Dear Connecticut...

[drbassman]

I don't think so. There's a large contingent of young ex-military people who are against gun law changes regardless of political party. And I don't think for a minute that being in a minority group makes one more receptive to a change in gun laws. I just saw a poll that claimed to show the majority of Americans have a favorable opinion of the NRA. It's not just the GOP's base.

Reinstating the expired assault weapons ban will be a brutal fight. If the administration tries to do more, IMHO it would be disastrous for the Democratic party.

Seems there's lot of stereotypes to pass around.  I'm an old white guy and I'm not a republican!  If minorities actually knew/understood the history of the Democratic party and how it's only changed in the last 4 -5 decades, they run away from it as fast as they could.  The use of media in redefining the Democratic party from the party of Jim Crow and voting against the Civil Rights laws of the 60's, to champions of minorities (and their issues) is an colossal example of the media creating artificial perceptions and arbitrary values.  It's been the most successful PR campaign, without underlying substance, in the history of our country.

[gweimer]

If I can find it later, I'll post a small discussion on the wording and context of the second amendment.  It starts with the premise of a trained militia, over the individual, and there have been decisions about the distinction of the two over the years. 

As for personal history, I've never owned a gun, and don't intend to do so.  I did want my great-grandfather's .410 shotgun, but that was for a different reason.  I had considered getting a handgun when my kids were little, with the intent of home protection, but I decided that it was a bad idea.  The only useful gun is a loaded gun, and within easy reach.   That means that it would have to be easy accessed by anyone, including my kids.  I saw more harm than good in that scenario.

[uwe]

I've steered clear of this discussion for a number of reasons, but one thing that especially irks me is when comparisons are made between the U.S. and other places, as if the U.S. is one monolithic community with no differences between Rochester, NY, Chicago, IL, Sissonville, WV, and Provo, UT. This is not to downplay the shooting that inspired this thread, but context matters in every discussion regarding violent crime and guns. I think this video provides it in an evenhanded fashion.

But George, that vid is totally pointless as long as he doesn't show that "violent crime" in the US and the UK means one and the same thing and that data is collated in a similar way by authorities both sides of the Atlantic. For all we know from this vid, the Brits might have more drunken fist fights in pubs. That has nothing to do with guns being available or not, but it doesn't make the US more peaceful than the UK.

Decrease of violent crime in the US is no surprise either: It decreases in any mature economy anywhere in the world. Violent crime is archaic and often displaced by other forms of crime: Who needs to hit someone over the head to get his wallet if he can access his victim's bank account with his computer at home? Fraud, online theft  and embezzlement are the crimes of the future in sophisticated economies, not robbery and murder.

Nor is the insight that violent crime houses in pockets especially noteworthy. So it has to do with education and living standards? Gosh!!! And you are more likely to catch a bullet if you live in a crack house or on the border between two rivaling drug gangs or in an abusive household? Such lucid perception!

The murders of the school children in Sandy Hook were not drug- or poverty-driven, they did not take place in a hot spot, they were not caused by domestic violence, in fact they were not a classic crime (that has some kind of motivation behind it which sane people can comprehend) at all, but the act of a madman/disturbed person. Now the question is whether you believe that he could have knifed or handgunned down as many children in as little a time without his mom's legal Bushmaster. Contacts of young Lanza to international arms dealers have so far not been conclusively asserted, rather he did the convenient thing and took mother's little (security and general relaxation) helper. The further question is how difficult do you want to make it for the next guy emulating him and whether Ms Lanza's right to fun and self-defense as well as to playing a little militia on the side justifies the heightened accessability of her weapons to someone on the verge like her son. All this has nothing to do with violent crime rates in the US or anywhere else, but only with your priorities and how far you want to go to make tragedies like this if not impossible then a least more seldom and less severe in the future.

[dadagoboi]

Seems there's lot of stereotypes to pass around.  I'm an old white guy and I'm not a republican!  If minorities actually knew/understood the history of the Democratic party and how it's only changed in the last 4 -5 decades, they run away from it as fast as they could.  The use of media in redefining the Democratic party from the party of Jim Crow and voting against the Civil Rights laws of the 60's, to champions of minorities (and their issues) is an colossal example of the media creating artificial perceptions and arbitrary values.  It's been the most successful PR campaign, without underlying substance, in the history of our country.

I'm an old semi white guy of no party, that doesn't keep me from being aware of who voted how in 2008 and 2012, those numbers are fact.  The Dems did change course in the 60s/70s, in response many Southerners switched party affiliation and the GOP took over the South.  IMO blaming change of view on media bias shows contempt for the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

There's certainly room within the constitution to allow some degree of gun control.  My point is that the American demographic is changing, like it or not, to one that prefers some degree of gun control, at least those most likely to vote Democratic in the future.  That's why it would make sense to heed their base, just as the GOP does theirs. 

[drbassman]

I agree with you Carlo, for the most part.  However, you only need to look at our nation's academic performance compared to other countries and see that we are not nearly as bright nor intelligent.  It's not contempt, it's reality.  I won't say anymore about it since this is supposed to be about gun control!  I got carried away.

[Dave W]

There's no question in my mind that a ban on all semiautomatics would be constitutional, it's just not going to happen politically.

Overall handgun bans have been ruled unconstitutional. There's no point debating whether the language in the 2nd was intended to mean gun ownership only in the context of a militia, since the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. 

[dadagoboi]

I agree with you Carlo, for the most part.  However, you only need to look at our nation's academic performance compared to other countries and see that we are not nearly as bright nor intelligent.  It's not contempt, it's reality.  I won't say anymore about it since this is supposed to be about gun control!  I got carried away.

It's not that other countries have smarter kids, it's that they work harder and have parents with higher expectations for them.  "We're Number One" is heard so often that many believe that's all it takes to stay on top.

[drbassman]

Hard work has its rewards.  We're losing.

[OldManC]

Uwe, there was no Bushmaster involved in the killings at Sandy Hook. The police removed the rifle from the trunk of his car. He used two handguns in his spree and killed himself in the school (so he couldn't have put it back in the trunk).

How are the gun laws in Norway? Did they stop Anders Behring Breivik?

The video I posted had to do (for the purposes of this thread) with what I mentioned, which was my commenting on the idea that America (and Americans as a whole) are more violent than comparable populations elsewhere in the world. They are not. Far more people were killed last year (in America and elsewhere) by any of the following than by "assault rifles" (or any other rifle): Baseball bats, knives, fists, gravity, cars, hammers... Should we ban them, too?

Gun control laws don't do much to stop criminals who are determined to use them (guns). I find it odd and strange that the same people who lament the failure of the drug war by calling for their widespread legalization will, in the same breath, call for more gun control thinking that such laws will stop gun crime and shooting sprees. If laws don't stop drugs from being grown/created, marketed, and consumed, how exactly will they rid the United States of the millions of guns (and ammunition) that already exist in the black market here?

In addition, Americans (for the most part) have the right to own guns for their own protection and for the protection of their families. From the very beginning it was understood that this protection also included the ability to rise up against a tyrannical government*. Those who enshrined that right in our Constitution had recently done exactly that. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting deer or shooting skeet. I understand that the possibility of that actually happening is right around nil, but the threat remains and is a good deterrent to those in government (at any level) who view our Constitution as a deterrent. I'm fully aware that there may come a time when Americans vote to amend that right, though I believe we're screwed if we do. In the meantime, repeated pleas to rid the world of guns will do nothing to stop the next Sandy Hook, nor the ones that follow. That is not to excuse or make light of killing, contrary to glib comments stating otherwise. Believing that wide scale gun bans are not the answer to these tragedies does not make those who feel that way any less humane or loving toward their fellow man.

*I grant that some people believe this right involves organized militias, but theirs is far from the only view. Besides, we all know how the U.S. government feels about anything resembling a militia these days.

[Aussie Mark]

How are the gun laws in Norway? Did they stop Anders Behring Breivik?

The gun laws are strict, but it was obviously a very rare incident.  How many school shootings have there been in the US since Columbine?  31?

Far more people were killed last year (in America and elsewhere) by any of the following than by "assault rifles" (or any other rifle): Baseball bats, knives, fists, gravity, cars, hammers... Should we ban them, too?

When's the last time someone killed 10 or 20 people in 15 minutes with a baseball bat, knife, fists, hammers?  That's the real issue - the ease of fast, mass killing that large magazine firearms (whether handgun or longarm) can create.  I can't remember seeing a news headline along the lines of "crazed killer massacres 27 people with Louisville Slugger".

Gun control laws don't do much to stop criminals who are determined to use them (guns). I find it odd and strange that the same people who lament the failure of the drug war by calling for their widespread legalization will, in the same breath, call for more gun control thinking that such laws will stop gun crime and shooting sprees.

In countries with strict gun control where only the bad guys have guns, as far as I can see it is extremely rare for people who are not members of rival drug gangs or criminals to be shot.  In Australia, the bad guys have guns, but they only ever seem to use those guns on other bad guys.  And, if they use them on the police, the police can shoot back.  There has not been a single mass shooting in Australia since semi-automatic rifles and magazines with a greater capacity of 3 rounds were banned in 1996.  Yes, the drug dealers still shoot each other, but they don't walk into post offices, schools or factories and shoot up innocent people just because they've had a bad day or didn't take their meds.

[drbassman]

I have no problems with banning automatic rifles or magazine with more than 10 rounds.  Maybe 3 rounds is even better, I don't know.  I've never felt the need for large clips and would even be happy with a bolt action.  Very simple, less to break or jam.  But there has to be a compromise somewhere in there.  Fewer rounds in mass killing situations makes sense to me.  The problem also seems to be multiple guns in these instances.

Just because a semi-automatic rifle looks like an assault rifle doesn't make it an assault rifle.  The media and politicians, as usual, manipulate the ignorant among us with the misuse of these terms and pictures of the offending weapons.  According to my understanding, an assault rifle is an automatic weapon with large clips of 30 or more rounds.  Nothing of the sort was involved in recent shootings.  My Ruger 22 is a garden variety rifle, but it is semi-automatic and has 10 round clips.  It just doesn't look like a Bushmaster.  I'm sure the media would label it an assault rifle based on features, if nothing else.

I think George has a lot of valid points.  The entire 2nd. amendent and its ramifications is a uniquely American phenomenon and we'll have to deal with it.  What works in other countries is fair as a comparison, but in the end, the cultures, traditions and laws are still significantly different.  We have to find our solutions, not someone else's.  As Churchill said:  We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.

[nofi]

you can buy 30 round mags for your 10/22.

[drbassman]

you can buy 30 round mags for your 10/22.

Never tried or needed 'em.  It's confusing with the pre-ban, post-ban regs. 

Anyway, after 20 pages of posts, I think we've flogged this topic into a coma.  I'm heading down to the shop and expose my fingers to dangerous machinery.  Peace.

[uwe]

Uwe, there was no Bushmaster involved in the killings at Sandy Hook. The police removed the rifle from the trunk of his car. He used two handguns in his spree and killed himself in the school (so he couldn't have put it back in the trunk).

Huh?

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html

"(CNN) -- Adam Lanza brought three weapons inside Sandy Hook Elementary school on December 14 and left a fourth in his car, police said. Those weapons were a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and two handguns -- a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm.

In the car he left a shotgun, about which police have offered no details. Lanza used one of the handguns to take his own life, although police haven't said whether the gun was the Glock or the Sig Sauer.

In fact many details remain unknown about the weapons Lanza used that day to kill 20 children, his own mother, six other adults and then himself. Here's what is known so far:

Bushmaster AR-15 rifle:

The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance. The rifle is a Bushmaster version of a widely made AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military. The original M-16 patent ran out years ago, and now the AR-15 is manufactured by several gunmakers. Unlike the military version, the AR-15 is a semiautomatic, firing one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. But like the M-16, ammunition is loaded through a magazine. In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.

An AR-15 is usually capable of firing a rate of 45 rounds per minute in semiautomatic mode.

Police didn't offer details about the specific model of the rifle Lanza used. A typical Bushmaster rifle, such as the M4 model, comes with a 30-round magazine but can use magazines of various capacities from five to 40 rounds. An M4 weighs about 6 ½ pounds and retails for about $1,300."

[uwe]

The gun laws are strict, but it was obviously a very rare incident.  How many school shootings have there been in the US since Columbine?  31?

When's the last time someone killed 10 or 20 people in 15 minutes with a baseball bat, knife, fists, hammers?  That's the real issue - the ease of fast, mass killing that large magazine firearms (whether handgun or longarm) can create.  I can't remember seeing a news headline along the lines of "crazed killer massacres 27 people with Louisville Slugger".

In countries with strict gun control where only the bad guys have guns, as far as I can see it is extremely rare for people who are not members of rival drug gangs or criminals to be shot.  In Australia, the bad guys have guns, but they only ever seem to use those guns on other bad guys.  And, if they use them on the police, the police can shoot back.  There has not been a single mass shooting in Australia since semi-automatic rifles and magazines with a greater capacity of 3 rounds were banned in 1996.  Yes, the drug dealers still shoot each other, but they don't walk into post offices, schools or factories and shoot up innocent people just because they've had a bad day or didn't take their meds.

What Mark says, my sentiments exactly.