Newtown shooting and gun control

[mean]

You say most gun owners favor an assult weapons ban and an ban on large capacity clips. Ok fine, they are not wacko. It is the people that are vehemetly opposed to those things that are wacko.

I don't particularly favor an "assault weapon" ban or a ban on large capacity magazines, and I don't really think I'm wacko. I just don't think those bans are going to accomplish much of anything except making certain guns and magazines harder to find and more expensive. Midwest Gun Trader is on fire right now. A few days ago, there were ~550 MO ads. RIght now there are 917. Prices on semi-auto rifles and high cap mags are already around 20% or more higher than normal.

The main thing Obama is pushing that has a chance to actually do some good in the long term is the universal background check requirement. I have walked into gun shows and just handed over cash for guns, no questions asked. It's easy and convenient, and I certainly like it from a personal perspective, but I could just as easily be a violent criminal. That's not cool. On the other hand, I'm not sure how practical it will be to expect private gun owners to run background checks before selling their guns to someone in a Wal-Mart parking lot. Like many people I know, none of the guns I own were purchased by me from a dealer, there were no background checks, and there's no record of any of the transactions or of me owning them. If I want to sell one, is it just going to be the honor system requiring me to perform a background check? If so, I don't see a lot of gun owners, particularly the more paranoid wacko anti-gov types, participating willingly.

Side note: biometric security on firearms is long overdue.

[KCMax]

Is that really the definition? So pretty much every handgun made today will be banned as an assault weapon?

I don't really follow this stuff, but surely you're wrong. The shooting would have started already otherwise.

Here are the definitions so you can see for yourself. This was the old federal Assault Weapons ban:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.2038:

I don't think that would cover "every handgun". Aren't most handguns non-automatic?

. I just don't think those bans are going to accomplish much of anything except making certain guns and magazines harder to find and more expensive.

That's exactly the point. Why is this bad? We ban lots of things we deem bad for society, but this does not eliminate these things, it just makes it more difficult.

[mean]

I don't think that would cover "every handgun". Aren't most handguns non-automatic?

On the contrary, the overwhelming majority are automatic.

[mean]

That's exactly the point. Why is this bad? We ban lots of things we deem bad for society, but this does not eliminate these things, it just makes it more difficult.

It's not bad, per se, other than it makes the anti-government, right wing militia / survivalist types go bonkers and may thereby increase the risk of domestic terrorism. It has also already made demand skyrocket, and this will continue even after the ban is in place. More of these weapons will be moving with a ban in place than they ever would have without it. If the practical result is that an AR-15 with 4 30-round mags costs $2500 instead of $2000, is that really stopping anyone who is determined to blow away an elementary school? I very much doubt it.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

You say most gun owners favor an assult weapons ban and an ban on large capacity clips. Ok fine, they are not wacko. It is the people that are vehemetly opposed to those things that are wacko.

I don't particularly favor an "assault weapon" ban or a ban on large capacity magazines, and I don't really think I'm wacko. I just don't think those bans are going to accomplish much of anything except making certain guns and magazines harder to find and more expensive. Midwest Gun Trader is on fire right now. A few days ago, there were ~550 MO ads. RIght now there are 917. Prices on semi-auto rifles and high cap mags are already around 20% or more higher than normal.

The main thing Obama is pushing that has a chance to actually do some good in the long term is the universal background check requirement. I have walked into gun shows and just handed over cash for guns, no questions asked. It's easy and convenient, and I certainly like it from a personal perspective, but I could just as easily be a violent criminal. That's not cool. On the other hand, I'm not sure how practical it will be to expect private gun owners to run background checks before selling their guns to someone in a Wal-Mart parking lot. Like many people I know, none of the guns I own were purchased by me from a dealer, there were no background checks, and there's no record of any of the transactions or of me owning them. If I want to sell one, is it just going to be the honor system requiring me to perform a background check? If so, I don't see a lot of gun owners, particularly the more paranoid wacko anti-gov types, participating willingly.

isn't this all just an argument against any law ever. "Well, if people do or don't want to do something, they just will or won't do it, so what's the point of any law that makes something illegal?"

To me, we should put as many steps between getting guns as possible. Background check, mental evaluation, gun safety test, assault weapons ban, etc. You say that having to purchase guns for more money on the black market won't stop anything. If Lanza's mom couldn't have legally owned those weapons and he had to go out and buy them on the black market or just use her legal guns that only had 6 rounds in the chamber, would the whole thing have still happened or would less people have been killed?

[mean]

isn't this all just an argument against any law ever. "Well, if people do or don't want to do something, they just will or won't do it, so what's the point of any law that makes something illegal?"

Damn near, and thank you for coming fairly close to articulating my feelings on legislation in general.

That said, there's nowhere in the constitution ensuring your right to, say, smoke weed. Whatever your interpretation of the second amendment as far as the relevance of the "well-regulated militia" wording, it is indisputable that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is right there. I think its presence in the constitution, and the fact that it was thought important enough to slap it in right after fundamental things like freedom of speech and press, means it shouldn't be taken (or taken away) lightly.

Now, if we want to talk about amending the constitution to repeal the second amendment, that's a whole different discussion.

To me, we should put as many steps between getting guns as possible. Background check, mental evaluation, gun safety test, assault weapons ban, etc. You say that having to purchase guns for more money on the black market won't stop anything. If Lanza's mom couldn't have legally owned those weapons and he had to go out and buy them on the black market or just use her legal guns that only had 6 rounds in the chamber, would the whole thing have still happened or would less people have been killed?

The "ban" won't stop people from legally owning the banned guns and magazines. If it's anything like the Clinton ban, and I understand it is, it won't stop people from selling the banned guns and magazines. So how does Lanza's mom not legally own the gun if she wants it? I'm not following your line of thought here.

I don't think it is useful to speculate about what may or may not have happened if Adam Lanza only had access to firearms with a certain number of rounds in the magazine. First of all, ban or no ban he could still have obtained 30-50 round mags. Second, a determined guy with a freaking revolver and a handful of speed loaders could lay waste to dozens of people in a minute or less.

At the end of the day, I just don't think that making it marginally more difficult for someone to kill a lot of people quickly solves anything. Ban or no ban, these kinds of tragedies will continue, and that's just a fact. If we really want to to give ourselves a false sense of security by implementing a ban, that's our legislative prerogative, but we're fooling ourselves if we think it's going to magically make people stop shooting each other. The only thing that will stop that is rounding up all the guns.

[mean]

Just the tip of the iceberg of what's coming out of the anti-gov conspiracy set:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8

Seriously starting to worry that some nut might try and go after Dem congressfolk or even Obama over this ban talk.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

isn't this all just an argument against any law ever. "Well, if people do or don't want to do something, they just will or won't do it, so what's the point of any law that makes something illegal?"

Damn near, and thank you for coming fairly close to articulating my feelings on legislation in general.

That said, there's nowhere in the constitution ensuring your right to, say, smoke weed. Whatever your interpretation of the second amendment as far as the relevance of the "well-regulated militia" wording, it is indisputable that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is right there. I think its presence in the constitution, and the fact that it was thought important enough to slap it in right after fundamental things like freedom of speech and press, means it shouldn't be taken (or taken away) lightly.

Nobody's calling for a complete ban of guns. Civilians should not own military weapons. Do you also think people should own tanks and drones?

[mean]

Semi-automatic rifles aren't "military weapons" even if they look kinda like military weapons. The military versions have fully automatic modes. Generally, semi- vs. fully-auto has been where the line has been drawn. It's the redrawing of the line that is worrying some people, because they feel like it's a slippery slope where the line will keep being redrawn until there is no more second amendment. I am not one of those people. I figure the ban will be enacted and then expire or be overturned later when republicans come back into power. I am arguing purely from a position of results, and saying that regardless of what Obama or congress does, people will keep shooting each other. A lot. Could new regulations save one or more lives? It's possible, and I hope they do. Is it worth making so-called assault weapons and high cap mags a hot commodity and putting thousands and thousands more on the streets than would have been there but for the ban talk? Is it worth rustling the feathers of potentially unstable people with lots and lots of guns? Not so sure about that. If just one wacko with a bunch of guns really believes Obama is coming for his guns and flips out and kills 20 people, haven't we just defeated the purpose?

Tanks and drones are rather outside the scope of this discussion. But should they be legal in a practical sense? I don't think so. Should they be legal from a strict reading of the second amendment? Maybe.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Is it worth rustling the feathers of potentially unstable people with lots and lots of guns? Not so sure about that. If just one wacko with a bunch of guns really believes Obama is coming for his guns and flips out and kills 20 people, haven't we just defeated the purpose?

You say this in an argument that assault weapons should be legal? That these "wackos" should have these types of guns?

[mean]

Huh? No, I'm saying that whether they are banned or not they'll be available. It's not like the government is going to go around rounding them up. What do you think this means, exactly? Ban is enacted, all AR-15s and AK-47s disappear from private ownership? I mean, come on, dude.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Huh? No, I'm saying that whether they are banned or not they'll be available. It's not like the government is going to go around rounding them up. What do you think this means, exactly? Ban is enacted, all AR-15s and AK-47s disappear from private ownership? I mean, come on, dude.

I wasn't commenting on the literal application of any law. I was commenting on the idea that you would not only use that as a reason not to enact a law but also argue on the side of those "whackos" owning those weapons.

[pash]

.

[bobbyhawks]

Most shotguns are semi-automatic, unless you use a side by side or gentlemanly over and under.

[pash]

.

[mean]

Huh? No, I'm saying that whether they are banned or not they'll be available. It's not like the government is going to go around rounding them up. What do you think this means, exactly? Ban is enacted, all AR-15s and AK-47s disappear from private ownership? I mean, come on, dude.

I wasn't commenting on the literal application of any law. I was commenting on the idea that you would not only use that as a reason not to enact a law but also argue on the side of those "whackos" owning those weapons.

I don't think the possibility that some nut will come unglued and go on a shooting spree in retaliation for gun control is "a reason not to enact a law"; I think it's just a sad and chilling potential side-effect. Do you realize what this is doing to these people? Just read this shit: http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/7525

What sounds to you and I like insanity is the obvious and very real truth to many people. And there are a lot more of them than I think most of you realize.

Anyway, the reason I am not in favor of the law is that it won't work. It looks like a piece of feel-good legislation that won't stop people from shooting each other, but will allow legislators to say, "Look, we Did Something!" The only way to stop people from shooting each other is to repeal the second amendment and round up the guns.

On the other hand, maybe this legislation saves a bunch of lives. It will be pretty much impossible to measure its effectiveness in any meaningful way in terms of human life, though. When some murderer unloads a few 10-round mags and kills 20-30 people, what then? Do we say, "Gee, at least he didn't have an AR with a 30 round mag!"? Somehow I don't think that will be very comforting to anyone.

[aknowledgeableperson]

It looks like a piece of feel-good legislation that won't stop people from shooting each other, but will allow legislators to say, "Look, we Did Something!" The only way to stop people from shooting each other is to repeal the second amendment and round up the guns.

Like Prohibition?

[mean]

It's a lot easier to stop people from manufacturing guns on a large scale than alcohol. Not very many people, indeed I'd say virtually nobody, can get $20 in stuff from the grocery store and make a batch of guns.

By the way, I'm not in favor of repealing the second amendment. For one thing, I like shooting. For another, I think that'd be likely to cause worse violence in the short term than doing nothing. I'm just saying, if your goal is to stop people from killing each other with guns, that's the only way to do it with any hope of effectiveness in the long term. Send tanks with shock troops down every street in America, ransack every house searching for firearms, and kill anyone who resists. That will ultimately solve the problem. Anything short of that just won't do it. There are too many guns out there and they're too easy to get, regardless of whatever milquetoast legislation we enact.

[phuqueue]

isn't this all just an argument against any law ever. "Well, if people do or don't want to do something, they just will or won't do it, so what's the point of any law that makes something illegal?"

Damn near, and thank you for coming fairly close to articulating my feelings on legislation in general.

That said, there's nowhere in the constitution ensuring your right to, say, smoke weed. Whatever your interpretation of the second amendment as far as the relevance of the "well-regulated militia" wording, it is indisputable that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is right there. I think its presence in the constitution, and the fact that it was thought important enough to slap it in right after fundamental things like freedom of speech and press, means it shouldn't be taken (or taken away) lightly.

Now, if we want to talk about amending the constitution to repeal the second amendment, that's a whole different discussion.

This is a completely bullshit argument though because the relevance of the "well-regulated militia" clause is absolutely crucial. The only thing that's "indisputable" is that the string of words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is included within the text of the Second Amendment, but what that actually means, including whether or not the Amendment guarantees a private, individual right to own a weapon, turns entirely on what the militia clause means, or if it means anything at all (apparently it doesn't and is just completely superfluous in the eyes of the private right crowd).

Also this is completely tangential but if we think there's some kind of hierarchy within the Bill of Rights, that the most important shit came first, does that mean the Tenth Amendment is less important than the others? You haven't even taken a position on the Tenth Amendment here, so I'm not trying to "trap" you or anything, I'm just genuinely curious where this line of reasoning leads. Does this implicit hierarchy mean that the right not to quarter soldiers in peacetime is nearly as important as the right to free speech or to bear arms? I'm not trying to take this discussion off the rails by talking about all the other Amendments, I just think its position within the Constitution is perhaps the single least relevant point in determining what it means and how it should be applied. Everything in the Bill of Rights was thought important at the time -- but "the time" was 220 years ago and reasonable (and, in some cases, arguably unreasonable) limitations have been read into each Amendment since then. I've heard people try to argue that the Second Amendment is "absolute" -- well if that's true, it is literally the only Amendment that is (and even then, you still have to answer the question, "absolutely" what?).

[KCMax]

And the idea that "shall not be infringed" means no law at all affecting guns is outdated. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" and yet it took what, ten years for John Adams one of the Founding Fathers, to make it illegal to publish writings against the US government.

Congress has made all sorts of caveats to the First Amendment - students don't own the right in school, child porn isn't protected nor is speech that presents a "clear and present danger." And many people want to ban protests at funerals.

I don't think anyone but the most leftists of leftists is calling for a complete ban on guns, but some sort of restrictions seem sensible to me. I don't know enough about guns to say what definition would be the best policy, but I think the point is to restrict the ability to fire high quantities of ammunition in a short time since that has pretty much no public policy benefit (as opposed to rifles for hunting and non-automatic handguns for protection of the home) and poses a high level of danger in the case of mass shootings.