Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts)October 3, 2017 at 6:36 am
On the State of Guns in America Today: What Must We Do?
There is a long history of mass murders committed with guns in America, but I think it safe to say that our current era of such violence began on April 20, 1999. I was at work in downtown Denver that day, and a coworker in an adjacent cubicle always had a radio on. I heard the first live reports from Columbine High School come in, where 2 teenaged boys used the arsenal of military grade machine guns and other weapons that were owned by the father of one of them to murder 12 students.
Since then, the use of weapons designed for military use, that fire lots of bullets rapidly, has only escalated. Politicians condemn evil or cowardly acts, people stand around holding candles, survivors and their families talk about mythical sky beings and the power of prayer, parents of murdered children call for stricter gun laws, the NRA and the gun lobby scream that only if the victims or bystanders were armed to the teeth it wouldn’t have been as bad, gun manufacturers’ sales go up, and not a gods-damned thing gets done.
Most of the rest of the world, @stockholmer here’s your cue, watch this and think Americans must be stark, raving mad to allow this slaughter to continue, and they are correct. For a graphic of just how bad it’s become in just the last four years, click here, and thank you @thouartthat for posting this earlier.
After the latest atrocity in Las Vegas, Mrs. Barbarian pointed out that all the background checks in the world wouldn’t have stopped this one. A 64 year old retired accountant, real estate investor and active high stakes gambler, a millionaire several times over according to his brother, with no criminal record, association with radical political or religious groups(with the possible exception of the NRA, but we won’t hear about that), and no military experience kills over 4 dozen people and wounds hundreds more in just a few minutes. In a gun lovers’ paradise where over half the crowd of 20,000 or so were armed, they could have returned fire at the hotel. What could possibly have gone even more wrong?
That idea of arming everybody is just as absurd as the idea that background checks are an effective check on this sort of thing. So, what to do? Yes, I know, with this Congress and this President, absolutely nothing will happen, and and an even worse massacre than that of 10/1/17 in Las Vegas will happen.
First, the majority of Americans, including gun owners, who don’t believe in the unconditional right to keep and bear arms, who don’t believe that the Second Amendment gives the right to ordinary citizens to own military-grade mass-killing hardware, need to demand the ban of at least the further manufacture and sale of these things. I would go further and say that the arms industry should be nationalized. They are capitalists driven by profit, and making profits off of this sort of thing is just, well, to use a recent Trumpism, evil.
Mrs. Barbarian thinks the possession of the gods-damned things should be banned as well, another Prohibition, but there’s millions of them out there, most bought legally. Such a prohibition could even bring on a civil war. Is that what we want? Is it worth it? You tell me. I don’t see it as a practical way to start, but we’ve simply got to start somewhere.
I suggest we start with the Second Amendment itself.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I sure don’t see any well-regulated militias going around and committing mass murder, and mass murder is exactly what these machine guns, automatic weapons, assault rifles, whatever you want to call them, are designed to do. Besides, even ol’ Ben Franklin never imagined these things when the Second Amendment was being debated. The truth is that they weren’t just worried about foreign invasion or the British coming back, but about the native peoples whose lands they were invading and the need to suppress slave revolts. That is the ugly truth.
Well, the native peoples were subjugated and slavery was abolished, no foreign power is going to invade America any time soon, and there is simply no rational reason for anyone to have the right to possess these weapons of mass murder. I’m also tired of knowing that people like @stockholmer and @spanishdevil have every reason to think we’re crazier than bedbugs on crack. The Second Amendment was never intended to allow that to happen, and it’s high time We The People stood up and forced something to be done about it. Exactly what is negotiable, but something must be done.
Or, we can do nothing but buy vigil candles or prayer beads or whatever and await the next massacre. Our choice.Widestance, Mac1949, Grey and 17 othersStockholmer, mrdmk, Utopian Leftist, HeartoftheMidwest, Gryneos, bobthedrummer, retired liberal, Charles, chknltl, Enthusiast, h-32, ZimInSeattle, Xyzse, Pam, Marym625, 99Forever, ThouArtThat like thisIgnorance is the foundation of tyranny.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
2 weeks ago #3
2 weeks ago #4
2 weeks ago #29
2 weeks ago #14
2 weeks ago #42
2 weeks ago #27
2 weeks ago #32
2 weeks ago #44
2 weeks ago #15
2 weeks ago #16
2 weeks ago #18
2 weeks ago #26
2 weeks ago #58
2 weeks ago #60
1 week ago #65
2 weeks ago #63
duckpin (4820 posts) (Reply to original post) October 3, 2017 at 6:42 am
1. If you recall, former Chief Justice, and very conservative, Warren Burger said
that the so-called right to bear arms outside of the well regulated militia clause was junk jurisprudence and far outside of both the Constitution and case law. A return to judicial normalcy would be a nice step in the right direction."The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged "
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to duckpin - post #1) October 3, 2017 at 7:02 am
3. And I remember when I thought of Burger as a rightwing wacko. Of course, I
thought of Nixon as rightwing then, too. Now, Burger would be considered a “liberal” justice, or at least a swing vote like Kennedy.
I miss Tricky Dick. I find that sad.Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
duckpin (4820 posts) (Reply to Ohio Barbarian - post #3) October 3, 2017 at 8:06 am
9. Missing Nixon is incredibly sad but the USA got the EPA under him and a rational
policy toward the Peoples Republic of China. Burger was thought to be a RW Whackjob, and he was; but, the USA has sunk below that level and Burger would be a Kennedy or better. And Blackmun would be the second coming of Hugo Black! Our political class has failed us and attacked the unions instead of attacking the exploiters, in my view."The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged "
Satan (2733 posts) (Reply to Ohio Barbarian - post #3) October 3, 2017 at 11:50 am
35. Nixon also appointed John Paul Stevens to the Federal Appeals Court
… and when Bush Crime Family cleanup guy Jerry Ford promoted him to the Supreme Court, he was considered the most conservative justice on the court.
By the time he retired, he was considered the most liberal justice. Not only to the left of Bill Clinton’s two appointees, but even more so to the left of Elena Kagan, who replaced him.
Justice Stevens never changed his views. He pretty much believed in all the same things he did in 1975.
That proves how far to the right that BOTH parties have gone in the last 40 years.Fuck Kamala Harris. Fuck Borey Crooker. Fuck Joy Reid. And FUCK Hillary Clinton & her husband for destroying the Demoncratic Party.
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to Satan - post #35) October 3, 2017 at 4:21 pm
vattel (1361 posts) (Reply to original post) October 3, 2017 at 7:01 am
2. According to the 2nd amendment, the people (not just people in militias)
have the right to keep and bear arms. But the Founders thought that rights are limited by the rights of others. If the sale of certain types of arms impose enough of a risk to the lives of innocent persons, the second amendment does not preclude banning their sale to protect the rights of those who will otherwise be victimized by them. I would favor amending the second amendment so that only the safest of guns could be sold to only the safest of people (I know, no system is perfect and there are already a lot of guns out there), but unfortunately lots of my fellow citizens disagree.
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to vattel - post #2) October 3, 2017 at 7:13 am
4. Exactly. To quote Mrs. Barbarian in her response to her fundamentalist Christian
gun nut father at a family get-together, it could have been Thanksgiving or Christmas, after he had foolishly brought up the subject:
What about our rights to go to school, or the mall, or to a movie, or a concert, or a church since you’re all so religious now, without fear of some wack job murdering us with a fucking machine gun???!!!! Huh? Mr. Right to keep and bear arms? What about our rights?
Or something very much like that. She was magnificent.
The thing is, even he supports registration, regulated sales, gun licenses, and saw no need of anyone to own assault rifles. He just believed the NRA propaganda that once assault rifles are banned, then all guns would inevitably be banned, and maybe herald the coming of the Antichrist.Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
vattel (1361 posts) (Reply to Ohio Barbarian - post #4) October 3, 2017 at 8:18 am
10. Wow, sounds like she nailed it.
The slippery slope argument that there can’t be reasonable regulation of guns without a slide into a complete ban is common among the very paranoid. Then again, that’s what the Antichrist wants me to think!
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to vattel - post #10) October 3, 2017 at 10:32 am
23. You see the circular logic problem we are faced with when dealing with a
friend or relative who literally believes that kind of stuff.Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
fluff (561 posts) (Reply to vattel - post #2) October 3, 2017 at 11:38 am
29. "Persons" = multiple individuals. "People" = a group.
The authors of the Bill of Rights spoke the Queen’s English and used the two words for those two different purposes repeatedly.
“right of the people peaceably to assemble” refers to a group because it would be pretty hard to stop one person from assembling with him or her self.
“right of the people to keep and bear Arms” because thousands of colonists were massacred, kidnapped and/or raped during Pontiac’s Rebellion as a result of the British Army disbanding the militia. That wasn’t going to be stopped by an individual, hence two different references to a group (“people” and “militia”). This is a bit of history largely forgotten by people today. But it happened during the lifetimes of the authors of the Bill of Rights.
It also helps to remember that the British made zero attempt to disarm individual colonists before the American Revolution. They went to Concord after the militia armory. Why would the authors of the Bill of Rights even think about the government doing something the government had never done? With the exception of the 9th and 10th catch-all references to rights and powers, each of the Bill of Rights referenced something the British actually did to the colonists.
For 2A to be an individual right, 2A has to be the only Bill of Right where people refers to persons.
For 2A to be an individual right, 2A has to be the only Bill of Right referencing something the British never did to the colonists.
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner” uses the singular because it applied to homeowners individually.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, … and the persons or things to be seized” while they mixed things here a bit, but the meat of it referred to “persons” not to “people” thus applying to all individuals.
“No person shall be held … nor shall any person be subject for the same offence” applies to an individual.
“the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial” applies to an individual.
On a side note, we just had three bills of rights in a row created specifically for people suspected, accused or arrested for violating the law. People keep saying, “you give up your rights when you commit a crime,” and yet four bills of rights – we haven’t gotten to “cruel and unusual” yet – exist primarily for those persons.Remember, remember the 6th of November 2018.
vattel (1361 posts) (Reply to fluff - post #29) October 3, 2017 at 4:26 pm
47. You mke a serious case for your view, but I respectfully disagree.
As you yourself point out the “right of the people” in the Fourth Amendment refers to an individual right held by persons who together constituted “the people.” Moreover, in the second amendment the right to “bear arms” can’t really be seen as the right of a group. The people as a group don’t bear arms. Individual persons bear arms. Or so I am inclined to argue right now. My views on this are tentative, though, and so subject to change.
LiberalArkie (4075 posts) (Reply to original post) October 3, 2017 at 7:34 am
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to LiberalArkie - post #5) October 3, 2017 at 10:18 am
19. As in put them in concentration camps, perhaps? Bringing race into this
argument accomplishes nothing but stoking fear into white people. Isn’t that exactly what the NRA and the gun lobby have been profiting from for decades? Sure it is. Be afraid of the Other. Buy protection from us. If you can’t have guns legally, those people will use them on you illegally.
No. I think the focus needs to be on the unnecessary weapons themselves. Cars kill people, but they’re usually necessary these days. Automatic weapons? Not so much.Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
99Forever (3198 posts) (Reply to original post) October 3, 2017 at 7:37 am
6. Gun nuts are the absolute very worst of our society.
Lowlife cowardly selfish fucking bullies, the entire lot of them. I abhor violence. They crave and revel in it. I would prefer go much further that you propose here, Ohio Barbarian, and don’t quite frankly gave one shit if the death junkies like it or not. But as you say, we have to start somewhere.
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to 99Forever - post #6) October 3, 2017 at 9:57 am
14. My first, kneejerk reaction was the same as my wife's: ban the manufacture,
sale, distribution or possession of the damned things, and if the mass murder weapon owners(to distinguish them from gunowners who don’t own such things) don’t like it, then send in the tanks. Fuck ’em. End this.
Then I remembered friends and relatives growing up who had guns for hunting or ranching or just displaying family heirlooms, and what Bernie said about it a few times. We’re talking about different groups of people here.Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
99Forever (3198 posts) (Reply to Ohio Barbarian - post #14) October 3, 2017 at 10:09 am
17. Indeed we are.
Where to draw the line is important. When I say gun nuts, it doesn’t fit those you describe. I’m talking about hardcores. They make our society unsafe for all of us.
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to 99Forever - post #17) October 3, 2017 at 10:19 am
HawkeyeX (920 posts) (Reply to 99Forever - post #17) October 3, 2017 at 4:20 pm
42. Like that schmuck in Las Vegas who owns like 5k guns
and was backstage in a concert in Vegas, and he ran away like a wimp, wanting to get a gun, and then come back. He ended up doing nothing. So much micropenis that Dan Balazic or whatever the fuck his name is…
Marym625 (25802 posts) (Reply to original post) October 3, 2017 at 7:50 am
7. On The Daily Radical"Once the decision was made to go into Iraq as an invader and occupier, it’s like our nation lost its conscience. And it has not yet gotten that conscience back." Madfloridian
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to Marym625 - post #7) October 3, 2017 at 10:56 am
27. Thanks, and it's an important discussion. I remember when Hillary went after
Bernie for opposing legislation to make gun store owners liable if they sold a gun to someone who committed a crime. Not only would it not fly in Vermont, for good reason, but it was only yet another half measure. Somehow, I don’t think Bernie is in favor of everybody and his cousin being able to own assault weapons.Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
Marym625 (25802 posts) (Reply to Ohio Barbarian - post #27) October 3, 2017 at 11:38 am
30. We know he's not
But if guns are going to be legal you can hardly tell people they can’t sell them.
It’s different if whomever they sold them to wasn’t legally allowed to purchase a gun and the gun store sold it to him or her without doing what they’re supposed to do.
I wish every single one of those things would just, simultaneously, melt away.
Not having serious gun control in this country is inexcusable. If I were a foreigner wanting to travel, I would not come here because of guns"Once the decision was made to go into Iraq as an invader and occupier, it’s like our nation lost its conscience. And it has not yet gotten that conscience back." Madfloridian
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to Marym625 - post #30) October 3, 2017 at 11:41 am
32. Yes, it's embarrassing, as I at least hinted at in the OP. I agree that
ultimately things like assault weapons need to become unavailable. The question is, what’s the best way to start going about it? The problem is positively Herculean. No matter, we can’t just keep going down the same path. I certainly hope not, anyway.Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
Marym625 (25802 posts) (Reply to Ohio Barbarian - post #32) October 3, 2017 at 11:57 am
38. The weapons, the semi automatic weapons,
that are turned into automatic weapons, with one small change, also need to go. Though I want them all gone.
I like the idea of doing what Australia did. It’s a start anyway"Once the decision was made to go into Iraq as an invader and occupier, it’s like our nation lost its conscience. And it has not yet gotten that conscience back." Madfloridian
carrotguy (157 posts) (Reply to original post) October 3, 2017 at 8:05 am
8. Ingrained in US society
there are too many guns to confiscate them all – attempting anything like that outright would make the right wingers dream come true. To be honest I think I might agree with some who would refuse to give up their guns in absence of any aggression but to quote forest gump “that’s all I have to say about that.”
Yes definitely expand background list to database for anyone who wants military rifles. If they lose employment or get divorced then maybe a social worker pays a visit. Yes it’s clunky and unworkable but it’s the only thing I can think of that might justify allowing some assault weapons. Reduce legal magazines to 20 round and do gun buyback programs. Damn why do these people have to fuck things up for the rest of us. The cops are only there to clean up in a lot of cases, and it seems reasonable to keep handguns and shotguns.
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to carrotguy - post #8) October 3, 2017 at 10:23 am
22. Background checks have a very limited effectiveness, as the Las Vegas massacre
just proved. We need to do something to severely reduce the number of the deadly things, and we need a change in culture, or an awakening, to even get that done. I think one part of our argument must be that no one needs those things, that their only purpose is mass murder, and having fun collecting and shooting them isn’t a good enough reason.
My wife responds to the “private fun” argument with this:
Drunk driving is fun. Oh, come on, admit it, it’s fun to get in a car and drive drunk. It’s a thrill, an adventure. But it kills people, so there’s a law against it. Same should go for military-grade weapons.Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
Marym625 (25802 posts) (Reply to carrotguy - post #8) October 3, 2017 at 11:41 am
31. What reason does anyone need a gun?
Any kind of gun? I’ll even give you people in rural areas a rifle to either hunt or protect livestock on their property. A single shot rifle.
HawkeyeX (920 posts) (Reply to carrotguy - post #8) October 3, 2017 at 4:22 pm
44. So offer money to buy back the guns and have 'em destroyed
Just like Australia did.
I would like to see it done at the expense of NRA since they seem to have unlimited money to buy Congressmen.
Xyzse (3092 posts) (Reply to original post) October 3, 2017 at 8:26 am
11. I made a response on another thread, but it makes sense to place it here too.
Methinks that if they can’t create better laws, enforce current ones better.
I know it’s Wikipedia but here’s a quick primer:
- National Firearms Act (“NFA”) (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.
- Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (“FFA”): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.
- Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.
- Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.
- Firearm Owners Protection Act (“FOPA”) (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law’s passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.
- Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.
- Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
- Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.
- Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.
- Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Prevent firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.
The one thing I can see, is re-upping the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Right now though, it looks like some of these laws are hardly enforced.
To begin with, I am of the idea that many Pro-A2 citizens don’t actually respect guns and armaments. Meaning, they don’t take the necessary training, don’t treat these weapons with the vigilance and respect that it deserves.
There is a reverence to weaponry that many open carry adherents don’t think about. That they don’t realize that if there is a shooting, by them having one of those on them, they are likely to get shot themselves by law enforcement, and as such, they are worse than useless, because they may just cause more collateral damage.
This is why, when it comes to anything gun related, looking at how the US is, I tend to think that at a minimum, all guns should be subject to not only be registered, but have liability insurance. That is what I consider being a responsible gun owner. I am not asking for a ban or interfere with ownership, just upping the responsibilities. Too many irresponsible and negligent people out there.
In any case, part of this whole thing can be solved by the citizenry and businesses themselves. Where, businesses ARE allowed to make their own rules in their own place of business.
Meaning, hotels, movie theaters, bars and many other locations can refuse service and make their places akin to a Gun Free Zone. In that case, they don’t even have to make it a law. They see someone with a gun, they can automatically assume they are there to cause trouble, and contact authorities accordingly. That then becomes a rule of their private business, and there is more leeway there.
That is something I don’t understand actually. Businesses and other private property are allowed to make their own rules about this in some ways. They can dictate what is breaking the peace in their area. Why is it, that this is not done more often?
Out of the current and past legislation, the only thing that could have mitigated this was the Assault Weapons Ban that expired during Bush’s era. But I am not even sure if that would have considering what the guy had. Other than that, in fairness, I am not sure what could have stopped such a thing other than an outright ban on guns, which I just don’t see happening.
Which is why, again, when it comes to any sort of legislation, I tend to think the requirement of liability insurance at a minimum is a great start. So, if I were to negotiate something like this, I’d basically push for far more than that, but that is my bare minimum.
I don’t know if I gave a fair assessment. That is as fair as I can get I think, without going the emotional route. So as a recap:
- Enforce current rules better.
- See if you can make a requirement of liability insurance for all guns
- Private companies, businesses and others can set up their own terms on what is allowed and not allowed in their property.
But again, I am limited in what I know.
Unless there is a change in the culture and everything else, this is what I see as possible and where my bare minimum is.
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to Xyzse - post #11) October 3, 2017 at 10:03 am
15. Thanks for reposting. Your last sentence is perhaps the most important one.
There has to be a change in culture. Well, we’ve had cultural changes before. When enough people decide they really want that, it happens. Some things just become culturally unacceptable, like overt racism did in many places. It didn’t happen overnight. It took decades, and there’s been periods of backsliding, like the one we’re in now.Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
Xyzse (3092 posts) (Reply to Ohio Barbarian - post #15) October 3, 2017 at 10:20 am
21. Yeah, but in that whole post…
I still think that the most feasible solution are the two I mentioned which are:
- Ensure more responsibility in a gun owner, in adding liability insurance.
- Businesses and other private entities are allowed to call their areas “Gun Free Zones”.
Meaning, if they don’t want to go in to a particular establishment due to not being to carry, well then they are disturbing the peace. I leave it to the establishment in regards to open or concealed carry, it is their right.
LiberalArkie (4075 posts) (Reply to Xyzse - post #11) October 3, 2017 at 11:47 am
34. I think if congress allowed the background checks to be real and in a
computer database instead on paper it might cause someone – somewhere to think when a person is purchasing their 28th AR-15.
Xyzse (3092 posts) (Reply to LiberalArkie - post #34) October 3, 2017 at 11:56 am
37. That is very true.
As mentioned, there are some things they can do now to improve this, but they are not doing it.
These existing laws that we have, would allow for them to do exactly what you just said. Heck, since they are all for privatization, even a private company can do that. (Though looking at the Equifax data breach well…)
ZimInSeattle (1386 posts) (Reply to original post) October 3, 2017 at 8:56 am
12. We need to do what Australia did in 1996 after a mass murder there.
On April 28, 1996, a 28-year-old Australian man named Martin Bryant ate lunch at Broad Arrow Cafe in Port Arthur, Tasmania, a historic penal colony that is a popular tourist resort. After his meal, he returned his tray, removed a semiautomatic rifle from his bag, and opened fire. By the time Bryant was caught a day later, 35 people were dead and 23 wounded in what became the worst mass shooting in Australian history—one whose impact is felt even today.
There had been previous mass shootings in Australia, but none in recent times of this magnitude. The killings, which came just weeks after the mass shooting in Dunblane, Scotland, resonated across Australia, a nation that traditionally had a high rate of gun ownership and that espoused the ideals of rugged individualism, much like the U.S. does. But after the massacre, the ruling center-right Liberal Party joined with groups from across the political spectrum to work on legislation to sharply restrict the availability of guns.
Australia’s success in tightly restricting gun ownership after its worst mass shooting, and the concomitant reduction in gun crimes and mass shootings, is likely to be held up by proponents of gun control as an example for what the U.S. should do after its latest mass shooting on Sunday. The countries are different, of course. America has more people, more guns per capita, and, perhaps most importantly, a constitutional right to bear arms. But the debate in Australia and developments in subsequent years show how a country can successfully deal with gun violence.
We need gun buyback programs at all levels of law enforcement where market value is paid and the guns taken in are melted down. The gun nuts need to tighten the rules so not just anyone can’t get in their club. All owners of guns should have:
- Firearms License – only obtainable through safety training and psychological profile. Training and profile repeated every 5 years for license to remain valid. And it’s expensive.
- Liability Insurance. And it’s expensive.
- Gun Safe
- Authorities have the right to unannounced inspections to insure guns are locked up when not in use. Guns taken away if owner found in violation.
- Finger print trigger lock technology needs to be implemented where possible. Regular trigger locks on all guns.
Second amendment is completely obsolete since we now have a standing army. So many ways to tighten the rules around guns but with the main overriding characteristic in Congress being COWARDICE, we have little chance of anything changing. When 20 little children can get mowed down execution style by someone who clearly should not have had access to guns and nothing changed, this latest shooting amounts to a nothing burger. Only in Amurika. Nothing to see here, move along.Proudly #DemExited & #LeftOut | "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK | Bernie would have WON! |“Fascism is a result of the failure of the left to provide an alternative” - Leon Trotsky | Sanders/Gabbard 2020 (PPP)
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to ZimInSeattle - post #12) October 3, 2017 at 10:09 am
16. Las Vegas proves that background checks are worthless in preventing gun
violence. While I would support any of the measures you propose, I still think the distribution of weapons made with the purpose of killing lots of human beings quickly needs to stop. Immediate repossession is probably politically impossible, not to mention unwise, but there are already way too many of the Damned Things out there.
The least we can do is aim to stop new ones from making it to stores and private hands, if you’ll pardon the pun.Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
carrotguy (157 posts) (Reply to Ohio Barbarian - post #16) October 5, 2017 at 1:42 pm
52. should we ban the mini-14, and or the AR-15
I’m not trying to antagonize but we can get boxed into a corner on (I hate to say it) a wedge issue – not among dems but between progressives and “independents”. I remember when the AWB was in place under Clinton and yes it sucked having access to only 20rd clips but we could make do. these rifles have proliferated since the AWB expiration and the people who bought them probably wouldn’t be influenced by a weapons buyback plan – they don’t need the money.
knowing the influence of the NRA, lobbyists, and frankly, sane gun owners (but maybe not smart people) voting tendencies, I would consider it a huge win to have an expanded background check to include gun owner database (NRA is super against this – good luck getting anything as effective as this passed through congress), which could be cross-referenced to find bulk sales. ideally this database would factor financial and job changes and would flag people who are risky for some reason. let’s not pretend the surveillance apparatus is not already there.
but, back to the OP question, to ban weapons made with the purpose of killing lots of people, it sounds like this would require a semi-auto ban. I still have to ask, should we ban this, and also the AR-15? I would guess you might already know the similarities between the two.
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to carrotguy - post #52) October 5, 2017 at 3:23 pm
56. We have to. Eventually. At the very least, we should insist that their ammo be
taxed to death. The ATF and IRS would need to be fully funded to accomplish that, though. They would mostly succeed if given the chance.
Edit to say that those are military weapons that are engineered to kill many people in a short period of time. My position is that the future manufacture and sale of such things should be banned. Period. Forever. That’s my definition.
I think any attempt to go further, such as banning bolt action rifles or most handguns, would fail in America for the foreseeable future.Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
bpilgrim (328 posts) (Reply to Ohio Barbarian - post #16) October 6, 2017 at 2:55 pm
59. It ONLY Proves: GIGO
We need real background checks, and have them expire in 3 years.
Marym625 (25802 posts) (Reply to ZimInSeattle - post #12) October 3, 2017 at 11:42 am
33. I was thinking the same thing
HawkeyeX (920 posts) (Reply to ZimInSeattle - post #12) October 3, 2017 at 4:25 pm
45. I agree with the gun buyback, but I want it done at the expense of NRA
as a form of punishment.
Enthusiast (9785 posts) (Reply to original post) October 3, 2017 at 9:30 am
13. Even the simple act of outlawing high capacity magazines could have
limited the level of carnage.
NRA types scream about the slightest common sense legislation."The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. There would be no place to hide." Frank Church "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat, 1848
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to Enthusiast - post #13) October 3, 2017 at 10:13 am
18. By Republican logic, the NRA should be declared a terrorist organization. Do
they not actively promote and defend the practice of owning lots of mass murder weapons and the ammo that goes with them? Is what happened in Las Vegas not a terrorist act, even if it turns out to be a senseless act of mental illness ? Do not the NRA and the gun manufactures enable such behavior? Does that behavior on their part not harm the general welfare? Edit to add: And does not make them enemies of the United States of America?Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
Enthusiast (9785 posts) (Reply to Ohio Barbarian - post #18) October 3, 2017 at 10:38 am
24. Yup."The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. There would be no place to hide." Frank Church "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat, 1848
Tierra y Libertad (1783 posts) (Reply to original post) October 3, 2017 at 10:41 am
25. Register all guns and warehouse them.
If the owner of a gun wants to check it out of the warehouse and it is used in any crime by anyone then charge him with the crime even if committed by someone else.
Conservatives love to talk about “responsibility”. So, let them start being “responsible” gun owners.
But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing. Thomas Paine
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to Tierra y Libertad - post #25) October 3, 2017 at 10:52 am
26. You know, that might actually make sense for cities in some cases. However, does
that include revolvers or shotguns for home defense? And for rural areas, there’s no way a sheepherder or cattleman is going to not protect his flock or herd against predators like coyotes. Shoot, in the Texas Hill Country wild boars who make Boris Yeltsin small are running around. Some of those ranchers need those rifles in the backs of their pickup trucks.
This subject sure gets complicated quickly, doesn’t it?Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
Tierra y Libertad (1783 posts) (Reply to Ohio Barbarian - post #26) October 3, 2017 at 11:07 am
28. Well, most of Europe and Australia has some mean critters and nuisances.
And, there share of burglars, rapists, etc. But, they seem to manage pretty well with stiff gun control.
That said, I would gladly settle for registration and strict accountability for gun use. We have coyotes around here. They grab a few cats occasionally and maybe a small dog or two. But, hell, even coyotes, bears, mountain lions, wolves have to make a living too. Our cat is a house cat. I would imagine that even Texans could figure out some way to manage such nuisances. Even wild boars.
But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing. Thomas Paine
retired liberal (1653 posts) (Reply to Ohio Barbarian - post #26) October 3, 2017 at 1:15 pm
40. Actually it is pretty simple.
I have lived in houses and apartments most of my life. The exception being, when I was on a ship in the Navy, same thing there also, no problems with wild boars, even when I was in a war zone. I have never had a problem with wild boars, ever.
So what does a secluded ranch and ranch lands in Texas have to do with firearms in much more populated areas, with less game around? You know like when your next door neighbor is only feet away, and not many miles?No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up. Lily Tomlin
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to retired liberal - post #40) October 3, 2017 at 4:25 pm
46. Nothing. I just wanted to draw the distinction between different types of
communities in the United States and how non-military grade firearms are used. Bernie did a much better job of it than I did.Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
MadHound (290 posts) (Reply to Tierra y Libertad - post #25) October 3, 2017 at 11:51 am
36. I partially agree
Register them, yes, warehouse them, no. There are places where you need a gun handy, for both two legged and four legged varmints.
For instance, I live in a rural area. I live in meth country. If the shit hits the fan and somebody is busting through the door in order to do me or my family harm, generally the nearest cop is at least fifteen minutes away, an eternity. I want to have a gun on hand in order to at least try and orevent the worst from happening.
I also have a ten acre orchard, a cash crop that is not easily replaced. It has taken me fifteen years to grow my trees from saplings to where they produce a commercially viable quantity of fruit. Sadly, we have two invasive species invading the region thanks to climate change, armadillos and feral hogs. Both these critters can, and will kill all of my fruit trees, and other trees, overnight in their pursuit of grubs and such under the surface, in the roots of trees. I simply can’t afford that kind of loss, and the solution is to shoot them on sight. I have to have that option available.
Other people have different circumstances that make a gun a neccessity as well. Thanks to the feds, legal dope shops in Colorado don’t have banking or insurance services available to them, which means they have a lot of cash on hand, making them a huge target. Since they don’t have insurance to replace any cash stolen, then any robbery could potentially put them out of business, or at least seriously impact their business. Most shops have guards in the store, and I imagine they are armed, and I don’t blame them.
There are legit circumstances where a gun is needed, immediately, so register, yes, warehouse them, no.
HawkeyeX (920 posts) (Reply to MadHound - post #36) October 3, 2017 at 4:29 pm
48. Yes, it's still a cash business
but the dope business went credit union, and has no problems there. That was the best move ever.
MadHound (290 posts) (Reply to original post) October 3, 2017 at 12:14 pm
39. A few things to think about
We need to outlaw some types of guns, specifically the assault style, semi autos, AR-15’s etc. These serve no valid purpose except to kill large quantities of people quickly. They aren’t good for self defense in the home, even the NRA admits that(best home self defense gun is your basic 12 gauge double barrel or pump shot gun). They are pretty crappy hunting guns, relying on quantity of ammo they throw out, rather than actual aiming then firing. Along with outlawing these guns, we need to outlaw such gun paraphenalia as bump stocks, conversion kits, high capacity magazines, etc.
We need to register each and every gun. Confiscating the guns that are out there already, yeah, that’s not going to happen for a number of reasons. But we can register them, yeah, it will be an incomplete registery, but structure the law so that if you are caught with an unregistered gun, you do some serious time. Along with this should be laws mandating safety training and safe storage. Oh, and the current iteration of the NRA should be done away with. Force it to go back to its original form, and organization that only promotes gun safety, not everybody having their own personal arsenal. Other miscelleaneous laws need to get rid of gun show loopholes, roll back conceal carry laws, open carry laws, selling guns to the mentally ill, or those convicted of domestic abuse, etc.
The biggest thing we need to do is change our society. We are living in a country that is a behavioral sink, an old psychological term for having too large a population in too small a space, with too few, or unequally divided resources, that is severely stressed. Things such as insuring a fair wage, single payer health care, a robust safety net, etc. etc. would alleviate this problem, and in turn cause a tremendous drop in not just mass shootings, but all types of crimes and self destructive behaviour.
Will we get there, probably not in what is left of my lifetime. But if we don’t start now, things are just going to continue to get worse and worse. My two cents, for what it’s worth.
carrotguy (157 posts) (Reply to MadHound - post #39) October 3, 2017 at 2:57 pm
41. the "bad" side of this argument is that
the ruger mini-14 is the same caliber as an ar-15 but it’s a ranch rifle not an “assault” rifle – although really there is little difference between the two, other than looks.
as far as banning anything more than a single shot, the situation below may not happen often, but heck I would not like to be without a gun when it does happen – the action is around two minutes in.
tonyl (911 posts) (Reply to original post) October 3, 2017 at 4:58 pm
49. One of the suggestions I encountered was ..
that every bullet should be made exorbitantly and prohibitively expensive (tax it into oblivion) – this is a strong idea. Here in Australia, the anti-smoking lobby managed to get something like this put in place and the effect is that a single cigarette, these days, costs more than a dollar (a packet costs more than $30 and rising). Slowly but surely, the habit of smoking is diminishing.
I should point out that the tax on cigarettes automatically increases every 3 months or so. Eventually, the average person will not be able to afford to smoke.
A combination of legislative restrictions, buybacks, and making bullets prohibitively expensive must surely go some way to correcting this evil (and, incidentally, would diminish the power and influence of the NRA – that cant be a bad thing !!).
Another thing that should be put in place is an educational program that teaches children a respect for all of life so that the idea of using a gun to snuff out life is treated with the contempt it deserves thus influencing the culture and mindset of the people. It should become totally abhorrent for any family member to gift a gun to young, impressionable teenagers etc (as, I understand, is a not-uncommon practice amongst rednecks).
One of the things we, at JPR, should note with any candidate for political office, is their stance on gun-control.Because you cant have integrity occasionally
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to tonyl - post #49) October 5, 2017 at 3:08 pm
53. Well, federal taxes on ammo are one thing the NRA has not been able to prohibit.
It is politically workable and enforceable with the will to do so. But the NRA/gun lobby will viciously and falsely counterattack with the same old propaganda that has worked for decades. The majority perception that guns are safe unless people are either stupid or criminal must change first.
How to do that? Why not look for, and run, stories like 4 year olds, in this example opening a case under a bed, finding guns and killing themselves with them, and convincing parents that they are not being good parents by keeping guns in the home at all. It’s horrifying how many articles popped up on the Duck on that search. Underestimating our children’s intelligence can kill the children.
In fact, it probably will. It’s got to be a sea change like that. It’s the only way. That I can think of, anyway.Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
MistaP (6244 posts) (Reply to original post) October 3, 2017 at 11:08 pm
50. the real kicker is that 80% of NRA members agree with even a hardline
banner–but the organization’s been hijacked by the buyers, as a vast preponderance of the membership will agree
ironically it’s not that hard to come to a shared conclusionhttp://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ (Third Way = Bell Curve)
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to MistaP - post #50) October 5, 2017 at 3:20 pm
55. Weird about the NRA, isn't it? From what I recall, 80% of NRA members have no
problems with gun licensing and registration. It’s the manufacturers and what should be black marketeers(they’re usually legal, how fucked up is that?) who can sell guns and increase their own profits more in an environment where you don’t even have to register to own a gun. Even the level of competent bureaucratic regulation that exists in automobile license, title, and registration would cost them, I don’t know how much, a few billions of dollars a year? Less? More? I don’t know.
But the gun lobby buys politicians. We’re back to money in politics again.Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
davidthegnome (1100 posts) (Reply to original post) October 4, 2017 at 10:11 am
We cannot put the genie back in the bottle. More guns than people in this Country and if someone wants one, they will get it. We lack the ability, organization and strength to enforce strong gun control regulations. To truly effect change, many would have to be seized, possibly sparking a civil war.
We could perhaps regulate new gun sales much better, but… This is not a problem that legislation alone can fix. Regulations, however strong, would do minor damage control at best. We must instead change how we think and how we value life, as a society.“There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress.” - Mark Twain
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to davidthegnome - post #51) October 5, 2017 at 3:12 pm
54. I basically agree with you. See Tonyl's suggestion at 49.
That’s actually doable, but it will still take a sea change in attitudes to make it happen. It’s possible. Sea changes for the better have happened before, especially in times of national economic crisis, which we are in no matter what the corporate media says. You know that even better than I.Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
Robert Thomas 85 (271 posts) (Reply to original post) October 6, 2017 at 2:15 pm
57. Background Checks
I do think that background checks would help and prevent many of these shootings from taking place, even if they would not have helped in this particular case. Background checks also seem to be popular, even among many gun owners. I also think that any one who purchases a gun at a minimum should be subject to one, even for the guns that probably should not be regulated as much or banned outright, such as bolt-action rifles.
Those with criminal records and mental health problems would not be able to purchase one. There have been many cases where these mass shooters were already criminals or mentally ill.
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to Robert Thomas 85 - post #57) October 6, 2017 at 2:38 pm
58. I don't have a problem with background checks. I just don't think they'll work.
They would not have stopped many mass shooters, and until access to weapons of mass murder is curtailed this shit will continue.Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
bpilgrim (328 posts) (Reply to Ohio Barbarian - post #58) October 6, 2017 at 3:30 pm
60. The lame background checks we have today don’t work but they can be improved
as well as having them expire in 3 years … now that would be more effective.
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to bpilgrim - post #60) October 6, 2017 at 3:37 pm
61. I'm all for strict licensing and have no objection to background checks.
But it’s not enough. I’ll support any politician who pushes for those things, though.Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
carrotguy (157 posts) (Reply to Robert Thomas 85 - post #57) October 7, 2017 at 5:55 pm
65. there may be a case for evaluating police response
to complaints about someone’s strange behavior when they’re known to have lots of guns. any real response could require a database of people who own a certain number of guns. I only just learned about this aspect of the Dallas 2015 police shooting.
News reports confirmed that Boulware was arrested in Paris, Texas, in 2013 after a report of family violence, and several firearms he owned were also confiscated. Boulware’s family members then reported to authorities that they were concerned that he might go on a shooting spree after he threatened to kill all the adult members of his family and to shoot up some churches and schools.
Boulware later made threats against a judge in his child custody case after he and the mother of his eleven-year-old son lost custody of their son to Boulware’s mother, on the grounds that they were unfit for sole custody of the child.
davidgmills (5233 posts) (Reply to original post) October 7, 2017 at 12:04 pm
62. I made a suggestion a long time ago here that a law requiring
All military grade weapons have to be stored at a licensed armory which could either be private or governmental. People might still be able to get their hands on the guns but it would not be nearly as easy.
I think such a regulation or law would be constitutional. An armory certainly conforms with the militia rationale for the right to keep and bear arms and for the security of a free state.
We used to worry about Saturday night specials, lately it seems the concern in military grade weapons.French Revolution; not secession.
Ohio Barbarian (4742 posts) (Reply to davidgmills - post #62) October 7, 2017 at 12:23 pm
63. You'll be interested to know before recent events made her want to ban them
outright, my wife said just that. Even her gun nut father didn’t have a problem with that idea, but he never had any assault rifles. Never could see the need for them.
I think you are right about such a measure’s constitutionality as well. As for Saturday Night Specials, those little .38’s seem kind of quaint now, don’t they?Ignorance is the foundation of tyranny.
davidgmills (5233 posts) (Reply to Ohio Barbarian - post #63) October 7, 2017 at 12:56 pm
64. Not much fire power in a 38
I have never owned a gun. My father never owned guns when I was growing up. I don’t like them and don’t have any use for them and am certainly no expert about them.
But the 2nd amendment is not going anywhere. And I do think that guns in private hands are a real deterrent to tyranny and are the only means we often have to secure a free state. The irony to me is that in today’s world, I think shoulder fired missiles are quite necessary for the security of a free state and we don’t get to have those. In fact most of the weaponry necessary for the security of a free state we don’t get to have.
I think armories are a good compromise since the 2nd amendment is going nowhere. And actually if we had armories, we might be able pass laws to stock them with some weapons that might help better secure a free state.French Revolution; not secession.