the Brits forgot)
I agree with the Brits.
I have been wondering just when this explosion of semi-automatic weapons and large capacity clips started. When I was a teenager in the 70’s, we all had .22’s, shotguns and bolt action rifles. If one was a deer hunter, you might have a 30-30, which might hold up to 5 shells. But honestly, I don’t remember anyone having a semi-automatic weapon. You might see a cop with one on his hip, but that’s the only place I can remember that you might see one. The first one I remember seeing of an assault style was a military rifle that someone had pilfered and brought home with them when they were in Vietnam. But I sure don’t remember the gun case at the local store being filled with all manner of things like we see today.
What exactly triggered the massive wave of this type of weaponry? Anyone know??
I believe that it is due to several things:
I have a pretty good idea of the “WHY” it happened. I’m just wondering about the time-frame. In the early 80’s the brother of a friend of mine opened a gun shop. As far as I know, it was only the second one in our county at the time. He had a variety of weapons in his shop, but his customers were almost entirely people in law enforcement. Hunters would order rifles from him. But purchases by the general public were not very widespread. I just don’t remember when this explosion of tactical style weapons occurred.
OK, what is your “why”?
And where are you in OH? I lived for 7 years in Columbus and for 7 years in Cleveland Heights.
OH, I forgot – when is 1986 or so.
I think the Clinton Panic did a lot of this.
I’ve been watching old X-Files episodes (c. 1993) and it reminded me of something.
After the USSR fell and the USA was the indisputable hegemon of the planet, Americans began to fear their own government’s power. There was no longer any check, any “other” that we have to be morally “better” than.
Combined that with the hysteria whipped up by greedy business against the Clintons and the mistakes at Ruby Ridge and Wacco. Because remember, the right-ists SYMPATHIZED with those people in various ways. Because their own views were already stretching towards crazy they could easily see it being them.
So boom. Arms forever.
I’m not into guns but I appreciate guns. Fabrique Nationale makes art as far as I am concerned. I love FPS Russia. But there is no reason other than “I want it!) to have anything more intensive than hunting or marksman rifles.
It doesn’t matter if you have a huge arsenal with RPGs and shit. If the government or even national guard is coming after you, you are going to lose. Conversely if the government ordered its soldiers to start rounding up Americans and putting them into camps for bullshit reasons would they obey? No! And don’t give me that shit about defending American from foreign invasions. You can see that kind of thing coming in advance and if you really need to arm the populace you can.
Also if the Canadians invaded I would welcome them with maple syrup.
Have you seen the police marching on Occupy protesters? Never was there a clearer case of power gone amok. Not one of the protesters was armed, and not one NRA loon put him or herself on the line to stop the advance of police.
Police commissioners ordered their troops to round up unarmed protesters en masse and not one of the 300 million arms currently in the country was raised to stop them, either justifiably or not. As far as I’m concerned, the idea that the RKBA is an obstacle to government tyranny has been shattered.
Wow, that was one stinky swamp you linked to.
Projection.
No it isn’t. What a stupid, self-defeating lie it would b if Democrats try to pretend that a pro-abolish/pro-confiscation wing of their party doesn’t exist and isn’t being temporarily empowered here.
If anything is going to work, it has to be founded in some minimum level of honesty from all sides. Or else it’s just brute force and threats.
I think what RT is saying is that the commentors are projecting one of their favorite methods of operation onto Booman.
It’s everyone’s favorite method of operation, or else nothing would ever get done. Who exactly do you know that whimsically avoids exploiting moments of opportunity/crisis to accomplish their own goals?
Trying to pretend that history invented itself five days ago is so self-defeating. There is a historical context to both parties’ decisions to this date in the last 25 years that’s hardly forgotten.
The answer to your rhetorical question: Democrats.
It’s past time that we learn how to use the Shock Doctrine.
If that were true, you could point to a single national official from the Democratic party who supports confiscation. I await the names you have ready.
Booman,
My attitude towards gun control tracked pretty closely to yours. In addition, I grew up in Texas in a family that owned a number of rifles, shot guns and hand guns. I’ve always supported the right to own guns, but been open to gun control legislation. It was just never a political priority for me, for the same reasons you listed.
I have been deeply affected by what happened at Newtown and my political priorities have shifted as well.
However, I think the proposals that I’ve seen floated around the last few days may be missing the mark. It seems to me there are a couple of realities that lead the bulk of gun deaths. Guns in the hands of the wrong people- criminals, the mentally ill, children. And guns with high capacity magazines.
To address these issues I would propose federal legislation that includes-
mandatory home storage of guns in gun safes. (This would reduce access to guns by the mentally ill, criminals, and children.)
harsh penalties for gun owners that have guns stolen or used in crimes because they were not secured in gun safes.
illegal to own a gun if convicted of a violent felony
increase penalties on illegal gun ownership and crimes committed with guns.
outlaw high capacity magazines. (Every reload is an opportunity to stop the shooting.)
I also think we need higher barriers to, and more regulation of gun ownership. I would propose federal legislation that includes-
gun registration
5 day waiting period, criminal mental health background checks, (eliminate gun show loop hole)and mandatory gun safety classes prior to gun purchase.
I think focusing on types of guns (like the assault weapon ban) is a mistake. The real issues are guns in the wrong hands and high capacity mags. Without high capacity mags there’s little difference between the damage that can be done with an “assault weapon” and a revolver like a 357 in a situation like occurred in Newtown. And a pistol with a high capacity mag will do more damage. However, “assault weapons” get outsized attention because they look scary.
Require all weapons to be registered and stored in a secure place when not being used for a legitimate purpose. The registration to include unique weapon identifiers to enable identification if used in a crime. Charge registration fees to disincentivise the building up of large arsenals. Make gun owners liable for any damage done with their weapons if they were not properly secured. Anything above a small handgun or a hunting rifle with limited reloads should be illegal for all except army reservists etc. What sport is there in using a machine gun to shoot deer?
I would go a little further on the personal responsibility argument. Just like owning a car or any other potentially dangerous machine, gun owners should be required to carry either insurance or a surety bond to cover the damages to any potential victims of their accidental (or intentional) use. Something along the lines of $10 million per person/$100 million per incident in liability coverage or bond should be sufficient.
Allow the free market of the insurance industry to decide who they’re willing to cover. Require an official letter of pre-approval, issued by a bona fide insurance carrier guaranteeing that they have done the due diligence and determined that this potential gun owner is low enough a risk that they are willing to insure their actions and whatever damage this gun may inflict on anyone. Proof of coverage would also be required to purchase ammunition.
Also, the insurance industry would be permitted to track all sales of guns and ammunition from factory to consumer.
Then any uninsured gun becomes an illegal gun, subject to confiscation and destruction. Anyone caught possessing any gun not insured for their personal use will lose it and be fined heavily. Stiffer penalties if that person has a history of violent crime.
Personal Responsibility. Free Market solution. Take that, libertarians!
I really like this approach – forgive me if I swipe it and promote it.
Please do. Spread it far and wide.
This idea is too good to just share here. Do you have a way for your idea to get some attention?
I suppose one way would be for you to create a petition on whitehouse.gov and get some folks to vote for it.
Seriously, this idea is too good to just share here.
I’m not sure that it is my idea. It’s just Common Sense, no?
You need to take personal responsibility for your actions, including covering people’s damages. This may sound like alot of money but it would be covered by the personal liability portion of most people’s homeowners insurance. Rural and suburban folks who have stable employment and something to live for would have no trouble getting this insurance coverage at a fair price if they can pass whatever sanity test their insurance company requires of them.
If you don’t need to own a gun but want to let off some steam by firing a few thousand rounds, go to an certified and insured firing range and use one of their automatic weapons on the premisses.
Most importantly, it takes the responsibility of determining who is eligible out of the hands of government, for the most part. Instant background checks would be replaced by a letter of guarantee from an insurance company willing to assume liability for this person’s actions. And no ammunition could be sold to anyone without a valid insurance card.
If you would like to spread it around, please do.
Also, on the ammunition part – that insurance company would also be assuming all liability for wherever each one of those bullets ever winds up. Every single one would trace back to the sale and the police would know who bought it immediately.
Okay. You and Oscar inspired me. I actually wrote a diary entry on it.
Please read the thing and debate it there. Maybe I’ll move it to a larger forum once the wise people from this pond critique it.
Thank you! I’ve only been up for 10 minutes, and I’ve already read two things already that make me happy. This, and seeing that Richard Engel has been freed.
Looking forward to reading your diary.
There was a similar proposal for gun insurance on FireDogLake.
But just as with care insurance, rates will be set for neighborhoods and other collective or class-based factors. So you’ll end up with a lot of rich white people with the privilege of owning guns and other classes — not so much.
I haven’t seen that. Other than TBogg, I don’t read Firedoglake. I’ll look for it. Without having read that post yet, I couldn’t comment on it specifically.
With the idea I’m thinking of, yes, there would be higher risk places to own a gun. Premiums would be based on the financial stability of the person, their criminal record, their mental health (as measured by a potential insurer’s criteria) and probably on where they live, too. Some people would be insurable, some would not. Race shouldn’t be a factor but you may (or may not) see trends in the data that would suggest it is. I just don’t know.
If a system is crafted right, most sane, responsible people who are current legal gun owners with a steady income and a reason to live (like a family) should have no trouble getting affordable insurance, like the blanket personal liability coverage that they would get with their homeowners or renters insurance.
The point is that by making this an insurance underwriting decision, you are going to get the due diligence paid to who should be eligible to own a gun based on who can be trusted to use it responsibly and what types of guns are insurable. And with the guns, if you can’t insure it, you can’t buy it, so it never gets made.
I’d add that if people absolutely positively need to shoot something more, I’d support that firing ranges/shooting galleries keep a limited supply of those types of weapons that can be rented out for use at their own ranges and must be returned before the person can leave. Then you just need to keep inspecting things up to ensure best practices.
I’d rather this not happen, but exploring all options here.
In a certain sense I enjoy the RWer comments that say the left is “politicizing the tragedy”.
OF COURSE WE ARE!
Statistics of homicide by firearms are much higher in the US than any western European country. RWers and the NRA don’t want anything to do with that. Those of us who constantly point out the dangers to US citizens are tired of getting ignored about this. A kind of banality of evil has clouded the minds of a lot of Americans and sad to say it is only a gruesome mass murder such as this that will wake them up.
Everything in life is political. It’s about how we create the laws to protect citizens and administer justice and fairness. Obama didn’t speak motivated about some narrow selfish political gain for himself. He spoke because he has the empathy to choose his policies to help make ALL our citizens, children and adults, safer. He is being a “public servant” in the best sense of the phrase.
My view on the politics hasn’t changed, but I recognize the times. We owe it to the victims and their families and future generations to NOT let this inflection point of history slip away. There are common sense measures that can be taken.
Yeah, changed. Still not optimistic about tough legislation that the USSC doesn’t slap down.
Agree with nearly everything feral1 suggests. IIRC, one of the weaknesses of the assault-weapons ban was that it specifically listed which gun models were banned, rather than focus on their capabilities. And yes, it was mostly “these look scary”.
An idea:
Require insurance for gun-owners, and an ammo tax that pays compensation (including medical costs) for victims of gun violence and accidents; plus subsidize cost for gun safety classes for teens by having the Army help out (adults have to pay their own way)…
good for recruitment, too.
Really, it’s going to take a change of culture to do this, and the massive inequality and simmering resentment are good places to start.
No, I haven’t changed. My view on gun control primarily one of ambivalence except when someone goes on a bender about the absolute sanctity of guns or the abject evil of guns – then I get persnickety about their malarkey on the issue because there is no magic bullet when it comes to dealing with guns and violence. Ban all guns and most murders will still occur. Eliminate all gun control and murders will go up, significantly.
As to the politics, I support the president, and I want him to ram as much as he can down the Republicans’ throat. If it’s gun control then I’m good with that and I will do whatever I can to help the President.
Signed, thanks.
My views haven’t changed; the fact that many of the victims this time were kindergarteners was horrible, but every life lost to America’s gun fetish is horrible. I hate guns.
That said, strict gun control could never work; making basic guns & ammo is an 18th century technology that anyone can replicate in their barn with a little smithing knowledge, and there’d be a huge black market for it. And I’m not yet convinced there’s the actual political will in Congress – in either the House or the Senate – to respond in any meaningful way to Newtown.
Nonetheless, there’s no legitimate use for the automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines used in all of these massacres. My only hope re: Newtown is that it will inspire more people to make this a priority issue between massacres, not just immediately afterwards. American politics is littered with examples of an opinion held by a majority of Americans not even getting serious consideration by either party in DC. Without an organized movement to pressure politicians, something we don’t have yet, nothing will happen in DC. But with luck, we’ll get the base of an organized movement out of this, and with luck when the next tragedy rolls around – and it will – people can “exploit” it in a way that does get results.
“Everyone’s favorite Kool-aid drinker?”
I didn’t realize you were such a hit on the innerwebs.
These were my thoughts on changing the rules from what seemed like endless circular conversations on FB from this weekend:
Then someone asked me about conceal carry and I thought this:
It’s depressing that the limit of thinking of a lot of Second Amendment defenders when something like this happens is to say, “Tough. Freedom isn’t free.” or some other dismissal of the requirement to actually think about the issue. Or to parrot reflexively the talking points of the gun lobby for these situations, “if only one of the adults had a gun….” Well FUWL&NRA and your blood money from the gun industry.
We have multiple issues here: one of morality and empathy, one of commerce, one of law, one of politics, one of culture.
I suggest we look at commerce and culture before we start discussing law and politics.
Juan Cole has this little nugget:
First of all tell me how allowing, even encouraging this commerce makes us safer. Consider the commercial reality that there is an international arms market and that the US stands both as an exporter and importer of firearms. And then there is the internal US market.
It’s not clear what the average price per weapon is in that figure, but if it’s $500, that’s the equivalent of 170 million weapons a year to a population of 7 billion. And estimates are that there are more privately held weapons in the US than the the population of the US. Which means that some folks have one heck of a lot of firearms because a substantial portion of the population has none at all. And truth be told, an incident like the one at Newtown causes firearms and ammunition sales to go up. The re-election of President Obama caused firearms and ammunition sales to go up. At what point is the global commercial market for weapons just saturated? Really, come the NRA’s mythological revolution, just how many weapons can someone shoot at once? The desperation of arms manufacturers is the commercial issue.
The cultural issue. Just when did we as a culture go from a mythology of the OK Corral (which after all was about gun control) and sheriffs warning the new folks in town to “Check your gun at the Sheriff’s office” or “Don’t bring your gun to town.” to mythologizing David Koresh? What besides the civil rights movement and feminism drives the gun culture? I don’t mean gun ownership; I mean the salivating gun fetish that in its milder form is gun ownership for its own sake and in its febrile form is wild stories of black UN helicopters (somehow ordered into action by a non-Republican President of the United States). And how does that cultural shift relate to the declining incomes of the middle-class (starting with the rural folks and manufacturing workers).
And then there is a media that uses the cheap trick of fear or disaster or the simulation of fear, violence, and disaster to draw eyeballs. We have become a more fearful culture as a result, easily stampeded by politicians or scared away from public engagement in politics. At the same time we sacrifice significant privacy rights to the Theater of Security Absurdity (TSA) when we fly, we tolerate domestic terror attacks on members of Congress and doctors who perform abortions with all sorts of dismissal. And partisan politics itself engages in political terrorism. What do you think all the the “Kenyan muslim socialist is gonna take away your guns” line of the talkers is about but terrorizing those who disagree with the ones who then are goaded into buying more guns and ammunition.
And then there’s law and the particular spin a partisan Supreme Court put on their understanding of “original intent”. Wikipedia’s section on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution has a fairly complete discussion of the fact that there was not a single “founders’ intent” that can inform the text but many different points of view. What is interesting about this is the adoption by conservatives of the arguments of folks who were the Anti-Ratification forces of the Constitution itself; for example, Patrick Henry.
Joseph Story in 1833 (per Wikipedia) offered the standard explanation of the amendment up until recently:
At the time, there were local and state militias and a minimal US military. And the expectation of universal service in militias by white males. Indeed in some censuses, the subdivisions of counties were by the districts of militia captains. As might be expected, local white militias were important institutions in the South for enforcing slavery.
So if the regulation of a militia is to bring some control to the situation (even as a justification for regulation), that requires: universal service, some degree of local organization, and sufficient discipline for the militias not to become rogue organizations. It also has some implications for how militias and profession law enforcement would work together or be a check and balance on each other or some other adjustment.
The politics of the issue has to deal with some deeper things than just the mechanics of a law. Clipping the wings of all industry lobbies would be helpful not only for stopping the increasing saturation of weapons but of dealing indirectly with some of the cultural issues that drive the gun culture. Ironically, having strict accountability for police actions could potentially lower gun sales and improve law enforcement. A whole host of urban and rural economic and educational development measures could also have an indirect effect. As would free health and mental health care and an improved environment. (Another example of the folly of Rahm Emmanuel’s closing, consolidating and privatizing mental health clinics in Chicago).
I’ve changed from a focus on registration and restrictions on who can sell and buy firearms to taking a wider view of the issue, what drives it, and what prevents its solution.
It seems to me that the constitutionality of the right to bear arms and the existence of standing armies are at odds. Or am I reading this wrong?
(Eliminating either would be a step in the right direction).
The US had an army and navy in the early days but it was hardly a standing army. It was more like a command structure to which the militias could be added for large wars and a federal force that could respond relatively quickly (for the times) to small provocations and insurrections.
That’s how I’ve always read it. That, plus that a professional armed police force is essentially a domestic standing army, too. I don’t know the history of law enforcement in the US, though. It would be interesting to see how we got where we are. I gather that WWI was a huge step toward the permanent professional army model we have now. And of course, add to that the relatively novel addition of permanent mercenary forces. We’re a long way from home, in regard to the 2nd Amendment.
Check an article today in the NYT today spoke of how gun use in Newtown has changed in recent years. Much more use of semiautomatic weapons and exploding targets (e.g., propane tanks as targets) on private property shooting ranges recently has made a lot of people nervous, including the cops.
Sorry, but being sympathetic to target shooters only goes so far when they want the freedom to blow stuff up without restriction.
Boo, you might look up an article big bro did 30+ years ago about gun control. He took lessons and wrote a fair piece IMO and concluded that guns probably couldn’t be banned but they came (or should come) with such heavy risks and responsibility that few rational people would own them. Seems more true than ever.
Crayfisher is a racist piece of shit. Just another anti-Obama white “progressive” who is saddened by the Democrats’ abandoning “white middle-aged Democrats,” (her words, not mine), rejection of Hillary Clinton, and embrace of Obama.
FTR, her positions might not be changed, but as close as November 2011, she supported an assault weapons and semi-automatic weapons ban. So either she’s saying she still supports that but that it’s bad to change positions just because of what happened…or she is just taking whatever stance Obama is for. Somehow, I suspect the latter.
She’s also one of the few “liberals” I’ve ever seen who voted straight Democrat in 2008 except for McCain, and then voted straight Republican in 2012 in order to teach the Democrats a lesson. Yeah..ooook.
As far as my personal positions? On the politics, I’ve viewed gun control debates and laws as a waste of political capital. Maybe if we had implemented gun laws earlier, it would have meant something. Now it’s probably too late. If I were dictator, I would hand out money to gun owners who voluntarily turned in their guns and seize the rest that weren’t shotguns, bolt-action rifles and collectibles, and smelt them down. As Bazooka_Joe stated, there are people in the party who do want to seize guns; I am one of them. I’ve just never prioritized it very highly. If we get the chance, you’re damned right I’ll jump on it.
I just don’t agree. And I don’t care at all about the whether we need the votes of rural, white gun-owners, and I do not think it will be as politically difficult as many seem to think. The NRA has been beaten before and it can again. That’s not the problem. The problem is that a ban would only by symbolic and would have no effect on reducing violence.
The first assault weapons ban was a well-known policy failure, so, no I do not support reinstating it. No reduction in gun violence can be attributed to it, according the very researchers at Johns Hopkins who backed it in the first place. But at least two major massacres CAN be attributed to resisting it — Waco and Oklahoma City.
The problem is simply that trying to implement a ban will cause more deaths than not doing so. Banning assault weapons to try to reduce gun violence is analogous to banning abortion to try to reduce abortions, or banning marijuana to try to reduce drug use. In all cases, banning the activity just makes it illegal without necessarily reducing incidences of it, and in many cases makes the activity even more deadly by driving it underground where safety cannot be monitored and accountability cannot be traced.
Rather than banning “assault weapons,” which is a meaningless term that says nothing about the functionality of the weapon, would be to focus on high-capacity magazines, and expanding the criteria for gun ownership to reduce the incidences of people who are more likely to commit murder with them from getting a hold of them.
I have said many times that reducing the access and simplicity of high-capacity quick change magazines would help tremendously. Starting with Virginia Tech, the high capacity magazine has been a constant feature of each and every massacre. In Tucson, the nut was stopped when he was changing magazines. And he wasn’t stopped by a gunsuck, he was stopped by someone wrestling him to the ground. If he was well trained like Adam in Newtown was well-trained by his mother, he would have been able to swap that magazine out and shoot 10-15 more people.
The very idea that massacres like this SHOULDN’T change our views is bizarre and antisocial. Any human being with a glimmer of compassion must be moved by these tragedies, and must also be concerned by the continued stockpiling of weapons by an aggressive minority.
If we aren’t allowed to pay attention to what is actually happening in this country when determining our policy positions, then we’re not going to make good decisions.
I point all here to an excellent article in the Minnpost this morning summarizing the serious public health issue that guns represent in this country. There are many aspects of this issue, and the personal ownership of handguns has fewer redeeming qualities than Booman seems to realize.
http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home
The famous Zimbardo experiment is probably over-used. I will reference it here nonetheless.
In this experiment (conducted before the era of informed consent), college students were placed into two groups – prisoners and guards. The prisoners began to act like prisoners do, the guards began to abuse their authority.
What does this have to do with guns? The role produces behavior. My extrapolation: Having the gun produces behavior and attitudes which are more libertarian. You have a source of power – you begin to act like a power-hungry libertarian.
Or to reference Nine-Fingered Frodo and the LOTR, having the ring produced Sauron. Sauron was bent by the ring, and the ring made him. He was not bad to begin with.
Final point: Power corrupts. Guns corrupt.
And to complete my descent into speculative data-free novelistic bullshitting, if you want people to vote like a bunch of tea party lunatics, first give them guns. Guns make you act like a tea partier. Tea partiers are corrupted and perverted by weapons.