<p>“I don’t want the government to tell me what to do with my body, not my reproductive freedom and not how much salt or soda I can have, either. It’s not their business.”</p>
<p>So, you are against things like seat belt laws, helmet laws, child car seat laws, texting while driving laws, cell phones while driving laws? </p>
<p>Passing laws against doing those things which can injure innocent people (like guns can,) imo, is different than laws passed like the soda or salt ban.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The recent California high school shooter used a shotgun.</p>
<p>“Probably because that ban doesn’t actually exist.”</p>
<p>But, there are limits on our freedom of speech - even though people, for the most part, don’t understand there are and have no idea what the amendment actually means.</p>
<p>Bay–the fire/theater construction is, as I am sure you know, a metaphor widely used for the “clear and present danger” exception to the First Amendment, which is enshrined in Constitutional law.</p>
<p>“The recent California high school shooter used a shotgun.”</p>
<p>Yes he did, but how many people was he able to mow down in a minute with his shotgun? </p>
<p>And where did he get this shotgun. Stolen from his brother. Probably another, perfectly legally obtained gun by it’s owner who was then completely irresponsible with it. Sigh.</p>
<p>The fact is that the second amendment, like others, is already limited. Keeping watch on over-zealous limitations is one thing; arguing a constutional right for automatic weapons and copkiller bullets is another. The line already exists; the discussion is where to draw it.</p>
<p>As I have repeatedly said, and I feel like the ACLU must feel when they are defending the rights of the Nazi’s to parade through the middle of Skokie, I believe that we can regulate and create very strong liabilities. I have no problem with that, not that it would matter if I did. What I have a problem with is saying to people who live in places other than the left and right coast, “You are crazy to want a different thing than I do.” It is incendiary and really counterproductive and leads to discord and not to understanding and good law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, if there wasn’t so much soda/salt ban type of legislating going on these days, more might be less afraid of losing their rights. But, honestly? It’s getting to be a bit much. So, I can see where people don’t even want to start down that slippery slope, though I think, personally, this is one place where we should try.</p>
<p>And as for seat belt laws? I find it preposterous that it is legal to drive a motorcycle or scooter, or a bike in the road, and then illegal to drive in a car without a seat belt. The laws lack logic, frankly, and that is just one example of where the insurance companies have influenced our day to day life. Get them involved with gun liability and the landscape will change really quickly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is exactly right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People who hunt for subsistence don’t use the kind of weapons Nancy Lanza had, with bullets designed to shatter inside the body and create as much damage as possible. “Doomsday preppers” and others who believe in conspiracy theories about government takeovers do.</p>
<p>garland,
Don’t tell me you are going to be another one of those posters who feels the need to <em>inform</em> gun owners that their rights are already limited?..</p>
<p>Bay–Not at all. I’m sure they (you?) already know that. But the absolutist rhetoric seems to ignore it. i’m puzzled as to why that is so.</p>
<p>I don’t own a gun or want to own a gun. I don’t want to run around calling people names or inciting riots with my speech. I don’t have any desire to sit in the middle of NYC and protest wall street. But I want you to be able to do all of those things. It’s why we are free. Only 60% of the world’s population lives in a democracy. And, frankly, whether even all 60% of them are living in an actual democracy is up for debate. Do you think these freedoms come with no cost? We already somehow have a government who is allowed to wiretap us for no real reason. You should really think it through if you think your freedom isn’t fragile. Freedom is always fragile in this world.</p>
<p>“And as for seat belt laws? I find it preposterous that it is legal to drive a motorcycle or scooter, or a bike in the road, and then illegal to drive in a car without a seat belt. The laws lack logic, frankly, and that is just one example of where the insurance companies have influenced our day to day life. Get them involved with gun liability and the landscape will change really quickly”</p>
<p>I agree re your opinion on driving motorcycles/scooters and bikes on the road - although the person usually killed or injured is the rider and not an innocent bystander. . What I object to more is their not wearing a helmet and society having to pay for their care the rest of their lives.</p>
<p>garland,
I don’t see the “absolutist” rhetoric that you do. Gun owners are already subjected to something like 3,000 different regulations (I think I read). I don’t see them screaming about those regulations, I really don’t, and I know a fair number of gun owners. The vast majority of gun owners are reasonable people who are fine with reasonable regulations, and certainly understand the purpose for them far better than non-gun owners do.</p>
<p>[Challenging</a> long-held assumptions of democracy’s certain triumph - Globaltimes.cn](<a href=“http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/755060.shtml]Challenging”>Challenging long-held assumptions of democracy's certain triumph - Global Times)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, there is plenty of hysterical journalism raging at the moment that would have us believe that we are in an epidemic of gun murders and indeed there have been a series of horrific mass shootings in the past few years that have been very keenly reported by our media and which have understandably made us all feel as if our society is just imploding with gun violence.</p>
<p>If we go to reputable sources the data say otherwise. This from the DOJ:</p>
<p>*
In the last decade (since 2000) the homicide rate declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s
The homicide rate doubled from the early 1960s to the late 1970s, increasing from 4.6 per 100,000 U.S. residents in 1962 to 9.7 per 100,000 by 1979 (figure 1). (See Methodology for information on rate calculations.)
In 1980 the rate peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 and subsequently fell to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1984.
The rate rose again in the late 1980s and early 1990s to another peak in 1991 of 9.8 per 100,000.
The homicide rate declined sharply from 9.3 homicides per 100,000 in 1992 to 4.8 homicides per 100,000 in 2010.
The number of homicides reached an all-time high of 24,703 homicides in 1991 then fell rapidly to 15,522 homicides by 1999 *</p>
<p>And if we look at mass murder sprees:</p>
<p>* The proportion of homicide incidents involving two victims has increased slightly from 2.7% in 1980 to 3.7% in 2008 (figure 37).
Homicide incidents involving three or more victims have also increased during this same period, but have remained less than 1% of all homicides each year. *</p>
<p>Granted this doesn’t cover Aurora or Newtown.</p>
<p><a href=“http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf[/url]”>http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf</a></p>
<p>^^There was an article in the New York Times recently that suggested that the homicide rate has fallen due to the improved excellence of surgeons in saving lives but that gun attacks have actually gone up IIRC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would like to learn more about these regulations (and perhaps a sense of how they differ state by state) and would be very grateful if someone would be willing to outline them briefly here.</p>
<p>I keep reading about “online gun sales” should be illegal. Please someone tell me how you think these sales work? </p>
<p>Please define “cop-killer bullets.”</p>
<p>Come on guys, using gun to stop gun is a dumb idea. Stop selling guns is the only way to stop tragedies re-occurring. Once guns are sold to the public, no matter how much regulations you put on, nothing can stop tragedies happening.</p>
<p>I would be interested to hear how current or retired military feel about so many yahoos strutting around with weapons that are meant for people with years of training.</p>
<p>And before anyone freaks out, I am not talking about the posters on this site but people like the guy in TN who just got his registration taken away for saying on Youtube that he would start killing people if further gun regulations went into effect.</p>