Gun nuts, what's next?

[R/T Hemi]

First of all, gun-nut isn't meant as an insult anymore than car-nut is. It's a clever way to describe a hobby, nothing more.

The constitution allows you to own guns. I agree that's the law. I assume, if there are any dyed in the wool 2nd amendment advocates here, you'll have an opinion on the question I'm about to ask.

I'm sure you believe that the shooting of Rep.Gabby Giffords is a terrible tragedy as are all the other crimes involving illegal use of guns.

So, here's your chance. What are you willing to give up, change, add, etc. to the current gun ownership laws to protect me, my family and other citizens of this country from similar tragedies? I respect your right to own guns, what about my right to be free from injury from guns? What should be done?

[96Qowner]

While I'm not what anyone would call a "gun nut" - never owned a gun, never fired a gun - I'm thoroughly tired of people who claim that guns kill people. People kill people, and will use whatever is handy to do so. There is no evidence, and never has been any evidence, that gun laws reduce violent assaults. On the contrary, evidence shows that when gun ownership laws are eased, violent assault decreases. Where gun ownership laws are most strict, violent assault is highest. That's the evidence.

Yes, it's entirely logical to assume that if not for guns, people would not be killed. But it's also logical to assume that the sun revolves around the earth - that's clear to anyone who watches its course as it travels across the sky.

He could have run her down with a car. He could have sneaked up behind her and bashed her with a hammer or stabbed her with a knife. He could have poisoned her. He could have blown up her car with fertilizer and diesel fuel. He could have rushed her and broken her neck.

But people will still claim that whenever someone is killed by a gun, guns should be more tightly regulated.

People kill people.

[bigbadberry3]

My 2 cents is that guns make it easier for people to kill people.

[Amays U G37S]

Capital punishment is all we need and silly crimes like petty theft and shootings will stop.

[dusred]

Here's a dumb question: Do you think if that gunman knew every person around him was packing a gun that he would have been balzy enough to pull something like that? Unless he was trying to commit suicide I don't think so.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Considering how many guns are in this country at the moment...there is no way stricter regulation will have a positive effect. Those guns are still there, and if you pass a law that limits gun possession to only in your own home, the law abiding citizens will be defenseless when they get robbed on the streets with the supposedly illegal concealed gun.
Over time I'll concede that scenario will get less common, but the instant you pass that law, criminals everywhere will have a field day.

[mattblancarte]

what about my right to be free from injury from guns?

No such thing. It's illogical.

Where's my right to be free from injuries sustained in car accidents? It doesn't exist.

However, both cars and guns have strict regulatory oversight to reduce the total risk to the public.

I'm decently happy with current gun laws in WA. Was happy with them in AZ while living there for five years.

Perhaps it's a stretch, but psychological examinations strictly along the lines of identifying dangerous mental illness (depression, schizophrenia, etc.) could help.

[bigbadberry3]

Here's a dumb question: Do you think if that gunman knew every person around him was packing a gun that he would have been balzy enough to pull something like that? Unless he was trying to commit suicide I don't think so.

Yeah but it's not like a video game where you instantly know who the baddie is. If you start to play shoot the guy with the gun all of a sudden there 4 people each shooting at each other.

[AppleBonker]

I'm fairly certain violent crime did not exist before guns [/sarcasm]. "Handguns" have only been around for a few hundred years. But if we go back to before cannons (say prior to the 12th century) I highly doubt there was any manslaughter. Wait, no. There were bows/spears before then. So maybe we need to go back 60 thousand years or so. There might not have been as much murder. Wait, they could've used clubs or rocks that they found...

Look, if there is one thing the human race is excellent at, it is finding news ways to kill each other. Guns or no, people will be murdered. Your right to be free from injury by guns? I dunno, get your own gun and make sure you shoot first?

[dusred]

Yeah but it's not like a video game where you instantly know who the baddie is. If you start to play shoot the guy with the gun all of a sudden there 4 people each shooting at each other.

Please, don't ever own a gun.

[bigbadberry3]

Yeah but it's not like a video game where you instantly know who the baddie is. If you start to play shoot the guy with the gun all of a sudden there 4 people each shooting at each other.

Please, don't ever own a gun.

Splain!

[BusyBadger]

what about my right to be free from injury from guns?

No such thing. It's illogical.

Where's my right to be free from injuries sustained in car accidents? It doesn't exist.

However, both cars and guns have strict regulatory oversight to reduce the total risk to the public.

I'm glad you brought that up. The most recent statistics the CDC has compiled for deaths caused by injury are from 2007.

When considering the "all ages" column homicide by firearm comes in 5th. Two things jumped out at me: 1) firearm homicide is less than a third of the leading cause: traffic collision (no surprises there to anyone on here I'm sure) and 2) I can never recall hearing a gun control advocate mentioning that firearm suicides are outnumber firearm homicides.

I'm curious if the gun control advocates lump all of those together into "firearm deaths" when the numbers get presented to the general public.

[bigbadberry3]

To further enforce a point I made above:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_baltimore_police_shooting

[HashiriyaS14]

In Switzerland, military service is compulsory.

After military service, every able-bodied adult male is required to continue to store a military firearm in their home for time of need. They've all been properly trained, and these are fully automatic service weapons (SIG 550, at the moment). Everyone is in a reserve, and you have mandatory annual refresher training.

Aside from occasional domestic disputes involving firearms and a nasty public shooting in 2001, there is very very little firearms-related crime in Switzerland.


Why wouldn't this work here? (I mean the whole bit, compulsory service and all).

Obviously, in Switzerland, you can choose to go career military also, staying active duty and never entering the reserve.

[IBCoupe]

^ Since when has Switzerland needed a military? I kid. The real difference between Switzerland and the United States that affects gun crime statistics, in my view, is the fact that the wealth gap, though sizable, is tempered by higher taxes and greater public services - they don't have a disenfranchised poor. Plus, the fact that they have a proactive anti-drug policy helps - healing addicts instead of hunting them means that they don't get pushed further away from society and societal measures of right and wrong.

But back to the U.S.A.:
For some people, the act of simply owning a gun needs to be a crime. I say this knowing that I'll have complete support because somewhere down the line we made it a crime for some people to own guns, and I don't see any of you clamoring to change that - felons and crazy people aren't the most sympathetic subjects.

And if it's illegal for certain people to own guns, we should have strict laws regarding the sale or transfer of firearms to those people. I know I'll have complete support in that statement, too, because we do, and you guys don't seem to want to change that, either. And if we're really worried that firearms could fall into the hands of those certain people, well, I think that maybe we should be a little more careful about selling the guns to everyone else.

But what I really want us to do is to have our law enforcement agencies be able to respond to an act of gun violence, as well as they can respond to any other act of violence. But they can't: Federal law prohibits the ATF from maintaining a computer database for gun sale records. Every merchant is required to send in paper records, and those records can't be electronically converted. When there's a gun crime, ATF employees have to sit down and go through boxes upon boxes of paper receipts.

I get it. I get that we don't want the government to know where all of our guns are in case we have to put it down. I understand the principle, but this is nuts. This adds time and money to the government when we can't really afford to add either. The majority of the weapons used in the drug war in Mexico come from the American South, and the ATF is the agency responsible for dealing with that, but the NRA has so successfully castrated that wing of the agency that it's absolutely impossible for them to do so.

[stebo0728]

Quite simply, until you can come up with some Super form of David Copperfield, who can instantly with his mind make ALL guns, weapons, firearms disappear all at once, then banning, or even passing stringent gun ownership laws only works to embolden the criminal. I hate guns as much as anyone else who hates them, I dont own one, mostly because I have 4 young boys and cant imagine dealing with one of them getting ahold of it somehow, but I certainly dont think it expedient or logical to start removing guns from responsible individuals.

Its already been mentioned in this thread here but I will reiterate. Removing guns from people who abide by laws only helps those who DONT abide by laws. Again, if a criminal knows KNOWS that no one else is gonna be packing, say, people leaving an airport, or in a school, then they KNOW they wont be met with any reasonable amount of resistance, and their crimes persist. But what if they had no way of knowing who might be armed, at any point in time, at any given moment, how sure of themselves would they be then? Laws only work for those who follow them, and in this case, they tend to work AGAINST those who follow them.

Dont get me wrong, I am all for screening, training requirements, and other responsible measures to limit who can carry based on responsibilty, skill, and ability, but these laws that seek to limit WHERE you can carry, those are the ones that start causing havoc because they create "safe zones" for criminals.

Additionally, do some research and you will see, gun crimes committed by people who LEGALLY carry are EXTREMELY low, almost nil. Sure you have depressed suicides, crimes of passion involving cheating b*tches or what not, but on the grand scale, those numbers are negligable at best.

[IBCoupe]

Additionally, do some research and you will see, gun crimes committed by people who LEGALLY carry are EXTREMELY low, almost nil. Sure you have depressed suicides, crimes of passion involving cheating b*tches or what not, but on the grand scale, those numbers are negligable at best.

The vast majority of guns from America used south of the border are purchased legally and then run down to Mexico. An investigation is triggered in the ATF (or at least the retailer is required to inform them) when a certain number of handguns are bought by the same person in a certain amount of time, but gun lobbyists like the NRA have blocked a similar law for assault rifles.

That the person who pulled the trigger got the gun illegally doesn't mean there wasn't something criminal about the behavior of the person who bought it legally, further up the chain. It's not "Gun was legally owned" or "Stolen." There's some middle ground that you don't appear to be addressing.

[AZhitman]

Matt stated my position to a T. I don't own a gun, I'm quite ignorant to the whole firearms scene, and I choose not to carry (at least until all my kids are grown and out of the house).

My take is this: If the recent tragedy that has befallen our state was the catalyst for this gun discussion, spare me. Reactionary legislation is almost never logical or useful. This is a mental health issue, and, as more facts come to light, the knee-jerk crowd will surely be exposed as putting carts WAY ahead of horses.

[IBCoupe]

^ +1.

I tried to keep my comment in this thread separate from the incident. After 9/11, we got the PATRIOT Act. What do we get for a shot-up Congresswoman?

[AZhitman]

A bunch of heroes, that's what we get.

More to the point: Hopefully, a rejection of non-factual commentary, a bunch of unemployed talk radio goons, and a return to basic civility and morality... with maybe a little mental health funding thrown in as a bilaterally-approved pork project.

Discussion of gun ownership, as strange as it may sound, is off the table. This isn't a gun issue. The presence of a gun and bullets isn't the concern... (altho I do anticipate additional discussion on the sensibility of large-capacity magazines, which hopefully the 'gun-nuts' will concede, even if it's just as a show of good faith).

[IBCoupe]

This shooting may not be a gun issue, Greg, but we have gun issues. And I'm all for talking about those (as I'm trying to do) without mentioning the shooting.

[AppleBonker]

altho I do anticipate additional discussion on the sensibility of large-capacity magazines, which hopefully the 'gun-nuts' will concede, even if it's just as a show of good faith

Though I'm not really sure what this would solve. It would give a few people a warm, fuzzy feeling? If I didn't have a high capacity magazine, I could certainly just carry more than one.

IB, what gun issues do you perceive? And how would you suggest fixing them? This is not me trying to call you out, I just generally think you have decent ideas and would like to hear your take.

[stebo0728]

Just a thought on the magazine issue.....this guy in question, would he have abided by the limited magazine law were it in affect? Would any criminal abide by such a law? Again, your just imposing limits on people who dont need the limits to begin with. Again it sounds backwards, but until we can systematically remove ALL guns at one time from the equation, then the best answer to gun crimes, or violent crimes in general, is more guns, but more guns in the hands of responsible, trained individuals.

[IBCoupe]

IB, what gun issues do you perceive? And how would you suggest fixing them? This is not me trying to call you out, I just generally think you have decent ideas and would like to hear your take.

Probably the one argument I hear that carries the most sympathy with me is the argument that we already have a number of gun laws, and what we need is enforcement of those laws, not new ones.

I can appreciate that, but every time the ATF tries to enforce the existing laws, the NRA goes about lobbying Congress to make it harder for them to do so. Step one: remove the legal limitations on the ATF barring them from having a computer network for their casefiles.

[IBCoupe]

Just a thought on the magazine issue.....this guy in question, would he have abided by the limited magazine law were it in affect? Would any criminal abide by such a law? Again, your just imposing limits on people who dont need the limits to begin with. Again it sounds backwards, but until we can systematically remove ALL guns at one time from the equation, then the best answer to gun crimes, or violent crimes in general, is more guns, but more guns in the hands of responsible, trained individuals.

I never understand that argument: "only the criminals will have guns." I mean, I understand the meaning and the message of the argument, but I don't understand it as a policy argument. Wouldn't it just be one more thing that criminals would able to be caught doing wrong?

If only criminals would have guns, wouldn't making the purchase of the gun a crime serve to aid law enforcement in catching violent criminals before they have the opportunity to get violent? If a crazy person's got a gun with too many bullets in its clip, why would we act like the law's intention was to keep them from having that many clips, rather than to give police an excuse to take away the crazy person's gun before they get a chance to use it?

And I really don't think that "more guns" is the answer, even with your qualifier, Stebo. I think that's an ideal that only works where people can aim and, what's more worrisome, where people know when they're not adequately trained. But mostly, I think it's an ideal that glorifies vigilantism, and I won't support that. The law isn't meant to be taken into any one person's hands.

[stebo0728]

I never understand that argument: "only the criminals will have guns." I mean, I understand the meaning and the message of the argument, but I don't understand it as a policy argument. Wouldn't it just be one more thing that criminals would able to be caught doing wrong?

Are you really serious here? I mean ... REALLY?
Sure it would be one more charge to throw on em, well, it already IS, because 99.5% or the time, this person committing this gun crime already has the gun illegally. But no amount of gun legislation is going to affect these criminals. And if you want to live in a city where NO law abiding citizen is either equipped or allowed to defend themselves or you from attack, be my guest, just dont force me to live there. Do you have any idea how high violent crime level are around international airports? Criminals are deranged, and sometimes a bit dumb, but they arent all stupid. If there exists a scenario where they KNOW that no one is gonna be able to defend themselves, thats ripe pickins. I really just REALLY cant wrap my mind around where the above argument of yours comes from, whether its naive or what. Thats not meant as an attack, I just REALLY dont get it.

If only criminals would have guns, wouldn't making the purchase of the gun a crime serve to aid law enforcement in catching violent criminals before they have the opportunity to get violent? If a crazy person's got a gun with too many bullets in its clip, why would we act like the law's intention was to keep them from having that many clips, rather than to give police an excuse to take away the crazy person's gun before they get a chance to use it?

Not really, not at all, anti-piracy laws dont REALLY help catch bootleggers all that well. Criminals are always one step ahead of the game, by nature.

And I really don't think that "more guns" is the answer, even with your qualifier, Stebo. I think that's an ideal that only works where people can aim and, what's more worrisome, where people know when they're not adequately trained. But mostly, I think it's an ideal that glorifies vigilantism, and I won't support that. The law isn't meant to be taken into any one person's hands.

While I can expect your difference of opinion here, I really hope it never gets used to craft gun policy. The whole point of putting more guns in the hands of qualified individuals is to NOT have to use them in the first place, because a criminal not knowing where or when to expect a cold muzzle on their neck is a bit of deterant against ever committing said crime. Sure there will still be crime, stupid people, desparate people, and sure there will still be collateral damage (I hate to use that term when innocent people die) but its still the most effective means.

And I COMPLETELY reject your notion that the law isn't meant to be taken into our own hands. The law IS in our own hands. We the people ARE the law. Is it more convenient, safer even perhaps, to have a law enforcement body to handle the everyday stuff? Sure, thats why we set it up, and started paying people and training people to do it, but the LAW is still in OUR hands, we just outsource it. If at any point my family/friends/property becomes undefended by law enforcement, due to whatever reason, then you bet your A** Im gonna take action. If I face consequences because we've become a half-a**ed pansy society, then so be it, but I will still step up. What happens when we have some huge disaster/attack/war time event here, and the law enforcement becomes unable to handle the burden, what then, are we screwed? Do we just lay down and become victims? Or do we take a stand for ourselves?

Fight Club quote FTW - "We have become a society of men raised by women" - meaning - we have created for ourselves a legacy of condoned victimization. Dont let your kids defend themselves from bullies at school anymore, dont let people carry guns to defend themselves, just learn to roll over and take your lumps from the bad guys. Sickens me how pansy we've become.

[96Qowner]

True dat

[AZhitman]

Damn, stebo. I got nothing after that.

Well-said (and I don't mean that in a chest-thumping, flag-waving, knuckle-dragging, firearm-possessing kind of way).

I DO agree with IB in that this is a tough topic to discuss w/o referencing specific incidents - I just had a big chunk of reply that I deleted because it "went there".

[96Qowner]

I was rereading the thread and ran across Greg's comment about magazine capacity. Not being a gun nut, I'm no expert. All I know is what I see in movies and they seem to swap those clips pretty quickly. What does it take, a second or two? And a semi-auto fires 2-3 rounds per second, maybe?

Is there really any significant difference between getting off 9 or 15 rounds before a 2 second reload? 9 rounds would take 3-4 seconds to empty, 15 rounds would take 5-7 seconds. You could fire 18 rounds in two clips in 8-12 seconds or one 15 round clip in 5-7 seconds. Is that a really big deal to anyone?

I suspect an examination of crimes would show that in almost zero cases, would a smaller clip have made a difference. It'd just be one more restriction on guns with little or no effect on violent assault.

[IBCoupe]

Are you really serious here? I mean ... REALLY?
Sure it would be one more charge to throw on em, well, it already IS, because 99.5% or the time, this person committing this gun crime already has the gun illegally. But no amount of gun legislation is going to affect these criminals. And if you want to live in a city where NO law abiding citizen is either equipped or allowed to defend themselves or you from attack, be my guest, just dont force me to live there. Do you have any idea how high violent crime level are around international airports? Criminals are deranged, and sometimes a bit dumb, but they arent all stupid. If there exists a scenario where they KNOW that no one is gonna be able to defend themselves, thats ripe pickins. I really just REALLY cant wrap my mind around where the above argument of yours comes from, whether its naive or what. Thats not meant as an attack, I just REALLY dont get it.

In order to accept that line of thinking, you have to accept vigilantism. It's implied in your reasoning, you're just not saying it explicitly. You kind of hint at it when you say "equipped or allowed to defend themselves or you from attack." Simply being in public is usually enough to avoid violent crime, and the violent crime that it doesn't avoid wouldn't usually be stopped by an armed populace - in fact, it'd probably be made worse.

Not really, not at all, anti-piracy laws dont REALLY help catch bootleggers all that well. Criminals are always one step ahead of the game, by nature.

You're right, but the purpose of the laws isn't to catch bootleggers, it's to give cops the authority to do anything when they do catch them. That's what I'm talking about.

While I can expect your difference of opinion here, I really hope it never gets used to craft gun policy. The whole point of putting more guns in the hands of qualified individuals is to NOT have to use them in the first place, because a criminal not knowing where or when to expect a cold muzzle on their neck is a bit of deterant against ever committing said crime. Sure there will still be crime, stupid people, desparate people, and sure there will still be collateral damage (I hate to use that term when innocent people die) but its still the most effective means.

I'm not okay with government condoning collateral damage. If you take the law into your own hands and you accidentally kill an innocent, my position is that you've committed manslaughter and should be punished for it.

And I COMPLETELY reject your notion that the law isn't meant to be taken into our own hands. The law IS in our own hands.

Well, let me know when you plan on starting that lynch mob, Stebo, and I'll be sure to call the cops to stop you.

If I face consequences because we've become a half-a**ed pansy society, then so be it, but I will still step up. What happens when we have some huge disaster/attack/war time event here, and the law enforcement becomes unable to handle the burden, what then, are we screwed? Do we just lay down and become victims? Or do we take a stand for ourselves?

Fight Club quote FTW - "We have become a society of men raised by women" - meaning - we have created for ourselves a legacy of condoned victimization. Dont let your kids defend themselves from bullies at school anymore, dont let people carry guns to defend themselves, just learn to roll over and take your lumps from the bad guys. Sickens me how pansy we've become.

Bah, that's crap. Let children behave like children, but force adults to behave like adults. And I didn't buy the "society of men raised by women" thing when Brad Pitt said it, either.

We're a society of men who have grown up without a pressing need to club dinner over the head first.