When crazies kill, why sanction the legal and responsible?
Here we go again ...
Another crazy gets hold of an arsenal of weapons; breaks almost every law in the books; and shoots scores of innocents. And the result is predictable ... a groundswell of opinion that never wavers ... PASS LAWS TO RESTRICT GUN OWNERSHIP!
The problem with that sentiment is that third word ... "LAWS". Because "laws" only apply to those inclined to obey them in the first place!
It's one thing if our elected leaders had the backbone to take on such an unpopular position (unpopular that is to most people who do not live in large, crime-ridden cities) and accept the political consequences. But that's rarely ever the case when politics and power are of greater value. That was exactly the sentiment that was expressed by Democrat stalwart Senator (CA) Dianne Feinstein, who stated, although a sane discussion on gun control and a ban on military-type assault rifles was important, an election year was not the time to address it.
Huh?!? Wouldn't that be the PERFECT time to address the issue?!?
Apparently the Democrats see a discussion of gun control to be a political loser in a year when President Obama is fighting for re-election in what is expected to be a close election. For these Democrats, the subject of limiting gun violence by restricting access to guns for everyone is trumped by White House aspirations. It says much about where the issue really sits with the political animals of the Democratic Party. So, if they refuse to have this discussion now, why should they be taken seriously when they finally get around to it?
In that same vein, we are still waiting for The President to get around to his 2008 campaign promises on gun control. Instead, President Obama has signed bills allowing guns in national parks and even on Amtrak; and he has steadfastly refused to seek reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban. And maybe that's the real reason Democrats - like Senator Feinstein - do not wish to bring it up now!
But in truth, even if we did have this conversation today, it would accomplish NOTHING in keeping guns of all shapes, sizes, and magazine capacities from the criminals and the crazies. They tend not to like or obey those pesky laws!
If it were that easy, we wouldn't have had Aurora ... or Columbine ... or Howard Unruh ... or the University of Texas clock tower ... or Virginia Tech ...
That's the REAL problem ... the criminals and the crazies.
You have no right to ask law-biding citizens to give up access to responsible gun ownership, if you have no prospects for denying similar weapons to the criminals and the crazies. And it's mind-boggling that anyone would propose such a ban in an age where our own Federal Government openly distributed guns to the most dangerous criminals currently on the continent. They must solve the problem of keeping automatic assault weapons from the drug runners, the gangs, and criminally insane before asking John Q. Citizen to even consider doing the same.
I ain't holding my breath on the former, but fully expect continued efforts to do the latter.
For another reason entirely, I laugh when gun opponents run up the flag of the Founding Fathers to claim that they had no intention for gun ownership to exist outside what was needed for the purposes of organized state militias. That may well have been their original intent, just like it was to restrict the voting rights of women or to count African slaves as 3/5 of a person. In reality, the concept of militia had little-to-nothing to do historically with the development of a gun culture in the United States.
Every household in 18th century America REQUIRED the possession of a firearm. This was not a legal requirement; it was a requirement for survival. For if you lived anywhere other than the relative safety of early American cities, a gun was as important as food in surviving the dangers and hostilities of the unsettled frontier.
Whether it was dealing with the growing hostility of a native population or using the point-of-a-gun to discourage foreign intervention and push American civilization West across the North American continent, the National Government fostered the concept of private gun ownership - far removed from the concept of militia service - among its citizens. Huge tracts of territory were settled and controlled; colonial forces from Spain, Britain, and France were pushed out; and the Wild West was colonized, then civilized with the help of armed citizens that NEVER once stepped foot into a militia formation.
It renders the concept of "militia" a convenient interpretation of a badly worded phrase in the Bill of Rights. So for better or worse - depending on your point-of-view - America grew and flourished as the result of a gun culture that was accepted by a Government led directly by those same Founding Fathers. The same ones who supposedly never intended private gun ownership outside of a quasi-military apparatus.
The irony seems lost on those who want to blame the carnage on law-biding citizens and their long-held rights.
From www.crankymanslawn.com ...
Tom Bartman
8:42 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Around the same time as the tragic events in Colorado, a pickup truck carrying 23 illegal immigrants crashed in South Texas, killing 15 illegals.
http://www.startribune.com/nation/163524746.html?refer=y&refer=y
It is quite obvious that pickup trucks should be banned.
Marc L.
1:12 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
No, but it is illegal for 23 people to ride in a truck just as it's illegal to ride in the flatbed of a truck.
Common sense says that owning a gun should not be banned, but that certain kinds of guns and accessories should be, and that would help prevent these sorts of situations from getting out of control (nothing will completely prevent them).
Michael J.
7:11 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Great point Tom. I guess people don't think that tightening the borders is the way to go. By the way, They haven't banned diesel fuel and fertilizer either.
Feodor Tiorlenko
8:29 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Erectile dysfunction is the least of your problems.
Mike Shortall
11:03 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Thanks for reading, and congrats on starting middle school!
C. Smith
12:43 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Tom,
You raise a very interesting point. Anyone can buy a truck. However, in order to become licensed to DRIVE ONE in Texas, you must:
* Apply in person at a Texas driver license office.
* Present documents that verify your identity.
* Present documents that verify you are a U.S. citizen or have lawful presence. All information on each document must match. Additional documentation may be required to verify conflicting information, incomplete names, and date of birth.
* Present proof of Social Security Number.
* Present proof of your Texas residency.
* Present proof of Texas vehicle registration and liability insurance on all vehicles you own.
* Complete the application for driver license or identification card (PDF).
* Consent to be photographed, fingerprinted, and provide your signature at the time of application.
* Pass the written, driving, and vision examinations.
* Pay the required fee with a credit card, cash, money order, or a non-temporary check.
* Provide a vehicle for the driving exam and present current liability insurance, Texas vehicle registration, and inspection for the vehicle.
Would that acquiring the weapons used in this case came with that list of requirements.
I have no problem with people owning guns. I own several myself. I also have no problem with a enforcing a process that does it's best to ensure that I'm not an idiot.
Marc L.
1:16 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
When my wife and I bought our gun we walked into the Abington Gun shop. It was 7:40pm. At 8:05pm we walked out of there with a 5-shot .38 special and a box of bullets. We passed all of the necessary background checks, but it astounds me that it took under a half an hour to buy a gun, and all we had to present were our driver's licences and fill out a few forms. The right to bear arms is fine, but the ease of acquiring them -- and the variety which are available -- is alarming.
John Q. Public
2:06 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I, my Dad, and my son, all army veterans, own multiple guns. Some look like military, and some are military. We use to hunt, but lately just target shoot. We reload our ammunition, and enjoy the physics and precision required for extreme accuracy. Judging from the comments here, some would be terrified to see my or my 87YO Dad's gun safe. I don't agree that taking 30 minutes to purchase a firearm endangers anyone, and you will find that gun enthusiasts (not the clown in CO who only had them for 2 months) are among the most peaceable people in your neighborhood.
Marc L.
2:13 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Hunting with military grade weaponry (the kind that "some here would be terrified to see") is like going fishing using hand grenades. Sure, you end up with a bunch of dead fish but where's the skill in that? I have much more appreciation and respect for hunters who use rifles or even crossbows than those who need a gun out of a Rambo movie.
Hale
4:39 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
"...We passed all of the necessary background checks, but it astounds me that it took under a half an hour to buy a gun, and all we had to present were our driver's licences and fill out a few forms...."
And if you had ANY criminal or mental history background on record in PA, the PICS check would have flagged you, the NICS check would have flagged you, you would have been immediately denied the transfer, and the gun shop dealer would have contacted the police.
You're a law abiding Citizen. There's no reason it SHOULD be any more difficult for you. Don't help the other side try to take away a right that Americans have died for.
"...Common sense says that owning a gun should not be banned, but that certain kinds of guns and accessories should be..."
Really? Why? Because they're scary? Part of living in a free society, brother. Deal with it. AR15s aren't "machine guns" and they're not "Assault Weapons". They're not full auto. Full Auto weapons are NFA Class II weapons, (LEGAL in 43 states), heavily controlled and regulated and expensive.
And it's not a "clip". It's a magazine. And if it holds 100 rounds, so what? You don't want to own one, that's fine. Don't. But others - millions of others - do.
Ann Hankins
8:09 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Marc, you are somewhat confused when you parallel mil spec weapons with the TV/Movie weapons you see on Rambo. No one is walking thru the woods with an M60.
Marc L.
8:21 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
No, but gun enthusiasts argue that banning a gun such as the AR-15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15) hinders their enjoyment of hunting. Who needs a semi-automatice "machine gun" to go hunting? And why would that person need a clip that can hold 100 rounds to go hunting? That's my point.
Ann Hankins
8:13 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Oh, and crossbows were up until recently, illegal to use for hunting, they have incredible accuracy, distance and are quite silent
Ann Hankins
9:10 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides). However a higher percentage are used in police homicides, roughly ten percent. (There has been no consistent trend in this rate from 1978 through 1996.) Between 1992 and 1996 less than 4% of mass murders, committed with guns, involved assault weapons. (Our deadliest mass murders have either involved arson or bombs.)There are close to 4 million assault weapons in the U.S., which amounts to roughly 1.7% of the total gun stock.Military-style semi-automatic firearms (so-called assault weapons) do not differ materially from non-military style semi-automatic firearms (one bullet is fired for each pull of the trigger) and are no more powerful than other semi-automatic weapons. Further, a bullet fired from a semi-automatic weapon is no more powerful than one of the same caliber fired from a corresponding non-semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun. In fact most assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles. For example, the AR-15 (a semi-automatic version of the U.S. military's rifle, M-16), is a .223 caliber rifle.
Hale
4:47 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
"...In fact most assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles. For example, the AR-15 (a semi-automatic version of the U.S. military's rifle, M-16), is a .223 caliber rifle...."
An AR15 is NOT an "assault weapon". That's a made up term used to scare people who know nothing about firearms. "Assault" is an action, not an item.
If someone hits you with a baseball bat, does it make it an "Assault Bat"? If they hit you multiple times with it, does it make it a "high-capacity Assault Bat?"
An "Assault Rifle" by definition is a select-fire, full auto military rifle (and they're NOT illegal to own - you just have to go through the proper BATF process for an NFA Class III firearm and have the $$$$ to buy).
AR15s are just modern semi-auto sporting rifles. They're only a big, scary evil gun to folks with an agenda or lack of knowledge.
Incidentally Ann...nice fact rundown and research.
truthsayer
8:58 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
The real issue at hand is as follows. James Holmes and Jarad Loughner should not have had access to firearms. The failure in our system is not being able to identify who is not worthy of gun ownership. Our mental health system has made such identification even more difficult with HIPAA restrictions. So how do we correct this problem?
I would suggest that limiting certain types of firearms or magazines will do little to solve the problem. I would support a system that fully assesses one's ability to carry out the responsibility associated with a Constitutional Right, rather than limit that Right.
Are we incapable of creating a system that looks into one's background and character? Can't we test one's ability to safely operate a firearm, and test their psychological profile as well?
I believe that the current firearms restrictions we live under, are sufficient. We don't need to limit ownership of certain semi-automatic weapons, or restrict the ammunition capacity of weapons. We need to find better ways to keep these weapons out of the hands of maniacs. More thorough background checks, psychological profiles, proficiency testing, a reasonable waiting period on purchases, are not too much to ask of both sides of the issue. But I doubt we will actually do this, because it requires effort and compromise...two things that are fading from American society.
Mike Shortall
9:57 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Probably the sanest idea I've seen yet. But it only deals with the crazies. Now we just have to figure out a way to deal with the arsenals of criminals, and the fact that our own Department of Justice has pushed these weapons across the border to THE most dangerous of criminals!
C. Smith
10:27 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Amen, @truthsayer. That was exactly my point up above. It should not be a simple 30 minute stop at the corner store. By all means, buy all the guns you want. Just prove, at the very least, that a) you are not a criminal anywhere and b) you know how to operate the items safely. I'm all for a higher bar, particularly as the damage potential of the weapon increases. If you are a law-abiding, responsible gun owner, none of that should bother you.
Michael J.
11:21 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
The problem I have with the whole concealed carry permit system is that the applicants don't have to qualify. The least that should be done, is the applicants should have to pass an Act 235 lethal weapons class.
Feodor Tiorlenko
8:08 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
The "crazy" obtained his gun and 6000 rounds of ammo, online legally.
"Hatboro Mike" Shortall prints, though not accurately. He can have his own opinion but not his own facts.
Have you heard "Hatboro Mike" talk about the innocents? No, because he has not taken the time to read about them. Clearly in his view, it is their fault for having chosen to go to the movies that day. Ignorant is as ignorant does.
The automatic weapon that killed the innocents didn't shoot itself, didn't purchase itself and didn't drive itself to the movie theater. The movie theater patrons did not participate in mass suicide.
Lacking intelligence or facts, "Hatboro Mike" Shortall has license to print propaganda. The word has more than four letters so "Hatboro Mike" Shortall doesn't know it.
Mike Shortall
9:06 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
Wow ... Very impressive ... And using all your adult words too!
Uh .. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see where anything I wrote was "not accurate", aside from not agreeing with you. Care to share, Feodor?
Was I wrong when I said that weapons you want to take away from law-bigin, responsible gun owners should FIRST be made inaccessible to criminals and crazies?
Was I incorrect about Democrat leaders like Diane Feinstein stating that gun control was an important issue, just not "during an election year? Or that President Obama failed to make any progress AT ALL on gun control issues he touted during the 2008 election? Maybe I misstated the fact that The President signed a bill that allowed the Assault Weapon ban to expire?
Was I wrong when I stated that even the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has a habit of distributing the most dangerous weapons to the Most Dangerous Criminals on the North American continent?
Or maybe it was the "fact" that the tired old "well organized militia" argument makes no sense when those same Founding Fathers oversaw the settlement of the entire country at the point of guns held by private citizens who never stepped foot into nor were required to serve in any sort of militia organization?
Please enlighten me as to the errors of my way! And keep up the great work on maturing your commentary!
Hale
4:54 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
"...The automatic weapon that killed the innocents..."
You're not entitled to YOUR own facts either. It wasn't an "automatic weapon", and what he used to do the most damage was an ordinary shotgun. His AR15 had jammed.
When you insult people for disagreeing with you, at least be accurate.
Cowboy Bob
10:13 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
The federal government did pass legislation to ban the manufacture and sale of certain "assault weapons" and accessories with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This measure expired in 2004 with its Sunset Provision.
Extensive studies by the both government bodies and pro-2nd Amendment forces found that during that ten-year period found that the ban had no measurable effect on gun crime and violence. This proves, officially, that guns that look scary don't make criminals want to use them.