<p>“If we wanted to go back to the assumptions of the founders, however, it would be fine by me: let’s offer an unlimited right to bear any type of arms and ammo available in 1789.”</p>
<p>So only for law abiding citizens, right? Criminals and all governments would be allowed to keep modern weapons, right? </p>
<p>The playing field was level in 1789. That, I believe, was the intent.</p>
<p>If I had a plastic personality, I would buy these arguments:
<p>and more.</p>
<p>If 2nd Amendment is inviolable, we should allow guns prevalent in those days even though we ought not hope to return to vulnerabilities of those times.</p>
<p>I guess I’m plastic. I’m okay with that then.</p>
<p>But about the hunting thing - I could not possibly care less how much or how little ammunition a hunter needs. Guns have multiple purposes. The constitutional right to bear arms was not about merely the right to hunt. Right now, I have the right to go to the gun range, the right to hunt, the right to protect myself and my family and the right to buy and keep whatever ammunition I feel is necessary to do whatever law-abiding thing I need to do with whatever gun I have, even if the clip holds more than 10 rounds. As it should be.</p>
<p>But cromette, as I said in my last post, even constitutional rights can be and are restricted. If I so chose, I am constitutionally permitted to gather several hundred people together to protest againt some government action. That doesn’t mean that I am allowed to do so on the white house lawn, or at 1:00 AM, or 2:00 in the afternoon, if I haven’t gotten the correct permit. </p>
<p>As for the argument that law-abiding gun owners need access to any technology that criminals can get their hands on, I’m not sure that is true. I suppose that theoretically, if a team of machine-gun toting thieves descended on your home, you’d be better off with a high capacity assault rifle than with a handgun, but in the more realistic mass murder situation, the aim of the criminal and the aim of the good citizen are different, and shouldn’t require the same firepower. The murderer wants to kill as many people as possible before he is taken down, which means that the more indiscriminate shots he can get off, the better. The citizen wants to stop a single person without killing any innocent bystanders. Anyone who has so little control that he can’t hit his target without a high-capacity magazine is not a person I want with a gun in that situation.</p>
<p>It cracks me up when people lecture gun owners about how the right to own a gun can be regulated. As if we didn’t know.</p>
<p>I’m not a plastic person, that’s for sure, and I’m definitely not a gun advocate, either, but in a country where it is possible for somebody to make a law saying how much salt or the size of soda I am allowed to buy (even though I’m very healthy), it is disingenious to act as if those who are 2nd ammendment advocates are crazy to fear government overreach.</p>
<p>We are in the age of government overreach, and only those of us who fight like crazy, like those of us who believe in the right to reproductive freedom and those who want to keep the 2nd ammendment the way it is, are actually managing to escape a further erosion in their rights to be free and make their own choices about how to live.</p>
<p>Some of us on the left and some of us on the right believe enough is enough with the federal power grabs. More people die in traffic accidents each year than by gun. Perhaps we should get rid of all the cars and trucks and SUVs instead of having law enforcement on the road.</p>
<p>“honestly don’t personally know anyone in my community that DOESN’T have a gun. I also don’t know anyone personally who has shot another person, on purpose or by accident. I also don’t know anyone who has had a child accidentally shot by a firearm, and many of my friends and family teach their children how to use a gun…properly of course. And MANY of these firearms have magazines that shoot more than 10 rounds.”</p>
<p>Just because you don’t know anyone these things have happened to doesn’t make it untrue. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t equal facts. </p>
<p>From the previous article I cited:</p>
<p>“sponsored high-quality, peer-reviewed research into the underlying causes of gun violence. People who kept guns in their homes did not — despite their hopes — gain protection, according to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Instead, residents in homes with a gun faced a 2.7-fold greater risk of homicide and a 4.8-fold greater risk of suicide.”</p>
<p>“Wonder why Texas has far less gun crime with all the so called gun nuts than those states with actual laws banning them.”</p>
<p>Because it doesn’t. </p>
<p>ank States Amount </p>
<h1>1 District of Columbia: 31.2</h1>
<h1>2 Alaska: 20</h1>
<h1>3 Louisiana: 19.5</h1>
<h1>4 Wyoming: 18.8</h1>
<h1>5 Arizona: 18</h1>
<p>= 6 Nevada: 17.3<br>
= 6 Mississippi: 17.3 </p>
<h1>8 New Mexico: 16.6</h1>
<h1>9 Arkansas: 16.3</h1>
<h1>10 Alabama: 16.2</h1>
<h1>11 Tennessee: 15.4</h1>
<h1>12 West Virginia: 14.7</h1>
<h1>13 Montana: 14.5</h1>
<h1>14 South Carolina: 13.8</h1>
<h1>15 North Carolina: 13.6</h1>
<h1>16 Georgia: 13.4</h1>
<p>= 17 Kentucky: 13.1<br>
= 17 Oklahoma: 13.1<br>
= 19 Missouri: 12.3<br>
= 19 Idaho: 12.3 </p>
<h1>21 Indiana: 11.7</h1>
<p>= 22 Colorado: 11.5<br>
= 22 Maryland: 11.5<br>
= 24 Florida: 11.1<br>
= 24 Virginia: 11.1 </p>
<h1>26 Texas: 11</h1>
<h1>27 Michigan: 10.9</h1>
<h1>28 Oregon: 10.5</h1>
<h1>29 Pennsylvania: 9.9</h1>
<h1>30 California: 9.8</h1>
<p>= 31 Illinois: 9.7<br>
= 31 Kansas: 9.7<br>
= 31 Utah: 9.7 </p>
<h1>34 Vermont: 9.6</h1>
<p>= 35 Ohio: 9.3<br>
= 35 Washington: 9.3<br>
= 37 Delaware: 9.1<br>
= 37 North Dakota: 9.1<br>
= 39 Wisconsin: 8.1<br>
= 39 Nebraska: 8.1 </p>
<h1>41 South Dakota: 7.9</h1>
<h1>42 Iowa: 6.7</h1>
<h1>43 Maine: 6.5</h1>
<h1>44 Minnesota: 6</h1>
<h1>45 New Hampshire: 5.8</h1>
<p>= 46 Rhode Island: 5.1<br>
= 46 New York: 5.1 </p>
<h1>48 New Jersey: 4.9</h1>
<h1>49 Connecticut: 4.3</h1>
<h1>50 Massachusetts: 3.1</h1>
<h1>51 Hawaii: 2.8</h1>
<p>[Firearms</a> Death Rate per 100,000 statistics - states compared - Crime data on StateMaster](<a href=“http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000]Firearms”>http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000)
Weighted average: 11.5</p>
<p>How many guns would have been enough?
[Private</a> arsenal doesn?t protect gun dealer | <a href=“http://www.ajc.com%5B/url%5D”>www.ajc.com](<a href=“http://m.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional/private-arsenal-doesnt-protect-gun-dealer/nTts4/]Private”>http://m.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional/private-arsenal-doesnt-protect-gun-dealer/nTts4/)</a></p>
<p>[Death</a> rates from guns, traffic accidents converging](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/09/guns-traffic-deaths-rates/1784595/]Death”>Death rates from guns, traffic accidents converging)</p>
<p>This article is interesting. It points out that death by motor vehicle and death by firearms is actually converging, and in some states has surpassed traffic deaths. One of the more alarming and interesting elements in the article is that it seems that the reason the traffic fatalities have gone down is because there has been increased research and implementation into safety measures. The fact that doing gun research is actually banned to the CDC, now, is alarming. Why would anyone want to ban research on gun safety?</p>
<p>Those kinds of things are the things that make those of us who don’t care if we can have a gun or not leary of those who want to own firearms. Why not research safety measures and how they can be implemented? </p>
<p>One thing’s for sure, once the insurance companies got involved in the traffic death debate, a lot of safety measures became law. Making gun owners carry liability insurance would certainly be one way to change the landscape.</p>
<p>"The gun nuts, especially in Arizona, will argue with you until they are blue in the face that because the state’s gun laws allow just about anyone to own a gun and carry it around concealed to just about anyplace they want, including bars, that the state is a safer place for it. They would be wrong. In a recent Wall Street Journal Letter to the Editor, Richard Reay of Riverdale, NY, made his point by using the 2010 FBI Violent Crime Statistics report.</p>
<p>As an example, there are 408.1 violent crimes and 6.4 murders/manslaughters in Arizona per 100,000 population compared to 392.1 and 4.5 in New York. In the same comparison, Texas is 450.3 and 5.0. Reay’s letter was reacting to the typical inaccuracy of a gun freak who spews out whatever garbage the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) tells him to. The guy, a Californian named Dave Culver, was ranting over the fact that the people of New York were less safe because they had been disarmed by their civic leaders.</p>
<p>To add to Culver’s misinformation, Reay tells us that gun-related robberies and aggravated assault in New York were around 20 percent and 25 percent that of Texas and Arizona, respectively. (also in FBI Crime Statistics) With the population growth of cities like Phoenix, Dallas and Houston, the density rate is adding to the problem, and when you give anyone in those metropolitan areas a handgun that asks for it, you are just asking for trouble."</p>
<p>[Daily</a> Kos: New York?s strong gun laws make state safer than weaker states of Arizona and Texas](<a href=“http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/02/1060918/-New-York-s-strong-gun-laws-make-state-safer-than-weaker-states-of-Arizona-and-Texas]Daily”>New York’s strong gun laws make state safer than weaker states of Arizona and Texas)</p>
<p>Below is the link to the FBI state crime statistics referenced in the above. </p>
<p>[FBI</a> — Table 5](<a href=“http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl05.xls]FBI”>FBI — Table 5)</p>
<p>“Why would anyone want to ban research on gun safety?”</p>
<p>Why do you think? </p>
<p>The NRA lobbied successfully to get research banned. Read the article I cited earlier on the CDC study.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, along with emilybee’s other uppermiddle-class solution of “taxing the **** out of bullets.” Such regulations, clearly intended to erect barriers to gun ownership, won’t affect me or people like Nancy Lanza one bit. We can afford the increased cost of the bullets, and multi-$million umbrella policies.</p>
<p>What those regulations likely will do, is prevent the single mother living in the projects from owning a gun to protect her family, and the subsistence hunter in Appalachia from providing for his family. Perhaps that is the intent? These people are most likely to get **** at some little thing and shoot their spouses if we allow them to get ahold of a gun?</p>
<p>How will we force insurance companies to provide the required insurance, anyway? If it is prohibitively expensive, will we pass federal legislation requiring states to set up gun insurance exchanges?</p>
<p>All the guns will be owned by the rich and the bad guys. Thats probably okay, too, since the poor don’t have anything worth protecting anyway, right?</p>
<p>In post #269 I asked how many guns are enough?
Perhaps somebody needs a calculator?
;)</p>
<p>Motor vehicles don’t kill, people do. Guns don’t kill, people do.
Motor vehicles are regulated - both in who can drive them legally, and in what safety features are required.</p>
<p>It seems to me that most gun control advocates was the ownership and use of guns regulated, for the purpose of keeping them out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. But even if we took the idea of any bans off the table, many gun owners still argue that regulation goes too far. The problem is that without regulation, there is no way to keep them out of reach of those who shouldn’t have them.</p>
<p>I like the idea of liability insurance - the more firepower, the higher the more likely the gun will be used to cause harm. We register vehicle ownership, every vehicle has a VIN. Why not do the same with guns? When we register them, run a ballistics check, and keep a database. Have the gun owners pay for liability insurance - let the insurance companies decide what discounts to offer for the responsible gun owner. Have you owned your guns for 5 years without incident? You get a responsible gun owner discount. Do you keep your hunting rifle locked away, with the key in a different room? How about the Ammo? Another discount. </p>
<p>If criminals have guns, where do they get them? Were they stolen from an irresponsible but law-abiding citizen? If that person didn’t take reasonable steps to keep the gun out of the hands of a criminal, shouldn’t that person share the liability?</p>
<p>The problem I have with all this discussion of new rules for gun ownership or gun control is that none of them would have had any impact on stopping this tragedy. I am not a fan of reactionary legislation.<br>
For those interested I do not own a gun and will never own a gun.</p>
<p>Should I be responsible if someone steals a steak knife from my home and kills someone with it? How would a national registry stop these types of attacks?</p>
<p>We have some British friends who are hugely hyped on getting America to be like Britain and control the guns, etc. When I ask them how they feel about violence in film and video games, mental health policies and resources – they get pretty annoyed with me and start lecturing me that “These were just babies killed at Newtown! Little Children!!” as if I don’t read the reports and watch as much of the coverage as I can tolerate before weeping over what happened. </p>
<p>I am annoyed by those who try to turn those of us who see the issue in terms of more complexity and less about simplistic and reactionary policies just to make us feel good at this tender moment into barbarians who somehow don’t care about the slaughter of tiny children.</p>
<p>I think the issue is so darn complex. I think it’s partly about the intrinsic nature of our country, a frontier that was grabbed and “settled” by truly outrageously adventurous immigrants and I don’t mean just the Mayflower folk but throughout all our history, we get those who just really are willing to risk and venture and roll the dice on a “new place” and new life. That’s so very, very culturally different than, say, Finland. </p>
<p>So maybe we can relate it to Candada or Australia, but even there those nations did not have the fierce individualist ethos that America had, no horribly bloody revolution and violent severing from the birth nation.</p>
<p>I think we have at our root a much more individualistic and more violent culture than these nations that the gun control advocates are so set on comparing us to. It’s apples and oranges. America is completely outlier culturally than just about any other nation and we have to recognize that if we really want to talk about this topic meaningfully.</p>
<p>The hypocritical posture of Hollywood lately does annoy me. That industry capitalizes on our appetite for guns and violence, then will lecture us in their “b there or b square” infomercials about “demand a plan.”</p>
<p>If hollywood would shut up and have the class to take at least some measure of responsibility in the tragedies, then I’d be more likely to listen with an open mind to the gun control zealots.</p>
<p>In response to the article about traffic deaths and gun deaths, the NRA posted information about how more people die from being hit by rocks or pans or something idiotic than from rifles. See the point? They want people to take an unimportant fact - that rifles aren’t used very much and thus don’t kill many people - and to think that has wider meaning. The dishonesty is galling. Rifles aren’t “guns”; they’re a kind of gun. One could then argue that even fewer people are killed by laser guided sniper weapons so therefore they’re obviously safe and should be widely available. I doubt anyone in the US was killed by an RPG last year so that’s another safe weapon which should be widely available.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depends. A little bit of History.</p>
<p>Waco, TEXAS. David Koresh. Full US military assault.</p>
<p>Ruby Ridge. ATF Sniper.</p>
<p>Philadelphia police helicopter bomb on the MOVE compound. Local police bombing.</p>
<p>A few NOLA police during Katrina. Human target practice.</p>
<p>Analogizing the regulation of cars/driving to guns doesn’t work because driving is a privilege, not a right, so the states can set up just about any regulations they want regarding licenses and car registration. Gun ownership is a Constitutional right, which cannot be abridged by the government. Only reasonable regulations may be applied to gun ownership, not regulations that operate as a de facto ban on gun ownership (see the Heller case).</p>