The Gun Control Debate Is Over

[filkertom]

And your side won.

Comments

[mimiheart.livejournal.com]

Sad, but true.

I don't have a problem with people owning guns. I have a problem with crazy people being able to buy semi-automatic guns without any sort of background check. I'm weird, I know. (I actually remember talking about this with people when the AZ gun laws passed. People said I was overreacting.)

[bryanp.livejournal.com]

All new gun purchases require a background check.

[kengr]

Semi-auto guns are way too demonized. Especially given that the non-semi-auto weapons (revolvers, bolt action rifles, etc) are merely *slower* (and if you are any good, not as much slower as you may think).

And, of course, the way certain folks do their best to make people think that semi-auto weapons are the same as full auto... *sigh*

The problem with most measure that would keep guns out of the hands of "crazy people" is that they are way too prone to abuse.

Either they will be broad enough to deny guns to folks that the people enforcing the rules don't like, or, like the sex offender lists, they'll get more and more inclusive as the years go by.

I think we'd be a lot better off if we instead tried to identify the "crazies" and get them treated. Of course, that'd *also* require things like doing something about the prejudices against the "different".

[bryanp.livejournal.com]

It's never truly over for either side, but yes, the pro-2nd Amendment side has made huge gains. And yes, there are always consequences for any action. I've seen free speech get people killed too.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

How and was it the speaker who said something disagreeable and "got him/herself killed"?

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

While I'm a gun rights believer, I don't believe that that right extends to everyone in every situation. We license drivers after they prove themselves capable with a car. Guns should be no different. When I was growing up, we had a gun safety course in High School -- the few joys of being in the middle of nowhere. Course certain people had that eliminated. Yeah, we are far safer now without everyone needing to take that safety course.

But as long as nutcakes like Palin think it's okay to talk about shooting opponents, there will be nutcakes who think it's okay to do what the queen bitch tells them to do, either directly or through that super secret radio the dentist implanted in his tooth. Eliminating the guns is impossible. Eliminating the idiots is impossible. The only thing possible is the return to civil discourse instead of demonizing everyone who doesn't march in jackboot step with you. Only time will tell if that will happen.

But the one thing I'm most perplexed about is this. One of the biggest arguments FOR open carry and one of the things Heinlein himself said was that an armed society is a polite society. That everyone having a gun would prevent this exact sort of thing, because the mentally ill idiot wouldn't be able to get off more than a round or two before he himself was gunned down by 10 times as many weapons.

In red country, with everybody packing and everyone pooping 9mm ammo, not a single shot was fired in defense of the congresswoman. It is that fact that most perplexes me. Were no others there armed? Were no cops in attendance? Or did everyone just flip out and run like the panicked lemurs that, let's face it, most homo sapiens actually are? So if anything, this is some evidence that truthfully, an armed society is no more polite than an unarmed one -- most people faced with danger run from it instead of turn and snarl at it.

[emiofbrie.livejournal.com]

AZ cities aren't all as red as the rural areas are, which is about true for cities in other red states too. Even in red states, many cities tend to go blue, so it's possible that there may not have been other people packing at the supermarket.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

I haven't really cared for Heinlein's politics or arguments. The idea of "an armed society is a polite society" fails in multiple ways.

1) You don't always hit your target.
It takes lots of training to use a gun properly and more to react properly in a crisis situation. Even then chances are someone is going to miss so the causality count is going to increase as one shooter multiples to ten. And who do you know who to shoot? Person A pulls a gun and fires. Person B pulls his gun and fires back. After that you finally manage to see who's doing the shooting. How do you know who the dangerous one is?

2) He who shoots first wins.
People will be more willing to do preemptive strikes then run if they think the other guy is packing. A burglar would shoot the whole family rather than risk someone getting their gun. If two people are having a vicious debate, one may assume the other guy is going to draw his piece and decide to draw his own piece first in "self defense".

3) Accidents happen.
Guns are dangerous and must be treated with respect. Most "law-abiding gun owners" do that 99% of the time. It's that 1% when they screw up is when we have to worry. Last year I read an article of how a sheriff, someone who is trained in how to use guns, left his weapon alone "for just a second" and his son found it and shot himself. I know story evidence isn't real evidence, but it shows that anyone, no matter how well trained, can mess up with fatal consequences.

I've held a gun before and fired it at a range. The safety conditions were optimal and if everyone managed their guns as well as they did at that range, this nation would be a lot better off. But even then I was intimidated by the power I held. (Plus I was a lousy shot.) So I don't have a gun and for anyone who suggests I'll be a target for a criminal should know I am not squeamish about having my swords, knives, and maces in easy reach (not the "spray in your eyes" mace you see today, the "cave in your skull" mace used by medieval foot soldiers). My home is vertically built and is not a good place for a gun battle.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

One of the biggest arguments FOR open carry and one of the things Heinlein himself said was that an armed society is a polite society.

A Nancybutton that was fairly popular when I got into fandom was "An armed society is a polite society. Ask any Lebanese."

(I do support the right to bear arms, by the way, but firearms are TOOLS. There are things they can do and things they can't.)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

If an armed society were a polite society, Iraq and Afghanistan would be very polite indeed, and Britain and Canada would be hellholes.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Or they turn an ordinary confrontation deadly.

The most problematic gun consequences I'm aware of didn't even involve nutcases. It was mundane. Two guys in their 20s, at least one of them intoxicated, had a fender bender, and instead of yelling or fistfighting or whatever, they both came out shooting. One died, the other went to prison. Stupid, stupid waste.

[theturbonerd.livejournal.com]

If I had seen that comic yesterday morning, I would have mildly scoffed at the premise that a conservative would accuse liberals of using the "incident" as an excuse to ramp up gun control rhetoric.

I would have been wrong.

Yesterday afternoon I overheard a conversation in my office break room where one individual told another something to the effect "those liberals are just going to use this situation to try to take away our gun rights".

Sigh.

All in the Family quote

[davidkingsley.livejournal.com]

Gloria: Did you know that 65% of the people murdered in this country were killed by handguns?

Archie: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?

Re: All in the Family quote

[kengr]

Worst school massacre in US history didn't involve guns. The perp blew up the school.

[kshandra]

...if you need me, I'll be in the corner, wishing more people thought it was possible to believe in gun rights and gun control simultaneously....

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

I think that if we have training requirements to drive a car, training should be required to have a gun. Trouble is, people reading the 2nd ammendment a certain way see that any regulation over gun ownership is unconstitutional. Me, I think a simple solution is easily at hand.

Have the police deputize volunteers who take gun training and get certified on the range once a year. They can have the gun out in plain view ANYWHERE, regardless of "no guns" desires of the property owners as they are deputized agents of the law. You have just multiplied the number of peace officers on the street by 10x for next to nothing. And if the gun is drawn, the alarm on the holster goes off and only a uniformed cop has the key to shut it off. So the Rambo bunch wanting to show their virtual balls won't be allowed to do it for long -- if you don't have a good explanation for drawing your deadly weapon, it gets confiscated and your deputization pulled.

Tada. Safe, cheap, easily managed public protection. And all for pennies.

[hanabishirecca.livejournal.com]

Gun Control debates piss me off.

There is some seriously messed up logic on both sides of the aisle and, well this comic goes ahead and hands another example. The idea that if we are allowed to own guns, we must live in a world where massacres will happen repeatedly is false. And I'd rather not spend too much time on this particular nugget, because this is where a lot of the hang-up occurs because we cannot envision a world where it is possible to both have guns and not have gun violence. And the reason for this brings the real blame right back to the same people that are so fearful that these incidents will cost them there guns.

Most violent attacks are caused by either someone who has some form of mental illness or from people in economic hardship. These two areas are areas that conservatives continually try and gut the aid for. They think that these individuals are leaches on the system and should be able to take care of themselves. And if we were actually helping these individuals, instead of pushing them further down, events like this massacre would, well I would optimistically like to believe, end.

And really, what people need to do is push this into conservative's face every time they bring it up. Because I don't know about you, but I can't think of the last time there was a massacre involving a well off, drug free, mentally stable, individual with access to health care.

[kengr]

Plus, getting rid of guns just changes *how* the nut cases will kill people.

Yes, *some* will kill fewer because that have to use a knife or a machete or something.

Others will kill *more* because they use bombs or the like. Gun control wouldn't have stopped Timothy McVeigh.

As for criminals using guns, consider that in the 1950s, NYC had likely the strictest gun control laws anywhere. They also had teen gangs *making* zip guns to shoot each other.

To put it bluntly, you *can't* prevent shootings by "eliminating" guns or hand guns. You can somewhat reduce the numbers. But if folks want them badly enough they'll either smuggle them in (like any other banned item for which there is a demand) or *make* them.

The real solution is the one that nobody wants to try because it is "too hard" (and to be workable, would also require giving up a number of cherished attitudes).

Namely, teaching kids and adults that violence is not the answer.Note, not that violence is *never* justified as that is just as crazy as the "beat up folks who offend you" mindset.

But tolerance, and not initiating violence are things to aspire to.

[invader-tak-1.livejournal.com]

I, and at least one other person I know are alive because I am armed and trained. I have drawn a weapon to prevent a murder more than once. Twice my own and once a tenant in my old building. This is not just armchair theorizing to me. I have also stopped three muggings. I have thankfully never had to fire a shot.

I, to use the phrase "I will be disarmed when they pry it from my cold dead fingers" and I consider myself a Democrat, albeit a rather conservative one. And like it or not WE are the people Obama needs to swing if he wants re-election.

When I lived in Arizona in the 80's they had carry but not CONCEALED carry. Why this has changed baffles me. I would far rather have open carry from a security standpoint, it is simply easier. But in Minnesota that means endless police calls if you so much as go and order a cup of coffee.

Honest gun owners are not criminals, and the left using us as political punching bags for years did NOT work. in fact its cost them a LOT of elections. As our cities deteriorate, telling people the police will defend them is a sick joke. In my neighborhood, where police response time is measured in HOURS, telling people they cannot defend themselves is insulting. Its a death sentence to the poor and disabled, plain and simple.

My local POLICE have told me not to depend on the police. I'm serious.

My neighborhood is a mess of drug dealers, winos, and violent street trash. "I" am in the single most murdered minority in the US. And the police don't give a tiny damn about us. Taking away my ability to keep myself safe is just saying I have the right to die so you can feel good about your politics. I am an Atheist, I value the life I have and the life of the people I care for, having people tell my my life is cheaper than their political polemic is infuriating.

When I get concealed carry questions from Lesbian couples I know the "you can't have that" you will put someone's eye out" mentality is over. And Good riddance. Maybe we can finally overturn the cannabis laws too.

Britain has some of the toughest gun laws there are and guess whats on the rise? Gun Crime. If you think gun bans effect anybody but honest people you are fooling yourselves. Criminals and crazy people don't care whats banned. And when I park my car in the piss smelling wino inhabited barn of a garage my disability building's parking is, I am thankful every day I have a choice whether to defend myself or be fed to the predators my building full of mostly wheelchair bound people attracts.

Last words on this. If you don't understand why people want to stay armed, you are not poor enough yet. Its funny, thanks to our zoning laws you have to go out to affluent suburbs to buy guns, yet the same affluent suburbs are where the gun control people seem to live.

[kengr]

Far too many of the pro-gun control types don't want guns actually banned. They just want to restrict them to the "right" sort of people.

The classic case was one of the best known anti-gunners in DC getting in trouble when he shot someone who'd broken into his home. Using an unregistered gun.

And he's far from the only instance of that happening.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

"Arms control without legs control? It'll never work!" - I forget who.

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

LOL! Thanks, I needed that!

[bayushisan.livejournal.com]

Personally I dislike guns immensely, though I do support people's right to own them for self and home defense as well as hunting and the like.

There will always be the problem of someone buying a gun illegally but there should be safeguards in place to try and keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

Honestly I just don't know what the solution is but we need to do something.

[kengr]

The problem is that it has over and over again been shown that it's *far* too easy to decide that someone or someones "inconvenient" is "mentally unstable".

For that matter, we can't keep cars out of the hands of people who shouldn't be driving. And that results in a lot more deaths.

[batyatoon]

My side? But ... but I don't have a side.

[fredhuggins.livejournal.com]

Y'know, gun control advocates can mock "gun nuts," and gun enthusiasts can rant about "Commies tryin' to take my guns away" until the cows come home, but the truth that both sides must face eventually is that both sides (the reasonable people on both sides, anyway) are borne out of the EXACT SAME FEAR. Fear of disaster happening if the playing field is not evened. It's either "They have guns, so I should have a gun!" or it's "I don't have a gun, so THEY shouldn't have guns!"

I envy the UK in this regard. Guns never infiltrated mass UK culture in the first place, so they never had to deal with this bullshit. But it's too late for the US. Not only are we addicted, our enabler is Constitutional.

[violinsontv.livejournal.com]

Can we just clarify one thing, namely that neither gun ownership or the lack thereof is no indicator as to how someone is going to respond in an emergency?

IIRC, neither of the two civilians cited for bravery on the scene were carrying at the time. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I maintain my point regardless.

[violinsontv.livejournal.com]

edit: neither gun ownership or the lack thereof *are* indicators... (vershlugginer grammar...)

[violinsontv.livejournal.com]

edit: *nor* the lack thereof....(ditto! ratzenfratzen....)

[antinomic.livejournal.com]

Don't forget that guns can be purchased from an individual with no paperwork at all. So if the crazy is sane enough to go to a gun show or check the 'for sale' ads, he can buy what he wants. Ammo he gets at Walmart, no checks.

Our government is already too intrusive. I don't want to give them any more power. No matter what power they have or get, a crazy can still be destructive. Sadly, these incidents will always be a possibility in a free society.

[ka-klick.livejournal.com]

Guns don't kill people...
Bullets kill people.

Buy any damned gun you want, but make ammo be registered and tagged w/ RFID / tagents.

That comic is pretty spot on about the way this shook out in the press though.