Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

[Todash]

I'm not sure if I made this clear, so I will now. Although I admittedly would love to live in a country without guns, I do not think that is practical for the US, probably ever. I am not afraid of guns, per se. I don't think they are evil. I just know that if they weren't all over the place, we would all be safer (statistically speaking). HOWEVER. If someone gave me a remote control with a big red button on it, and that button was labeled "Repeal 2nd Amendment," I would not push it.

Why? After all, I've admitted freely that I would love for all guns to go bye-bye. Well, yes, I would ... but philosophically, I think that is going too far, probably. But primarily, it's because I'm a practical person, and to repeal the Second Amendment while so many in the country own guns, legally and illegally, would be a disaster. An actual real disaster, not a "canceling Saturday mail" disaster. Because after you did that, you'd have three types of people: one, the already-criminal, who own guns in ridiculous numbers; two, people who were law-abiding citizens, but now have been automatically classified as criminals; and three, the ones who either turn in their guns or never had them in the first place. And then we really would have a situation where only the criminals had guns, and everyone else is sitting ducks. Any possible repeal of the Second Amendment, if it ever were repealed (and I doubt that it would be and question whether it should be), should ONLY ever come after society has changed to such a point that we really don't use all that many guns anyway.

I can see the clear difference between what I really want (no guns) and what is reasonable and practical (reasonable gun control). It's a concession. Try it! It doesn't hurt, I promise.

[Sepia and Dust]

I can see the clear difference between what I really want (no guns) and what is reasonable and practical (reasonable gun control). It's a concession. Try it! It doesn't hurt, I promise.

The question is, I think, What is reasonable? The corollary question is Are those methods effective?

In my opinion, background checks should be a given for any type of firearm purchase from a vendor. If you have a history of violent criminal activity or if you've been declared mentally unstable then you shouldn't be allowed to buy a new gun. That is already the case except for a few loopholes that need to be closed up. Not sure how that would apply to friend-sales, inheritance, or lending, but I think I'd be against background checks in those instances. Personally, at least, it'd be such a pain in the ass every time I lent or borrowed a gun that I wouldn't bother complying.

Firearm registration... I'm not clear on how such a thing would reduce gun-related crime. As such, I see no point to it.

As for assault rifle bans, I'm also not clear on exactly what constitutes an assault rifle, so I currently have no opinion.

On high-capacity magazines, I think that if you can't hit what you're shooting at in one shot, you need to go back to plinking at tin cans. There's a little leeway on handguns here, but all responsible shooters know that if you're not 100% certain of where your bullet's going, you don't take the shot. The clip on my .762 Russian holds six, plus one in the chamber; I have filled it up, but I've never wound up actually using those extra bullets--I either never got a clear shot or I killed the deer. (The rifle is a World War II gun, and it was designed for battle--even has a bayonet--hence the seven-shot capacity.)

[Todash]

The question is, I think, What is reasonable? The corollary question is Are those methods effective?

In my opinion, background checks should be a given for any type of firearm purchase from a vendor. If you have a history of violent criminal activity or if you've been declared mentally unstable then you shouldn't be allowed to buy a new gun. That is already the case except for a few loopholes that need to be closed up. Not sure how that would apply to friend-sales, inheritance, or lending, but I think I'd be against background checks in those instances. Personally, at least, it'd be such a pain in the ass every time I lent or borrowed a gun that I wouldn't bother complying.

Firearm registration... I'm not clear on how such a thing would reduce gun-related crime. As such, I see no point to it.

As for assault rifle bans, I'm also not clear on exactly what constitutes an assault rifle, so I currently have no opinion.

On high-capacity magazines, I think that if you can't hit what you're shooting at in one shot, you need to go back to plinking at tin cans. There's a little leeway on handguns here, but all responsible shooters know that if you're not 100% certain of where your bullet's going, you don't take the shot. The clip on my .762 Russian holds six, plus one in the chamber; I have filled it up, but I've never wound up actually using those extra bullets--I either never got a clear shot or I killed the deer. (The rifle is a World War II gun, and it was designed for battle--even has a bayonet--hence the seven-shot capacity.)

These are all very reasonable points to bring up. I certainly don't have all the answers, but just imagine how productive we could be if we could get the most extreme and vocal gun rights proponents to realize that we are not talking about completely stripping gun rights, we are just talking about how to best administer those rights to balance the rights of ALL citizens.

The thing is, that particular Elvis has done left the building. There ARE, as there should be, existing gun restrictions, restrictions which are not magical or handed down by royal degree, but ones that have been hashed out by legislators, voted on, and bandied about in various courts. But they aren't doing enough (IMO) to keep the rights of the gun owners and gun control advocates--not mutually exclusive groups, by the way--balanced.

This isn't some grand new discussion we are having. It's just a tweaking of the existing strategy. I personally think a reasonable goal would be to get our overall homicide rate down to the average of the other affluent countries, and actually, at this point if we could just not lead the pack, yeah, that'd be greeeeaaat. By all means, let some smart people focus on the issue. Figure out what's worked elsewhere and why/how and whether that likely applies to the US. Implement it intelligently. Let's try, try, to stop being so afraid (both sides) and figure out a sensible plan, using the best information available to us.

[Sepia and Dust]

But they aren't doing enough (IMO) to keep the rights of the gun owners and gun control advocates--not mutually exclusive groups, by the way--balanced.

Of course they're not--there's money involved. Lots and lots of money.

[Sepia and Dust]

I personally think a reasonable goal would be to get our overall homicide rate down to the average of the other affluent countries, and actually, at this point if we could just not lead the pack, yeah, that'd be greeeeaaat. By all means, let some smart people focus on the issue. Figure out what's worked elsewhere and why/how and whether that likely applies to the US. Implement it intelligently. Let's try, try, to stop being so afraid (both sides) and figure out a sensible plan, using the best information available to us.

I don't believe that that's an attainable goal. We aren't like other countries. We're larger than almost every other nation--we take up most of the temperate region (plus Maine) of the entire continent. We're richer, depending on how you measure wealth, than every other nation, and with that comes some sense of entitlement.

As a people (as opposed to as individuals), we are one part revolutionary, fighting to the death against tyranny and unjust taxation. We are one part self-reliant pioneer, braving the unknown and savage new world in search of our place in it. We are one part cowboy and one part Indian. We are one part Haymarket anarchist--and if not, then we are at least one part union-busting (and head-busting) tycoon. We are one part Greatest Generation World War II hero, fighting the very face of evil, and we are Vietnam draft dodgers, unwilling to take part in a war we can't justify.

It is because of this cultural identity that we are the largest and the richest (and probably the most powerful) nation on earth. But it is not conducive to seeing things from the other side, let alone all possible sides.

[Todash]

I don't believe that that's an attainable goal. We aren't like other countries. We're larger than almost every other nation--we take up most of the temperate region (plus Maine) of the entire continent. We're richer, depending on how you measure wealth, than every other nation, and with that comes some sense of entitlement.

As a people (as opposed to as individuals), we are one part revolutionary, fighting to the death against tyranny and unjust taxation. We are one part self-reliant pioneer, braving the unknown and savage new world in search of our place in it. We are one part cowboy and one part Indian. We are one part Haymarket anarchist--and if not, then we are at least one part union-busting (and head-busting) tycoon. We are one part Greatest Generation World War II hero, fighting the very face of evil, and we are Vietnam draft dodgers, unwilling to take part in a war we can't justify.

It is because of this cultural identity that we are the largest and the richest (and probably the most powerful) nation on earth. But it is not conducive to seeing things from the other side, let alone all possible sides.

This is probably true. How thoroughly depressing. I'm going to drown my sorrows in refined flour and trans fats.

[shipwreked]

Ignoring the fact that you are putting words in your opposition's mouth again: Oh, well. As long as you're comfortable. Why didn't you say so? Guys, shipwreked is comfortable. I guess there's no more discussion to be had here.

Actually, I didn't even read your post before running my mouth. I went back and re-read it after posting and unfortunately this forum has no provisions for extracting one's foot from their mouth.

My apologies. You made a good point, I promptly started fighting imaginary windmills.

[shipwreked]

Like I said, I'm no fan of Romney. I'm not seeing this recovery you guys and the nightly news are beaming about. Perhaps I have a myopic view but what I do see is the same unemployment numbers and exponential growth in inflation at the grocery store and gas is creeping toward $4/gallon again. I *suspect* it is due to the Fed printing dollars overtime, who is influenced by the president, which affects the value of the dollar, which affects the price of fuel, which in turn affects the cost of every thing else.

Can one man fix the economy? No, and I agree Congress is to blame for the broken budget and the lion share of our debt. But as one man he can do a lot to influence his party to action (which he isn't doing) and he can do a lot of damage by generating more debt and devaluing the currency.

He may have saved someone's bacon, but I sure can't afford it these days.

with that, I fully concede my points in this thread and the digression topic. I'm not really making friends here or wowing folks with my stunning intellect. I have better things to do than piss people off or amuse with my ignorant ranting.

[Todash]

Like I said, I'm no fan of Romney. I'm not seeing this recovery you guys and the nightly news are beaming about. Perhaps I have a myopic view but what I do see is the same unemployment numbers and exponential growth in inflation at the grocery store and gas is creeping toward $4/gallon again. I *suspect* it is due to the Fed printing dollars overtime, who is influenced by the president, which affects the value of the dollar, which affects the price of fuel, which in turn affects the cost of every thing else.

Can one man fix the economy? No, and I agree Congress is to blame for the broken budget and the lion share of our debt. But as one man he can do a lot to influence his party to action (which he isn't doing) and he can do a lot of damage by generating more debt and devaluing the currency.

He may have saved someone's bacon, but I sure can't afford it these days.

Agreed, the people in charge, all of 'em, could be doing more. I'm not sure why they feel like they're earning their paychecks by peeing all over each other's cornflakes. The phrase that comes to mind is "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

Really, though, employment numbers are coming up. Housing starts. Really important indicators. And ... we were bad off. Bad. Of course you can't tell for sure, but I think it's reasonable to assume things could be WAY worse than they are right now. When times are hard, it feels like it will never get better. But it will.

[atomicinchworm]

http://www.wwmt.com/shared/newsroom/...ers-7682.shtml

Sigh.

This makes me feel all ooky inside.

People already abuse their positions of power to prey on kids; I suspect the threat of getting shot or their families getting shot would make that easier.

Teaching is a stressful job. Sometimes people snap.

More guns equal more deaths. End of story.