No, the Supreme Court cleared it up. Its an individual right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

12/17/2012 3:56:00 PM

As much as I love that ruling, I find it scary that we place so much trust and faith in a panel of biased, bought-and-paid for, non-elected politicians.

Constitutional and civil rights shouldn't be up to the whim of this panel. These rights aren't up for debate. For over 200 years, the second amendment, for the most part, wasn't a basis of confusion; it wasn't up for debate. It was understood to protect the right of the people. So how, some 200 years later, is this panel any more educated on the subject, than those who wrote it?

And yes, I believe this also applies to congress and to many other issues (NC A1 most recently).

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2012 4:01:24 PM

The interpretation of the constitution being up for debate is precisely why we have the supreme court, its how our government was designed

12/17/2012 4:03:33 PM

Yes, but the courts have been given too much power and are too compromised to be hearing such arguments. The courts have a purpose in interpreting the constitution as it relates to matters of today and how the Constitution relates to them. What the court should not be deciding on is the basic meaning of these rights as they were written and understood for hundreds of years. The concept of protecting an individual right is not a new concept. It's been a concept since the Constitution was written. It has only now been brought to the courts to either gut the constitution or to fight off attempts to gut it.

A proper argument for this court, as it relates to firepower and constitutional applicability would be, does the second amendment, under its original intent (allowing the people to possess the same tools as its government in order to fight off tyranny), apply to tanks, warships, nuclear bombs, missiles, grenades, etc.

The courts, 200 years later, shouldn't be changing the intent and meaning of the actual constitution. It should be deciding how new issues are impacted by the constitution.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 4:12 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2012 4:07:12 PM

well, i mean, you're wrong

but it doesn't really matter for this issue, you should probably make a thread about the purpose of the court and maybe even the idea of jurisprudence at large

12/17/2012 4:12:07 PM

Guns are not the root cause of the problem; we have much more complicated issues of America's treatment of mental health problems that are at the core of mass shootings. That's why I think we see the paradox of an overall drop in violent crime but an increase in mass shootings.

That being said, the ready availability of certain types of firearms and firearm accessories in the United States, in particular high capacity magazines paired with semi-automatic handguns and rifles, does have a significant multiplier effect in the number of death from these sorts of violent incidents. They make it easier to kill a large number of people in a short period of time with little difficulty in acquiring the means.

Yes, if a crazy person wants to kill people he is going to find a way to kill people with or without gun control, but there's no reason to make it easy for him or her. Killing 26 people with a knife, car or even a revolver, bolt action or low capacity shotgun is much harder. More exotic means like car bombs and what not are more difficult as that would have double coverage from terrorism tracking.

Gun control will not stop the determined from hurting others, but it will mitigate how many people they can potentially kill especially since trying to fix the root cause is going to require work of generations to do.

I speak this as an owner of multiple semi-automatic handguns. I enjoy target shooting and some clay, but I can also see that we are WAY too loose with how easily accessible firearms are.

Good article on the Australian example:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

12/17/2012 4:27:46 PM

australia is nothing but an example of how gun control will not reduce the homicide rate

that article pretty much says it's better for people to get killed one at a time instead of in groups of 4 or more

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 4:31 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/17/2012 4:30:46 PM

Quote :

"that article pretty much says it's better for people to get killed one at a time instead of in groups of 4 or more"

It is. I'm not sure why you're arguing this point. Would 1-6 dead children have been worse than 20?

12/17/2012 4:52:22 PM

Clearly did not read the Harvard public health study I posted

mass shootings almost stopped entirely, and it greatly reduced firearm homicides and firearm suicides. and the reductions were proportional to how many firearms were bought back in each state.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 5:20 PM. Reason : b]

12/17/2012 5:17:05 PM

overall homicide rates continued on a decline that was established many years before the buyback

doesn't matter how someone is murdered

12/17/2012 5:26:18 PM

Firearm homicides matter when discussing gun control, it's an effective program.

In the same way that anti gun people need to understand guns, gun advocates need to recognize and ad,it that fewer guns mean fewer gun deaths.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 5:49 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2012 5:48:00 PM

don't play dumb

12/17/2012 5:48:30 PM

^

12/17/2012 5:49:39 PM

if the overall homicide rate continues on whatever trend it was on previously

and the firearm homicide rate drops

then folks are just killing folks by other means

12/17/2012 5:55:01 PM

Quote :

"gun advocates need to recognize and ad,it that fewer guns mean fewer gun deaths."

Generally it does, but that doesn't mean a thing of the overall homicide rate doesn't change. It's not more preferable for people to be dying from stabs or bludgeoning than by gunshot. Saying that lowering firearms accessibility lowered firearm deaths and using that to extrapolate whether gun control is improving your safety is like saying that moving from Canada to Mexico reduced your rate of moose accidents and then using that to extrapolate how your move improved your safety.

12/17/2012 5:56:34 PM

Yes, it is preferable for people to die in less efficient way

No, the overall homicide rate is not staying the same

12/17/2012 5:57:47 PM

dead is dead

12/17/2012 6:12:35 PM

sitting here watching the news...

if Lanza's mother had've just secured her guns. everyone knew he was off his rocker.

and

12/17/2012 6:39:23 PM

And fewer guns equals fewer total homicides

12/17/2012 6:45:32 PM

Quote :

"if Lanza's mother had've just secured her guns. everyone knew he was off his rocker. "

Why would she have done that?

She seems like she was probably a gun nut, and likely didn't wouldn't have believed in securing her guns from her own son.

The other puzzling thing about this is that the family seemed to be fairly well off, she was getting almost $13,000/month in alimony, and wasn't working. Her only job in life was to raise a decent human being for a son, and she seemed to fail miserably at that.

12/17/2012 7:45:47 PM

^Most "gun nuts" have gun safes. I have one, keeps them secure from everyone.

12/17/2012 7:52:16 PM

I know this is a "gun control" thread, but here's an interesting story with some details about the kid and family that i didn't know (I cannot watch the MSM on this, the coverage of this is extremely irritating to me)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9750422/Connecticut-school-shooting-Adam-Lanza-was-assigned-psychologist.html

(i know, i know, don't give him any attention)

12/17/2012 7:57:46 PM

^^ yeah but if you had a child that lived with you that you taught to shoot from a young age, wouldn't he have access to the safe?


[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 8:22 PM. Reason : ]

12/17/2012 8:22:27 PM

^uh, probably no? especially not a kid with issues. and i haven't read that she taught him to shoot at a young age. i thought that her "prepping" was a fairly recent thing?

12/17/2012 8:28:22 PM

Quote :

"yeah but if you had a child that lived with you that you taught to shoot from a young age, wouldn't he have access to the safe?"

not unless you told him the combination, which would be absolutely retarded of this woman. if his mother hadn't been killed, she would be getting reamed by the media. they should be reaming her dumbass now.

12/17/2012 8:59:19 PM

^^^Heck and double heck no. I have no problem on teaching children to shoot ( thats how I learned )...however until they are 18 they would not have access to any safe or guns in the house.

Its a rule that most responsible gun owners abide by.

12/17/2012 9:13:44 PM

That hasn't been my experience. All my friends in HS whose families owned guns knew the code to the gun safe, or otherwise had access to their parents' guns (or had guns of their own). I'd be surprised if this wasn't the norm for high-school aged kids in gun families.

The mantra from gun owners to this point has been if you teach kids responsible gun ownership from a young age, things like this won't happen. I think there's a good argument to be made at this point that we can't rely primarily on this.

12/17/2012 9:48:32 PM

PSAs that make people understand the need to secure their guns and recognize mental illness could work if we got serious about it. Like ads during the Super Bowl stuff. That would be something we could try without taking everyone's guns.

But if that doesn't work then we have to severely limit the number of guns by making the barrier to get one high enough that only the hardcore would submit themselves to get one. Something similar to a Top Secret SCI federal clearance where the FBI hooks you up to a lie detector and interviews your neighbors.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 9:58 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2012 9:57:51 PM

Quote :

"The mantra from gun owners to this point has been if you teach kids responsible gun ownership from a young age, things like this won't happen. I think there's a good argument to be made at this point that we can't rely primarily on this."

it should be handled on a case-by-case basis. some 16 year olds can handle it. mentally ill folks like Lanza obviously can't. his dumbass mother could've prevented this very easily.

Quote :

"But if that doesn't work then we have to severely limit the number of guns by making the barrier to get one high enough that only the hardcore would submit themselves to get one. Something similar to a Top Secret SCI federal where the FBI hooks you up to a lie detector and interviews your neighbors."

SCOTUS says we have an individual right to defend ourselves. when you intentionally make it unreasonably difficult for citizens to defend themselves, then you infringe on that right.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 10:01 PM. Reason : try again]

12/17/2012 9:58:12 PM

Yeah I agree.

Why though would a wealthy family who are presumably well educated, and have clear an easy access to any health resource they could want let this happen?

Does it just boil down to the mother being an idiot? Was she cavalier about access to the guns or did the kid break in somehow? Why didn't the father step in? Or the older brother?

And would any mother have the right state of mind to believe their own child isn't responsible enough to share one of their passions?

12/17/2012 10:08:26 PM

the family is obviously pretty fucked up

12/17/2012 10:10:12 PM

Yeah but is that it? Should we just accept that is how things are?

It doesn't seem like the correct response considering the apparent uptick in these things recently.

12/17/2012 10:24:15 PM

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/12/guns-in-america-statistics/60071/

With regard to the declining murder rate:

Quote :

"47 percent increase: The change in the number of people wounded seriously enough by gunshots to require a hospital stay from 2001 to 2011. In 2001, 20,844 people suffered gunshot wounds that serious. In 2011, it was 30,759, The Wall Street Journal reports. But the murder rate is going down? Why is that? Because hospitals have gotten better at treating traumatic wounds."

Also interesting: the number of people owning guns is decreasing, but the number of guns those people own is increasing.

12/17/2012 10:26:59 PM

Quote :

"SCOTUS says we have an individual right [to use guns] to defend ourselves"

Which is unfortunate. So the only hope we have is for the dumbasses in fucked up families who also possess firearms to absorb some gun safety and mental illness recognition information. More than what they are taught now because it obviously isn't enough.

12/17/2012 10:30:03 PM

So we should stigmatize gun usage, and stop stigmatizing mental health treatment?

12/17/2012 10:39:54 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/health/a-misguided-focus-on-mental-illness-in-gun-control-debate.html?_r=1&

I want to see everyone's opinion of this-

12/17/2012 10:42:34 PM

if the idiots clamoring for meaningless legislation like an AWB would spend their time and money on firearms safety and mental health education, they might actually save some lives.

12/17/2012 10:44:24 PM

^^^ That would definitely help. It would be great to just stigmatize irresponsible gun ownership instead of gun usage in general, but that may be too fine of a distinction for most people to latch onto. So whatever works.

^^ 35,000 people in the US kill themselves every year, mostly by shooting themselves. Investing in mental illness treatment and keeping them away from guns would not be a fruitless endeavor.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 10:55 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2012 10:44:48 PM

^ i get the feeling though if you told that women her obsession with guns was nutty and unhealthy, it would just make her more obsessed.

Some people view gun as a cultural thing, not a tool.

12/17/2012 10:57:03 PM

Quote :

"Investing in mental illness treatment and keeping them away from guns would not be a fruitless endeavor."

the "keeping them away from guns" part was fruitless for australia. after the buyback, firearm suicides dropped, but suicide rates continued to increase.

people who want to kill themselves will find another way if they do not have a gun.

12/17/2012 11:00:02 PM

^^ We told smokers the same thing. No one smokes anymore. She may have been a lost cause but there are many who wouldn't be.

^ My one minute of googling produced conflicting data stating that suicides did drop. Regardless I would have disagreed with your assumption. People contemplating suicide would be more apt to do it with an easy way to accomplish it readily accessible.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 11:09 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2012 11:00:40 PM

^^^^^^
Seems like they fundamentally are blaming bullying.

Aren't certain types of conservatives notorious for attacking anti-bullying polices? Telling people to just suck it up etc.?

What changes could we make that would cause systemic changes in our society to the point where people are more accepting of each other in schools?

12/17/2012 11:03:07 PM

^^^ and total and firearm homicides dropped proportionally to how many guns were bought back in each state. It was not a waste, it was very successful, you're being purposefully obtuse.

12/17/2012 11:10:07 PM

there's just as many studies saying it didn't work as those saying it did. both sides are pencil-whipping the hell out of it.

12/17/2012 11:27:55 PM

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership-statistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/

Quote :

"...However, gun ownership rates are inversely correlated with educational attainment..."

12/18/2012 1:17:47 AM

OopsPowSrprs, you source a liberal journal to support your argument on if gun control worked in Australia? Really?

Let's look at history. Gun control worked really well in Germany, specifically the 1938 German Weapons Act. Yeah that worked out REAL well in the end.

If you want gun control, you need EDUCATION; to teach people the responsibilites that come with firearms and start at an early age.

Take Norway and Netherlands for example. They both require PROPER training and demonstration of vehicle control before they give you a license. It's not just a "3-point turn" and "obey the signs" and you get a permit like in the U.S. Because of this training, more people respect the automobile and demonstrate proper use. Accidents are far less often and severe in these countries because drivers benefit from the training programs and higher discipline/proficiency when handling an automobile.

The same can be applied to firearms. Educate people PROPERLY on firearm control and responsibilities. This benefits the populus as a whole. Saying, "This is dangerous. We'll just remove it from the equation altogether and leave honest firearm owners to suffer at the will of criminals." You can't just remove a part of the problem and solve it entirely. Proper education is ALWAYS the solution.

Heck. Motorcycle fatalities were on the rise in England. A Bike Safe program was established to educated and help motorcyclists identify areas of weakness so that they could learn to become become riders. As a result of this, motorcycle fatalities decreased. Seeing the same problem in the U.S., the same program was brought over and results speak for themselves.

Having proper training is what will save lives. And not bull shit programs like "no child left behind." You can't just hand out half-assed training or give "A for effort passes." High standards are what make environments safe and society a positive environment.


[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 6:00 AM. Reason : /]

12/18/2012 5:41:25 AM

Let me ask you pro gun control people this. When confronted with a deadly force, how to you respond to end it? How do you end a deadly threat/attack? The only way to end a deadly attack/threat is to fight back with an equal or overwhelming force. Thinking otherwise is naive or overly optimistic.


http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html



[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 6:26 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2012 6:22:27 AM

Quote :

" And fewer guns equals fewer total homicides "

This is provably false. Check the statistics quoted further up thread.

12/18/2012 7:10:47 AM

^^^ I cited the article only because it stated that there was a drop in suicide rates, which conflicted with the information posted above that. Since its the Washington Post, I tend to believe they sourced that data from somewhere reputable and didn't completely pull it out of their ass. I didn't conclude on if gun control in Australia worked or not because 1) I don't know enough about it and 2) that's Australia and this is America and we have entirely different cultures when it comes to guns and gun violence.

I agree that we need to educate people. See above. That should be one remedy in a variety of solutions we could explore.

12/18/2012 7:33:08 AM

^^provably true

12/18/2012 8:14:03 AM