Estimated Reading Time: 7 minutes, 59 seconds.
26 children and teachers should not have died at Sandy Hook, 12 moviegoers should not have died in Aurora, 32 students should not have died at Virginia Tech, 11,078 Americans should not have been murdered by firearms in 2010, and 19,392 Americans should not have committed suicide by firearm in 2010.
Americans are united on the topic of gun violence: We want less of it. We all wish we could have stopped the tragedies listed above. What we don't agree on are the policies for saving lives and stopping gun violence. And we also disagree on the meaning of the second amendment. So which policy direction is supported by the constitution and saves American lives? I'd argue that the second amendment supports greater gun control, and that international statistics show that gun control works to reduce gun violence.
The Second Amendment - 1789
Much of the debate over gun control in the United States centers on this sentence, written
in 1789:
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.
The context? We had just fought a major war on
(newly) American soil, the most popular gun was a musket which could fire 2-4 rounds per minute, and most
of the Western US was unexplored by white settlers.
Today? We haven't had a major war on American soil for
150 years (The Civil War), Adam Lanza fired 154 bullets in four minutes in the
Sandy Hook shooting, and the entirety of the US has been mapped and
pacified, for better or worse.
Yet somehow we have more guns, and more powerful guns than ever before.
The Second Amendment Since 1789
Though the context of the Second Amendment is
important, the modern gun debate is only 50 years old. In Battleground America, Jill Lepore recounts the fascinating history of
American gun laws and the Second Amendment. In the section marked by the font change and brackets, I'm paraphrasing
and shortening her writing. (Please see
the original article for sources and further information.)
[For the 180-odd years following independence
no amendment featured less in court cases, besides the Third.
Many states and cities outlawed the concealed carrying of weapons, the N.R.A
existed as primarily a hunting and sporting organization, and in the 1939 the
Supreme Court voted unanimously that the Second Amendment “is not one which may
be utilized for private purposes but only
one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military
organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of
the state.”
The
modern gun debate started in 1963 with the assassination of President Kennedy.
As Lepore explains, "Gun-rights arguments have their origins not in
eighteenth-century Anti-Federalism but in twentieth-century liberalism."
As civil rights activists began to use the courts to assert their claims for
equality, gun rights activists did the same. In the 1970's, the N.R.A launched
a campaign to assert that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right
to own a gun, rather than the people's right to form militias for defense of
the country. In 1977, the N.R.A began a campaign to change the common
interpretation of the Second Amendment and changed its motto to “The Right of
the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.” (It had been “Firearms
Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting for Recreation.)
In
the words of former Chief Justice Warren Burger, what followed was, "one
of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American
public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” The
N.R.A. funded law review articles sympathetic to its interpretation of the
Second Amendment, a re-written history of the Amendment was commissioned by a
congressional subcommittee entitled “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” and by
1991 more Americans were familiar with the Second Amendment than the First.]
Hats off to Ms. Lepore for the history lesson, which provides background and context for this discussion.
Applied Constitutional History
If you followed the
history above, a lot of the concerns from gun rights activists start to fall
apart. Here are some that I've picked from the comment sections of gun control
articles:
"Unlike the UK and Australia, America was founded on a constitution, a bill of rights. This is the foundation of our country, what happens if we start tearing at the foundation? The whole thing could, and probably would collapse."
Thank you for agreeing with the above constitutional argument. The foundation of our country was built on the people’s right to form a militia to defend the country, not on the right to unchecked personal gun ownership. We have started tearing at this foundation, and are feeling the ramifications.
"Unlike the UK and Australia, America was founded on a constitution, a bill of rights. This is the foundation of our country, what happens if we start tearing at the foundation? The whole thing could, and probably would collapse."
Thank you for agreeing with the above constitutional argument. The foundation of our country was built on the people’s right to form a militia to defend the country, not on the right to unchecked personal gun ownership. We have started tearing at this foundation, and are feeling the ramifications.
"Firearms ownership is a right as
enumerated in the US Constitution. If you desire to engage in an argument over
'gun rights' than argue all you want over the wisdom (or lack of) of our
Founding Fathers."
As has been explained, saying that guns rights
activists are living out the Founding Fathers intent is both historically
inaccurate and dangerous. We certainly have a right to form militias and arm
ourselves to defend our country from attack or invasion, but the historical
argument for the right to private gun ownership outside of sporting and
recreation falls apart.
Gun Control Works in Australia
In 1996, 35 people were killed in a mass shooting in Port Arthur, Australia. In the following months the Australian
government, led by conservative President John Howard, a George W. Bush ally,
acted swiftly to enact sweeping gun control legislation. Fighting opposition
from conservative groups including the NRA, laws were passed
that severely restricted the legal ownership of self-loading rifles
and shotguns and tightened control on their legal use.
But Australia is no gun-free hellscape. Today 5.2% of Australia adults still own
guns. All prospective gun owners must go through a background check, give a
reason for owning a gun, and have it registered to the owner.
The
laws have saved lives. Gun control worked, and here are the stats. There have been no massacres since the one in 1996
(after the 13 in the preceding 18 years), and there was a significant decline in
the suicide rate (without an increase in non-firearm suicides). The law did not
have a significant effect on the country's already low homicide rate. A
conclusion? Lives were saved. More people are alive today because Australia passed
strict gun control laws.
Other Gun Rights Arguments
So we've figured out that the Second Amendment wasn't what we thought it was, and seen one example showing that stricter gun laws can save lives. What other arguments exist against gun control? These arguments are all pulled from pro-NRA websites or pro-gun rights comments.
Exactly, which is why we’ll
need national gun laws to be comprehensively changed. It’s not going to work to
just restrict them in one city, or even one state.
“When guns are taken
away from the populace, only criminals, including criminal governments, will have
guns.”
This is why we have a military and a
police force that can deal with criminals and criminal governments. No one is
proposing we disarm our military. And having less guns in the populace will
mean that criminals have less guns as well.
“The only answer to a
bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
Yes, and police officers and soldiers will still have
guns to fight bad guys. So will normal, everyday people. They just won't have automatic rifles.
This "more weapons are good thing" also only works in the short term, and it's the same thinking we used to rationalize the stockpile of nuclear weapons
in the 1980's. But even Reagan saw that idea as a terrible necessity:
“It is my fervent goal and hope…that we will some day no longer have to
rely on nuclear weapons to deter aggression and assure world peace. To that end
the United States is now engaged in a serious and sustained effort to negotiate
major reductions in levels of offensive nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal
of eliminating these weapons from the face of the earth.”
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan
Insert guns instead of nuclear weapons and his quote still
makes sense. The logic of more weapons making us safer, taken to the
extreme, would result in a society where everyone walks around carrying loaded
weapons. That doesn't sound like a place where I'd ever want to live. Gun violence in the US has fallen over the last 20 years, and the way to keep that going is not more guns, but less.
“We need guns to protect our constitution...in case we ever have to abolish this government...not saying that I want to.”
First, we'd all get shellacked by the US Military
(Hoo-rah). Second, if we ever had to literally take up arms against the US
Government there wouldn't be an America worth saving.
Proposed Reforms
Let’s
restrict access for criminals and the mentally ill, and reduce the availability
of weapons that are excessive for sporting and recreation. If we followed Australia's example, all prospective gun owners would have to go through a background check, give a reason for owning a gun, and have it registered to the owner. Like Australia, the UK, and much of Europe, we could also ban the guns doing the most damage - hand guns and semi-automatic rifles.
Of course these reforms don't cover societal
issues around violent games and movies, and mental health. But it’s impossible
to solve gun violence without addressing the gun part. By thinking about these deeper issues,
sometimes we miss the one staring us straight in the face.
Final Thoughts
I firmly believe America should continue our proud tradition of safe gun ownership for sporting and recreation. I do not believe that the founders intended private ownership of guns for people to practice daily self defense or be para-military vigilantes, and I’m convinced stricter gun control laws can help us reduce gun violence.
99% of the debate over gun control is a product of fear-mongering and the distortion of the founder's intentions by the NRA and other lobbyist groups. The idea of the Second Amendment guaranteeing an individual's right to bear arms for daily self defense and para-military vigilante action came from the 1970's, not the 1770's. We've been duped by gun lobbyists serving their own self-interests. I've proposed a few simple and proven gun control solutions that are common sense, continue private gun ownership for sporting and recreation, and save lives.
99% of the debate over gun control is a product of fear-mongering and the distortion of the founder's intentions by the NRA and other lobbyist groups. The idea of the Second Amendment guaranteeing an individual's right to bear arms for daily self defense and para-military vigilante action came from the 1970's, not the 1770's. We've been duped by gun lobbyists serving their own self-interests. I've proposed a few simple and proven gun control solutions that are common sense, continue private gun ownership for sporting and recreation, and save lives.
Yes,
they include owning less powerful guns (maybe we go back to muskets?) But these laws will also save lives and result in continued gun ownership and no loss of personal liberty.
I want to live in an America that’s open, welcoming, safe, and prosperous. I want less gun violence,
just like every other American. I want less parents to lose their children. I
want an America that implements sensible gun control.
----
Kurt Berning
Gun Control in Australia
Jon Oliver's Austrlia Mini-Series(A MUST WATCH!): http://www.thedailyshow.com/collection/425876/john-oliver-in-australia/425593
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
The Final Paragraph of Ms. Lepore's article:
"One in three Americans knows someone who has been shot. As long as a candid discussion of guns is impossible, unfettered debate about the causes of violence is unimaginable. Gun-control advocates say the answer to gun violence is fewer guns. Gun-rights advocates say that the answer is more guns: things would have gone better, they suggest, if the faculty at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Chardon High School had been armed. That is the logic of the concealed-carry movement; that is how armed citizens have come to be patrolling the streets. That is not how civilians live. When carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense is understood not as a failure of civil society, to be mourned, but as an act of citizenship, to be vaunted, there is little civilian life left."
Long-Form Articles about Gun Control
Kurt Berning
***APPENDIX***
Gun Control in Australia
Jon Oliver's Austrlia Mini-Series(A MUST WATCH!): http://www.thedailyshow.com/collection/425876/john-oliver-in-australia/425593
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
The Final Paragraph of Ms. Lepore's article:
"One in three Americans knows someone who has been shot. As long as a candid discussion of guns is impossible, unfettered debate about the causes of violence is unimaginable. Gun-control advocates say the answer to gun violence is fewer guns. Gun-rights advocates say that the answer is more guns: things would have gone better, they suggest, if the faculty at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Chardon High School had been armed. That is the logic of the concealed-carry movement; that is how armed citizens have come to be patrolling the streets. That is not how civilians live. When carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense is understood not as a failure of civil society, to be mourned, but as an act of citizenship, to be vaunted, there is little civilian life left."
Long-Form Articles about Gun Control
Serial Number A301256 by David Finkel
The story of a gun.
After Newtown Shooting Mourning Parents Enter Into the Lonely Quiet by Eli Saslow
Hey Kurt, great post! I am interested to know how guns were taken (if at all) from the owners in the case of Australia and elsewhere once regulation was introduced. It seems like there are a lot of good ideas about regulation and interpretation of the law, but I think there is some interesting debate to be had around the more pragmatic issues of buy-back programs, disposal, etc. - so many guns out there, yikes! Perhaps I just need to do a little research, but I wondered if you had any quick thoughts. Thanks again for the post!
ReplyDeleteAustralia had a compulsory buy-back of newly illegal guns, and spent about $A-500million buying back and destroying 621,000 firearms. I think the regulation side is the easy part, but as you've said the pragmatic issues around buy-bank and disposal would be the hardest part. One, who is going to pay for it? Two, buying back millions of guns in a country of 313 million is logistically much, much harder than buying back 621,000 in a country of 22 million. It's America though. If we were able to be brave and sensible enough to implement better gun regulation, we could figure out the pragmatic issues as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
DeleteBrave enough? You clearly consider theft bravery.
Delete^lol
DeleteHey Kurt! I enjoyed reading you poorly written propaganda piece. You mention Australia and the UK as ideal societies when it comes to safety and "saving lives". I encourage you to conduct a simple Google search about the violent crime rates in both countries. You will find that while the US has a declining violent crime rate, Aussie and Britain have an increasing one.
ReplyDelete"I do not believe that the founders intended private ownership of guns for people to practice daily self defense" - What does that mean? Why would someone be opposed to someone exercising "daily self defense". The definition of self defense is defending against an aggressor; maybe we should blame the aggressor.
You should consider changing your name to "Dirt" since you espouse tyrannical ideas. If you are so concerned about "saving lives" why not write an article supporting the abolition of driving or alcohol - both kill more than guns.
It was refreshing to hear that police officers will have guns in your fantasy world (unless you fantasize about England), so I feel much safer already. Police do not show up to crime scenes after the crime has already been committed. Police reside in every citizen's home, just in case someone brakes in and decides to murder someone's sleeping children, wife, or other family member.
I would sincerely like to thank you Kurt. Thank you for the only sentence in your entire hit piece that I agree with. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun".
P.S. It amused me that the only other comment on your communist manifesto, I mean, website, was written by you. "Hey Kurt, great post!"
Regards,
The only commenter who is not you.
And I thank you for your comment, and for reading the post. I hope you've helped to start a trend of further commenting, which I've been dearly lacking. Maybe leave your thoughts on other posts as well?
DeleteThe daily-self defense piece is simple; in the long term we should strive to not need guns for self defense. Just like Reagan's quote about having less nuclear weapons (did you read that part?), a peaceful future isn't one where everyone is defending him or herself with a loaded weapon.
This guy, am I right?
DeleteKurt - this is an excellent, well researched piece. I strongly encourage you to keep driving these points all across the web.
Moreover, I think your response to our "anonymous" friend here is the ideal one in that exemplifies your point. That despite there being a clear aggressor, you don't respond with aggression. By doing so you diffuse the aggression, potentially eliminating further aggravation.
As we continue to strike hot iron with this fervent debate it may serve us to remember something; that intelligence and emotional intelligence are two very different things. Someone may belay a strong and poignant affect with their communication skills (like our friend here), that obliges one to listen. Which we always should.
That being said, the hurling of insult and said aggravation is a wonderful example of a lack of self control. Which, when it comes to this particular debate, is essential to point out. Our insatiable affinity with guns in the United States is just that - an affinity. It is a sense of security given and threatened by an object. The attachment to personal firearms is a result of insecurity. While I do not empathize, I can sympathize with those who need something capable of inflicting fear, pain, and dominance to deflect those same things from being levied against them. Now earlier I made a a statement about emotional intelligence - I want to retract that phrase. It is elitist and has no weight in helping us problem solve. Emotional development and maturation is more suited to our ties.
How can we help to eliminate the need to compensate for a sense of self security that should already be there?
If we all agree that violence is a negative in society - how can we eliminate that need without firearms?
I think the biggest tragedy in all of this is that we fear this debate because it is too complicated. To put it bluntly - this is false. While there are a number of moving parts the sentiments remain the same. We have confused the right to bear arms to be an inalienable right as opposed to a legal one. I think we should uphold the 2nd Amendment. I believe that it could be useful in the face of a tyrannical government, or in recreational purposes, or unforeseen threats domestic and abroad.
Yet, in the wake of so much violence - with legitimate metrics demonstrating it's effectiveness - being stalwart in one's opposition to any increased gun control is a product of personal attachment. A wide set of unaddressed personal issues. Perhaps most disappointing, an inability to address those issues to save the lives of fellow Americans. Good job Kurt. Keep rockin' it.
Sam
Sam, in your advanced age, you seem to have lost your senses. Your effeminate response is unfortunate. Sam Wegwoman, anyone?
DeleteI love this strategy. Meet an argument that you can't win? Easy, just anonymously hurl crude insults at the person making the argument. It's almost the same as responding with thought and civility.
DeleteDon't feed the trolls...
DeleteLet me rephrase the above: Promoting arguments with trolls generally has the 'upside' of leading to increased comments, and can at times lead to increased traffic as people come to "watch the drama unfold". However, it's been my experienced that a sacrifice is made in terms of the quality of the discussion in the "Comments" section, which can at times reduce traffic by driving away people who would rather not wade through drivel in the hopes of finding someone to exchange thoughts with.
DeleteA choice all bloggers must make at some point! (right up there with naming your firsborn imho...)
Trolls make me sick. Why attack people? Just stick to the ideas and argue the facts. Though someone who posts "don't feed the trolls" must have a hidden agenda.
DeleteIt's actually a fairly patent agenda: I'd prefer to frequent a website that promotes civil discussions.
DeleteWell let's have a civil discussion. In California, where I reside, our strict gun control laws, background checks, and mental health checks are helping save lives. As the above article mentions, Australia was able to rid itself of those mass murder machines, so why cannot we?
DeleteThat childish NRA slogan "bad guy..good guy with a gun" promotes anarchy. Why not this for a slogan "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is to stop him from getting a gun in the first place".
Also, what major impact has Heller had? Please comment. Nothing noteworthy.
No response. Typical. Point out the Heller decision just for the sake of mentioning a Supreme Court decision. Doubt he even read/understands it.
DeleteThe Heller decision just stated that guns can be manufactured in the U.S. It does not mention owenership, so quit twisting the facts, buddy.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
DeleteHeld:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
The Heller decision also pointed out that "reasonable" restrictions do not violate the second amendment. I am not sure about what Steve is talking about though.
DeleteJohn, thanks for the link, but why are you attacking the other guy and then supporting him? Hard to follow.
I believe that the facts should be the main point in any discussion, regardless of whether or not I agree with them or the person stating them. Steve stated something that was not factual, so for the sake of my personal integrity I felt the need to set the record straight.
DeleteSteve may support my point of view, but that doesn't mean I'm going to support his when it has no basis in reality.
And to your second point: I'm definitely glad that the court made it clear that reasonable restrictions were acceptable, if not encouraged. DC vs. Heller in no way (I fervently hope) paves the way for high capacity magazines and assault rifles in everyone's hands.
DeleteIn fact, I'd hope that the reasonable restrictions clause allows laws to finally be passed that will draw a clear line that disallows these military style accoutrements in the hands of civilians, as I don't believe there are reasonable arguments that can be made by civilians that would allow them to bypass the aforementioned restrictions that will inevitably be established in the US. Self-defense, home protection, hunting, all the standard arguments do not establish a reasonable need for military grade weaponry.
Not sure why you are using my name, you coward. Show yourself.
DeleteWhy would you attack Steve - can you ever make a point without going after someone? Your turd.
Finally, you make some sense. But why not just ban all guns? Shooting is not a sport, hunting is murder, and without guns, police would not rquire them either.
Home protection? Who needs a gun to defend the home? Come one, this is not the Wild West. Your out of touch with modern day society. Also, why aren't you bringing up the recent court decision, not to throw out NY's strict gun laws.
A percentage of this group will read the article, notice the fact that no mention seems to be given of a momentous court decision, and be left with doubts as to how forthright the author is trying to be. (Not to be confused with the group that will harbor these doubts after simply reading the title, mind you.)
-The REAL John
Kurt,
ReplyDeleteOne of the worst written blog posts on the internet. I would guess that Rachel Jeantel wrote this article, which is possible. It is not in cursive.
DC vs. Heller? Anyone?
ReplyDeleteGreat Point! Why did you neglect to mention that decision Kurt?
DeleteWhy didn't I mention that the only Supreme Court case to affirm guns for self defense in the home was a 5-4 decision in 2008? I guess because it's almost too good of an example of my point. This falls under the category of the NRA's 1970's and 80's campaign to "change the common interpretation of the Second Amendment", making rulings like this possible. Read more in Lepore's article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore
DeleteI'd still say it warrants mentioning, if only in passing, due to the fact that it was one of the widest-sweeping legal developments on this subject in America's history. The impetus behind the case may be open to interpretation, but its ultimate impact on gun rights is much more cut and dried.
DeleteYou touch on it quite reasonably here - what harm did you believe would come of citing the decision? (I'm assuming the reason you give above was tongue in cheek..)
I just find omission slightly concerning because it may taint what is otherwise a largely logical, reasonable blog post (a definite rarity when it comes to e-articles...) in the minds of a certain subset of readers. A percentage of this group will read the article, notice the fact that no mention seems to be given of a momentous SC decision, and be left with doubts as to how forthright the author is trying to be. (Not to be confused with the group that will harbor these doubts after simply reading the title, mind you.)
Just my two cents, it could always be the case that I'm letting cynicism shade my perspective. It has certainly lent bias to my "empathetic reasoning" process before.
Warrant mention? The supreme court is just made up of 5 NRA members, who promote fear and paranoia to sell more guns. Heller does not need a handgun to defend himself. Just purchase a cell phone and call the police.
DeleteHeller decision didn't change the law on the books. People like you just interpret it based on your bias.
Putting aside the fact that I never claimed that it did...the judicial branch of the US government doesn't have the constitutional authority to change the "law on the books"; your statement isn't exactly news, and doesn't address the subject of my post: despite the makeup of the court, its perceived biases, or the reasons behind the case being reviewed and decided, the result will still have a major impact on the topic of gun rights in America, just as the 1939 ruling did. That's why I'd personally say it warrants inclusion in an article on the subject.
DeleteAnd what's with the personal attacks? It's the internets so I can't say I'm surprised, but you're throwing them out in almost the same breath as condemning people who engage in ad hominem. My personal biases have nothing to do with the essence of my post, which was "Supreme Court decisions have big effects on the American legal system".
Well put. I apologize for the personal attacks. I just noticed that other posts on this websites tended to engage in that type of behavior, so I was a little annoyed and took it out on the last person, which happened to be you.
DeleteThe Judicial branch does have the authority to change "the law on the books". Law is all about interpretation - writing laws is not power, interpreting them is.
Major impact in a negative fashion. You are promoting violence, gang activity, and anarchy by defending the Heller decision. Just look what happened with the Florida psycho who killed an unarmed, innocent black child.
You sound like an intelligent being, but you have a hidden agenda. You take the high road of mentioning personal attacks and then compare me with people who make superfluous arguments.
Interesting comment about the judicial system - never thought about it that way. The person with the power to interpret laws is the one who wields control. As for gun rights in America.: this Ian fella claims that the decision will have a significant impact on gun rights, but neglects to point out that the ruling was a 5-4 decision. It could easily be overturned.
DeleteCould we please refrain from the personal attacks? What Ian and anonymous mention might be illogical, but let them have a voice.
Let's get back to discussing the actual topic. Why do you support gun control kurt?
DeleteCan you please provide me with information that shows these things:
1. Gun control reduces violent crime
2. Gun control works in the U.S. (see: Chicago, NY, Boston)
3. The govt has the right to ban guns
Personal attacks - Steve, you would be a great politician. Say one thing and then do another. I am acknowledging my participation in the attacks, unlike you.."i'm not going to say this...but".
One thing that confuses me about the article is why the author strategically choose certain points/cases/arguments to portray the issue of gun violence. I am all for reasonable gun restrictions, as John beautifully states:
Delete"In fact, I'd hope that the reasonable restrictions clause allows laws to finally be passed that will draw a clear line that disallows these military style accoutrements in the hands of civilians, as I don't believe there are reasonable arguments that can be made by civilians that would allow them to bypass the aforementioned restrictions."
We need some restrictions, just to keep mass killing machines away from mass murderers. Why, does the author instead go from that logical conclusion, to eliminating all guns? People will always find away to hurt and kill others. With that in mind, would it not be better to construct a system that allows for normal, family people, to protect themselves against an intruder? A single, attractive female, would probably want a means to defend herself against a predator.
Let's shift the argument back to the article. Maybe someone could elaborate. Do you really think the elimination of all guns is feasible? I am uncertain, but willing to entertain the idea.
-A
I personally don't think that pushing for the elimination of 'all' (the article mentioned that they'd still be allowed in a limited capacity) guns is either feasible (in the current environment...give it another 20 years and 10 more mass killings before people are ready for it) or a good tactical approach to getting the more reasonable restrictions put into play.
DeleteA hypothetical: If Democratic US politicians had banded together in the wake of Sandy Hook and pushed for a ban on (for example) high-capacity magazines and armor piercing ammunition, I believe they would have gotten it accepted. They would have been able to reach across the aisle to the less nutty Republicans and gotten support they needed from the vast majority of Americans, as (I believe polls show) most support banning these two things.
Instead they pushed for (if memory serves) a ban on all ‘military-style weapons’, which is still supported by much of the voting public but not to the same degree as the above two. As a result they were unable to get support from enough Republicans to get anything passed.
I believe that incrementalism is the currently only feasible way of making progress on gun control front. It would be much, much preferred if we could ban them all tomorrow with a snap of our fingers, but this is a pipe dream. Furthermore, pushing hard for an across-the-board ban may actually prove detrimental to the desired goal, as illustrated above.
Yes, people will always find a way to kill people, but the problem is that the point is rapidly approaching where the benefit firearms provide in the form of defense is outweighed by the potential (which will inevitably be realized) for massive damage. One hundred years ago the benefits likely outweighed the costs, because while a musket could defense your home it could not be used to kill a dozen children. Now an AR-15 can be modified to full-auto, fitted with a hundred-round drum clip, and used to kill many more than a dozen people. What do you think the scenario will be in another hundred years, or even just twenty? I foresee personal weaponry that can kill scores, perhaps hundreds, being in existence, and at this point the ban on such weapons will be a foregone conclusion.
The problem is that the time gap between now and then is going to contain many dead people as a result of the fact that technological advancement always outpaces the laws governing new technology. Going for a slam-dunk “ban all guns” law will eventually be successful, but until that point it may result in any progress on gun control being stymied if we are unwilling to accept anything less than a total ban.
A good rule of thumb: if the NRA’s position on an issue is untenable, that’s the place that should be targeted with a new gun control law. Armor-piercing ammo is viewed by the public as being useful only for killing cops. High-capacity magazines are viewed as only being useful for killing lots of people. These issues are the ones we should be jumping on, not pushing a 100% ban that won’t be supported by enough voters until many more years (and, unfortunately, deaths) to come.
Stay hungry Trolls
ReplyDeleteQuiet oldman.
DeleteSam I am, but don't want to be.
DeleteThanks for the input and discussion. I'll follow up this blog with a part two in a few months, addressing things such as the DC vs. Heller case and the practicalities of enforcing gun control.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, all of these comments and not one person can think of a clever saying to write on my newest blog post? http://www.hugtherhino.com/2013/07/creating-new-sayings-easier-than.html. Just saying...
Hey hey! Government shut down has stopped all issuing of new gun permits! The best gun control that im sure the GOP thought about. Right? Lololol
ReplyDeleteThe 1947 Roswell Incident tends to be the event that has triggered lots of those dead aliens, etc. issue. several of the first-hand eye-witnesses have gone on the record, together with deathbed affidavits attesting to the fact of the Roswell Incident. you'll be able to realize some relevant eye-witness interviews on YouTube. There are several wonderful hardcore books written by serious investigators that attest to the reality behind the Roswell Incident. Alas, Roswell was in 1947 and was quickly forgotten and given no revived attention till 1980 once the primary of currently several Roswell books came to lightweight.For more information on guns in america news please visit our website.
ReplyDeleteWarrant mention? The supreme court is just made up of 5 NRA members, who promote fear and paranoia to sell more guns. Heller does not need a handgun to defend himself. Just purchase a cell phone and call the police.
ReplyDeleteHeller decision didn't change the law on the books. People like you just interpret it based on your bias.
levis jeans
ReplyDeletelongchamp uk
gucci outlet
kevin durant shoes
louis vuitton
oakley sunglasses
michael kors bags
pandora uk
ugg outlet
coach outlet
2016107caiyan
burberry outlet
ReplyDeletecoach factory outlet online
ralph lauren
true religion jeans outlet
nike tn pas cher
ugg australia
fit flops
james shoes
michael kors outlet clearance
salvatore ferragamo shoes
zhi20170113
coach handbags
ReplyDeletecanada goose outlet
longchamp outlet online
cheap ray ban sunglasses
uggs outlet
ralph lauren polo
swarovski jewelry
nike roshe run
christian louboutin shoes
ugg boots clearance
20170913lck
This particular papers fabulous, and My spouse and i enjoy each of the perform that you have placed into this. I’m sure that you will be making a really useful place. I has been additionally pleased. Good perform! glock sights
ReplyDeleteAbstractBackground: Cognitive remediation (CR) is a psychological therapy, effective in Yeezy Discount improving cognitive performance and functioning in people with schizophrenia. As the therapy becomes more widely implemented within mental Ray Ban Outlet health services its longevity and uptake Coach Outlet Store is likely Coach Outlet to depend on its feasibility and acceptability to service users and clinicians. Aims: To assess the feasibility and acceptability of a new strategy based computerized CR programme (CIRCuiTS) for people with psychosis.
ReplyDeleteThey're teamwork led to 6 Mahi, 2 Jack Crevalle, and 2 Barricuda. They're expertise was quite evident from the get go. If you're planning to come to Key Largo to fish you have to book with Key Largo Fishing Adventures. AbstractCalibration of the torsional spring constant of atomic Coach Handbags Clearance force microscopy cantilevers is Ray Ban Glasses fundamental to a range of applications, Yeezy Boost 350 from nanoscale friction New Jordan Shoes 2020 and lubrication measurements to the characterization of micro electromechanical systems and the response of biomolecules to external stimuli. Existing calibration methods are either time consuming and destructive (ex situ static approaches), or rely on models using the frequency and quality factor (Q factor) of the cantilever torsional resonance as input parameters (in situ dynamical approaches). While in situ approaches are usually preferred for their easy implementation and preservation of the cantilever, their dependence on the torsional resonance Q factor renders calibration in highly viscous environments challenging.