Politics-wise, the White House’s rolling conversation on gun control last week didn’t get off to the world’s most promising start. No, it went more like this: Joe Biden utters the words “executive order” and, within hours, the Drudge Report is posting photos of Stalin and Hitler. On CNN, meanwhile, a radio talk show host named Alex Jones goes unhinged, screaming in Piers Morgan’s face that “1776 will commence again if you take our firearms!”
We’re stuck in the same old debate, where any talk of restrictions is met with a ride down a slippery slope greased with WD-40: Incremental gun control would beget an all-out ban, government tyranny, a victory for sanctimonious liberals everywhere.
Comments
Clever - but misleading. You are still blaming inanimate guns, albeit less confrontationally, and placing unwarranted economic burdens on lawful gun owners. Your "answer" is still to restrict gun features, propose redesigns that leave millions of "old style" guns in use (or subject to tax or confiscation), or to "re-educate", which in the world of prior programs (like smoking) turned folks into social pariahs. Two primary premises of your argument are incorrect. First,when an unlawful shooting occurs, the media does NOT first focus on what is wrong with the shooter; it first focuses on the gun. Almost unfailingly misdescribing it as "high powered" or as an "assault weapon" or "automatic weapon" (and most guns in shootings are NONE of those things), the press elevates the color or capacity of the gun into some kind of fault mechanism. The gun did not jump up off of the table and start shooting; a PERSON made a conscious decision to aim at and shoot another person. That decision could be based on insanity, or chemical impairment or criminality, and each cause requires a different, tailored response. But until we address those individual causes, we will continue to have violent crime, by gun, by knife, by club or by bare hands. Dumping all shootings into one basket, and trying to solve all of the causes by attacking the gun, is ignorance and impossibility. If we so not address the TRUE causes, they will remain, and crime and insanity will continue to control behavior (but us law-abiding folks will be stripped of our only effective means of self-defense). Second, you mock the "slippery slope" argument, when it is historically and socially accurate. It is the history of gun confiscation, from Great Britain to Australia to pre-WWII Germany and Russia, that confiscation occurs incrementally. Limited bans, national gun registration, and limitations on individual ownership have crept up over time, leading to eventual total disarmament of the civil population. Although many of us may feel safe and comfortable in our present society, we cannot, and must not, surrender our individul responsibility to maintain the capability of defending ourselves and our society from both external threats and internal tyranny. Once surrendered, the RIGHT of self-defense cannot be easily recovered, if at all.
To say the numbers of guns floating around the country has nothing to do with shootings is rediculous. Guns close to hand have everything to do with gun deaths. the numbers of guns collected today increase the gun incidents, through careless storage, theft, illegal transfer, sale and spur of the moment murder. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, where everyone has a AK-47 in the closet. Did this make them safer? On the contrary. If you leave your home you're not sure if you will return in one piece.
PVALEN: You are getting closer. I read in your post a concern that there are ILLEGALLY possessed guns, due in part to unsafe storage. That is a function of poor storage security (guns left in the bureau drawer or under the bed), NOT of the number of guns legally owned. Your safety on the street in primarily a function of effective policing - take a look at crime statistics - we are in the middle of a huge drop in serious crime, despite marked increases in LEGAL gun ownership and issuance of concealed carry permits. I have no problem with MA requirements that firearms be either within the immediate control of their legal owners, or stored with locks or in a safe; other states should look at the same requirements. I have no problem with heavy prosecution of criminals who steal guns. But I do have a problem if someone suggests that the easy answer is to confiscate all the guns - throwing out the baby with the bath water. If I follow the rules, handle and store my legal weapons carefully, there is NO reason to try to deny me my right to self protection. And I'm sure you are not seriously trying to compare Boston to Afghanistan.
Joanna you are right on the money, but Bloomberg is our front and when you listen to him talk the gun owners become galvanized.
I'm not even sure one can have a logical discussion when it comes to guns and this country. Most of us own them. Most of us own weapons that are recreational or merely for self protection of the home. Most of my friends own them. None own an AR-15 which has been the focus point. Although it isn't the weapon that is the problem it is the type of munitions it uses. It seems completely reasonable to limit the number of rounds a clip can contain as I know of no hunters who use 30 round clips. Yet, we the average citizen get almost no say in this matter. The NRA who represents gun manufacturers gets to say how gun owners feel because they have all the money.
The one fundamental argument I have read and heard in this debate is actually "we need our guns to protect ourselves from our government". It seems utterly beyond reason that in this country someone can think along those terms and as long as they do and as long as they have the money and the backing of manufacturers I don't see how a reasonable conversation can be had, unless we the average gun owner stands up and say enough with the nuts already. There are reasonable regulations out there. Regs that won't stop murder, but can reduce carnage of mass murder.
You are correct inferring you have to be mentally defective to stockpile arms to fend off the Army, Navy,Air force, Marine corps. Colonial logic, per the 2nd amendment is so far off base today its incredible. All fueled by gun groups and manufacturers.
PValen's reply is exactly why one cannot have a "reasonable" conversation about guns. In the first sentence, anyone who believes they might someday have to rebel against a tyrannical government is labeled "mentally defective". Of course, governments never change, ours has remained the same for over 200 years, it has not become more restrictive and it has not infringed whatsoever on anyone's freedom. (that was sarcasm)
Attaturk uses the tired old argument that hunters do not use 30 round "clips" (actually magazines, but what does he know?). The 2A was not written for duck or deer hunters. Attaturk also complains that the average citizen gets almost no say in the matter. Of course you do, via our form of government. You are happy to have lobbyists that speak for your issues, but not ones you oppose. It seems to me you have a very large one, the Brady Bunch, only no one seems very interested in give them much money. Maybe that should tell you just how popular your ideas about gun control truly are?
It is very easy for some in this country to think along the lines that they may someday have to protect themselves from the government. Not everyone is as trusting as you are in the government. It is their RIGHT not to trust it. Not everyone is thrilled about taking off their shoes at airports, watching the government allow wholesale migration in to the country via the southern border, or seeing questionable searches executed on a daily basis-all in the name of "Homeland Security and the Patriot Act".
For those who have forgot, the 1A was written so people could speak out against the governemt, not just write blather. The 2A was written so those same people could fight back if it became necessary.
You may "think" someone fighting back against the government is foolish and not possible, but we haven't had any Waco's or Rudy Ridges in a long time. The government wound up looking repressive. Keep in mind, rebels do not have to WIN, they only have to ENDURE.
PVALEN: "Mentally defective"??? This is what passes in your mind as dignified discourse? Instead of discussion of the factual merits, you immediately begin by personally insulting those who hold a particular position? THIS is why a meaningful discussion of violence is so hard in this country - because folks like you, apparently deluded by a sense of social superiority, start the conversation by dismissing gun owners as cranks and tools of the gun lobby. Any other "Colonial logic" of the Founders that you care to dismiss as "off base"? Freedom of the press or speech, perhaps? Let's get back on track, and drop the personal attacks.
The phrase "mentally defective" may indeed be over the top, but as a gun owner myself this idea that we should defend the right to bear arms with the argument that we must protect ourselves against our own government does indeed seem bizarre to the extreme. As a veteran, a combat veteran it calls into question exactly what it was that I was defending and who the people are that question the legitimacy or the vibrancy of this nation.
If one has seen any of these interviews with some of these gun advocates, the shrillness of their speech, their anger and fear of the government one does have to wonder what it is that they are thinking or what motivates them. At some point one does have to "call them out" and I don't know of another description except extreme and perhaps excessively paranoid.
AttaTurk: There are those who question the legitimacy of this government, you are right, they are nutjobs. I am not one of them. Others, like myself, who reference the 2A as a means of protecting the people against a tyranny by the government are serious. I do not see tyranny as an imminent possibility, probably not in my lifetime as a matter of fact. However, we should not discount the possibility that it could happen in the future and start down a slippery slope that would leave the people of this country disarmed with virtually no means to force the government back to our constitution. It has worked very well for over 200 years.
My belief is that we should be looking at other methods to solve this issue, rather than making a fundamental change to the structure of our government.
The "shrillness" of gun advocates is truly amazing, I would agree. On the other hand, the anti gun folks sound totally insane to many gun owners. But then, we should all realize that the media picks these people because it helps them sell advertising time. Who wants to watch sane, rational people discuss an issue, nah, they would rather watch a circus, like American Ido.
This comment has been removed.
"historyisjustthat" First of all I don't have any lobbyists. Secondly to split hairs over magazines or clips to imply one does not know weapons is the tool of children not honest debate. Last if your argument is we have to be able to defend ourselves against our government in a revolutionary fashion then I htink you have no clue as to the power of the US military. As a veteran of the 1st Infantry Division I can assure you that revolution without the support of the military in this country would be an exercise in suicide. It is the dream of the "heroic" wannabe. The fantasizer of the "lost cause" a mythological figure against the evil enemy.
None of it is a logical argument against logical regulations, such as magazine or clip, (whichever angel on the pin) you like. It is not a logical argument against gun registration or background checks. As to the 2A this is not 1776. We do not get called to arms to guard against Indian encroachment. Actually Colognial logic is a good term for this thinking.
No one is taking away my weapons and if they tried that I would object to and argue against. However, I can find no logical reason that the weapons or more importantly the types of munitions that I used in Nam and others now use in the ME should be available to the public.
Just FYI we used to tape 3 clips together. One guy never told a "newbie" "hey, tape three magazines together".Just further FYI talking together we said "gun" not "weapon" regardless of the old , "this is my gun, this is my weapon."
Attaturk, as a VietNam veteran, let me assure you that US Military can always be beaten. It is done by testing the will of politicians to continue the fight. Our soldiers are the best in the world, but without leadership that has a will to win, they cannot win.
Furthermore, no one is talking "revolution", that would imply a change in the structure of government. We already have the best structure, it is called the US Constitution. It does not need any changing. And afterall, that is really the heart of this issue, isn't it? There are those who would like to dance around it, abandon it, in a misguided effort to achieve some perceived safety, which they will not obtain, witness the UK and their high violent crime rate, sans guns.
Joanna, the premise is that we are stuck in a "debate". Many do not see it as an issue to be "debated".
Many gun owners view those who would like to "have a conversation" about gun "control" (disarmament) as being very foolish people.
They are viewed as being "foolish" for several reasons.
The first is obvious, why would anyone want to limit their ability, via laws, to protect themselves?
Second, can anyone guarantee that the government will not become tyrannical in 20, 50 or 100 years? Obviously not. Gun owners have seen these "debates", "conversations" and "reasonables regulations" lead to total disarmament in several other countries. Contrary to anti gunners views, most of us are not knuckle dragging morons. We know that once disarmed, the 2A will no longer provide an important check to government tyranny.
Third, none of these "conversations" or "common sense" regulations will result in stopping these mass shootings. I have not seen one anti gun person say "If we pass these regulations, it will reduce these shootings by...." Nope, not one.
Fourth, anti gun people scream about Assault Weapons. They sound downright stupid. We are all learning that these so called "Assault Weapons" are nothing more than semi automatic weapons. So now they have changed their mantra to "Military Style Weapons". It is still a semi automatic rifle. But more importantly, people like Dianne Feinstein introduce bills to make many, many more weapons other than AR15's, AK47's restricted, she wants EVERYTHING confiscated if possible.
Piers Morgan? Are you kidding me? Someone should get unhinged at him, like most of our country. He pushed for the gun laws they have in England, he now sits here smugly (after fleeing England amidst charges) trying to change our laws. What he does not want to discuss ever, is that the rate of violent of crime in England has gone through the roof (5X our rate) since their wonderful gun laws went into full effect. But he sits here in his pompous arrogance attempting to villify gun owners, while avoiding prosecution in the UK.
It is the munition not the weapon at question.
This comment has been removed.
The US is #1 in gun possession, 88.8 guns per 100 people. It's also #1 in unintentional deaths from gunshot. 5000 dead children in the last two years. Time for a change.
UK has stringent gun controls, no one would argue that? Last year, 59 gun related homicides. However, their VIOLENT crime rate is 5X that of the US. Now they are discussing banning long kitchen knives. What gives anyone the right in this country to determine for another that they should be unable to defend themselves against a violent attack?
These fabulous social experiments have not worked out very well, all of them were the result of statistics spouting folks who are now saying "What do we do NOW?"
Dianne Feinstein, et al passed "Gun Free School Zones", that has worked out real well, hasn't it? The "Gun Free" theater in Auroro worked wonderfully too, didn't it?
So after your great ideas are implemented, and people are being clubbed, knifed and beaten to death, what will your next proposal be? Mandatory sensitivity training?
"History" should cite your statistics. This site says they have about 1/4 or 1/3 more violent crime; we have three times as many car thefts, and nearly SEVEN HUNDRED times their homicides by gun. That's right, for each homicide by gun in the UK, there are 688 in the US. http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
Promote GUN SAFETY ,positively. Take away the guns manufacture free pass to be sued and make haptic triggers that recognize the owner. It will take a generation to protect the children,and "We the People". Will prevail over the 4% of Gun Fanatics that seem to rule the conversation...
This comment has been removed.
I like Weiss’s column. It offers a constructive lens through which to view gun safety. If more were to adopt it, perhaps we could dial down the harsh vitriol of late and instead work to reduce the possibility of more Auroras or Newtowns.
Lot's of talk about why someone would need a semi-automatic rifle. How about why someone would want one? An AR 15 semi-automatic rifle, while maybe not the first choice for hunters, is a weapon that many people use in shooting competitions. Go to you tube and watch for yourselves. I am not a believer in the government becoming so tyrannical that I need protection from them but I do believe that there have been several natural disasters, Katrina for example, that proved the government may not be able to protect business and home owners under all conditions. An AR 15 is a good choice under such conditions. I do believe that as a responsible gun owner I should be able to purchase a semi-automatic rifle to compete with. I do believe in stricter rules for purchasing guns at gun shows. High capacity magazines? Seems to be the lightning rod. Obviously those screaming about these magazines don't realize the speed at which a ten round mag can be dropped out and a new one inserted, but hey it's fashionable to get on the anti high capacity band wagon. The second amd was not written for hunting, so get off the you don't need 30 rounds to kill a deer. I personally am repulsed by hunting. Why anyone would get his jollies off in killing a defenseless animal I have never figured out. They are rarely dropped on the first round and suffer unnecessarily.
Interesting comment, RichStan. I did a bit of calculation involving a famous shooting, President Kennedy. Oswald got off 4 shots in six seconds from a bolt action rifle. Doing a bit of math, accounting for magazine changes, it is possible to fire 28 rounds per minute with a bolt action rifle. Obviously more than enough to create incredible mayhem. So, your point is well taken about magazines, it is just people screaming about something they do not understand.
The horrible, it is only used for killing people, AR15 is also used by many owners for varmint hunting out west, some here in New England, coyotes and the like. It is exactly the right caliber for those animals. For a deer? Definitely the wrong gun.
Many gun owners realize, that once those nasty "assault weapons" are banned, and another mass shooting takes place using a "sporting rifle", the anti gun crowd will start howling for those to be banned. It is indeed a slippery slope.
If you think 28 rounds with a bolt action rifle in a minute is fast go to youtube and watch Jerry Miculek shoot 12 rounds from a revolver in under 3 seconds. We gonna ban revolvers too?
For those of you that "roll your eyes in your head" when you hear someone say that 2A was written to allow the citizenry to defend themselves against a tyrannical government:
Some make the argument that it is impossible to defeat the US military. I agree. However, as we have all learned, no one has to defeat them, just outlast them. We have had plenty of recent examples of that.
Some make the argument that it is impossible to overthrow the US government. Who would want to? Certainly not me. We have the best form of government in the world. We have the constitution guaranteeing our rights. All the citizens need to do is endure in their efforts until the politicians see the error of their ways. The people do not have to win any battles, just outlast their opponents.
My opinion: good article, I don't agree with all the points, but they are good ones to discuss.
One related item I also think worth discussing: an incident like Newtown happens, the left starts talking about banning or restricting guns, the right starts talking about the left wanting to ban guns, and the result is that gun sales skyrocket. Especially worrisome, assault weapons, the very ones that many of us could agree could be restricted, are the ones that are most purchased in reaction to the threat of a ban. How counterproductive !
Yup. One Iowa gunshop has a large poster of President Obama, underneath it says "Our Best Salesman".
As much as I am pro gun, I worry about the recent sales too. I have personally seen people in the shops, buying their first gun, clueless, but wanting to start with an AR15. They didn't "need" one before this tragedy, but now they do. Why? Americans do not like to be told they cannot have something.
Now we will have thousands of weapons sitting around owned by people who do not really know how to operate them, will probably not take classes to learn about them and safety, and in a few months will sit in a closet, forgotten about. Not good.
The whole thing went off the rails as soon as the first reporter got a sniff. The President made it MUCH worse by his statements.
HistoryIJT - exactly, people running out and getting an AR15 as their first gun in a panic, maybe not locked up, no training as you say.
"Historyisjustthat" If you are a Vietnam veteran as I am let me say you are a disgrace to the uniform if you are implying that you somehow need to be armed to oppose the forces of the US. I would also point out to you as a veteran and one who served with the 1st Infantry we did not lose or as you would were "beaten" in Viet Nam. Thanks for dishonoring those who gave up their lives. You folks purely and I regret it infuriate me with you anti-American propagansa. You as I took an oath to the duly elected government which is something that is a far cry from some "fantastical" tyranny. Tyrants. The only tyrants are folks who do things you don't like. But you would impose your viewpoints on everyone rather than find a reasonable compromise.
Also as if as you say you are a Viet Nam veteran you know full well that the munitions involved in militray weapons are a far cry from those for cifilian use. There intent is soft tissue damage something unneeded by any civilian.
This protect myself from the government is an argument for "radicals rightwingers", "communists" and other fringe anti-American groups. Any person such as those I have seen on Television promoting unlimited access to weapons and stating they will revolt if even reasonable regulations are passed in any other country would be arrested for sedititioin or checked into a mental health institute. To say there are no reasonable regulations is not a debate not a discussion but purely the rantings of the "fantastical" paranoid.
By the way who did you serve with and when? Just curious where you get the idea we lost.
Pardon the typing but you folks annoy me so much. You are like "religious fanatics" with your absolutist viewpoints. It's all or nothing.
Hasn't Piers Morgan every been known to rant??
And, honestly, when I wrote in this column sometime ago, that we would soon ban knives and forks, it just kidding, honestly.
I would love it if we could have a rational debate about public safety and the gun numbers in the United States.
I've read most of the comments here and I see a trend to be afraid of a future attack by an unseen governement and that those who cause these crimes are guilty and not much about the easy of availability.
As a parent, I want my children safe. As an American, I want my country safe.
I fail to comprehend how tracking who owns a gun violates the 2nd Amendment. I am tracked when I buy psedofederine, why can''t we track gun owners? How about requiring all who live in a home with a gun getting background checks? Mental health checks: with additional checks if someone is found not competent to own a gun to prevent abuse of the system and to allow people to own a gun when they are healthy again? These aren't inpingments, these are logical and reasonable controls on gun ownership.
Slippery slope? Heck, you can't own an anti-aircraft weapon. Haven't we already started it? Why focus on magazine size? Because those of us who don't shoot don't understand why those who do shoot need to have so many rounds at once. We also know that the brave will jump in during those seconds of distraction while a shooter is reloading.
I've watched target shooting shows. I love Top Shot on the History Channel. Target shooting looks fun. However, it must be done with the knowledge that this is a very dangerous object that was invented solely for injuring another living creature.
Let's work on ways to track your weapons. Let's limit how many rounds you can fire at once. As someone below mentioned, you can do it fast with small numbers of bullets. We aren't going to stop mass shootings, but let's make a dent. My family's health is on the line. And yours is too.