home

Colo. Sheriffs Oppose Obama's Gun Control Measures

The Colorado Sheriff's Association, which represents Colorado's 62 elected County Sheriffs, has come out swinging against President Obama's executive orders on gun control. The Sheriffs also oppose assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazine bans. Their position paper is here.

The Sheriff's say (and I agree) the tragedies of Sandy Hook and Aurora, Colorado should not be used as a "backdrop" for gun control laws.

CSOC will not waver on our defense of the Constitution, and will stand to preserve every constituent's right to possess a firearm. We believe the Second Amendment is no less important than the other nine Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[More...]

The executive director of the organization says not a single sheriff has expressed disagreement with the position paper. The County Commissioners of El Paso (Colorado Springs) are taking an equally adamant stand against more gun control laws. The County passed a resolution (available here) opposing Obama's executive orders and refuses to put them into effect:

El Paso County's commissioners won't enforce laws — federal or state — that infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms and are prepared to face any financial consequences of not following federal law.

As to why the Sheriffs oppose an assault weapons ban: it's the vague definition of an assault weapon:

What many call "assault weapons" are actually semi-automatic rifles that operate the same as any other rifle in that they fire one bullet for every one time a trigger is pulled. Semi-automatic rifles are not machine guns. They do not spray fire like a machine gun.

The term "assault weapons" often is employed incorrectly to describe an ordinary semiautomatic rifle such as an AR-15, which millions of responsible Americans own without ever harming another person.

The previous federal ban on so-called "assault weapons" was confusing and cosmetic in nature. Guns considered scary such as those with a pistol grip were banned with no regard for actual gun operation.

The Sheriff's suggest a year waiting period before additional gun control measures are considered, to make sure the proposals are the product of reason rather than emotion.

Our sympathies are with the victims in the Aurora theater shooting and at Sandy Hook. However, the Sheriffs do not believe this is the appropriate time to introduce gun control legislation because decisions likely will be made on emotion rather than reason and that is not in the best interest of Colorado. It is the Sheriffs' opinion that all gun control bills be tabled for at least a year to encourage rational deliberations before any decisions are made.

I agree with the Sheriffs. And as I've stated a dozen times here over the years, laws should not be enacted in response to singular tragedies, no matter how horrific. Cooler heads are needed. Whether it's the Patriot Act or gun control, there's no need to curtail our constitutional rights by passing laws that are unlikely to make us safer, just curtail our freedoms. Act in haste, repent at leisure.

Also, gun regulation and legislation should be up to the states. What East and West Coast city dwellers and politicians like Mayor Bloomberg want for their high density, over-populated states may not be necessary or desirable to those of us in other states, particularly western states like Colorado, Wyoming, Montana. "One-size- fits- all" laws are rarely the answer.

< Rep. Issa Writes Letter to DOJ on Aaron Swartz | Wednesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • all gun controls are political in nature. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 09:11:00 PM EST
    always have been, always will be. the USSC has previously opined on the issue, hence civilians (with rare exception) aren't allowed to own fully automatic weapons, and other military grade hardware. this, coming on the heels of 1930's era prohibition-era gangsters. this may well be the next politically viable era, for judicially sanctioned gun controls.

    there is no legitimate reason for civilians to own semi-automatic weapons, which can, fairly easily, be converted to fully automatic. they have no use in hunting, because they're illegal in pretty much all states, for that purpose. if you want a weapon for home protection, you'd be better off with a 12g, pump shotgun, with 0-0 buckshot. really good aim isn't necessary.

    it's nice they have an opinion, as do we all. unfortunately for them, and you, you both happen to be on the wrong side of history.

    Some points (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Cylinder on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 04:45:50 AM EST
    there is no legitimate reason for civilians to own semi-automatic weapons, which can, fairly easily, be converted to fully automatic.

    Semi-autos are not easily converted to full auto. They lack a second, auto sear (the device that restrains the hammer while the bolt cycles forward)that itself is restriced by the NFA. If you are caught with an auto sear without a legitimate serial number, you spend time in federal prison. You also have to modify the disconnector and trigger group (though an auto trigger group for an AR-15 is actually legal to own and easily purchased). Also, any firearm, regardless of type, that is "readily modified" for automatic fire is defined by the NFA as a machine gun. To take an off-the-shelf AR-15 and modify it takes precision equiment and a ton of machining experience and is illegal as h-e-double hockey sticks. Methods such as altering the disconnect spring are mainly keyboard gunsmithing - you're more likely to engineer an expensive pipe bomb than a full-auto. This is also very illegal and will result in prison time.  

    Bump fire and slide stocks are gimmicks, like fanning or slap-firing the old single action revolver. BATFE may well reverse its decision on the slide stock but either way it's a non-factor in firearm crime.

    ...they have no use in hunting, because they're illegal in pretty much all states, for that purpose.

    I'm only aware of a single state - PA - that has a blanket ban on hunting with semi-autos. Autoloaders are probably the most common sporting firearm. [Firearm/load/capacity restrictions vary by state, zone, designation and time of year so it is the hunter's responsibility to abide by local law] Some states restrict the .223 round because it is perceived as having less lethal results. They may have a point out west where oppurtunties for 200-yard shot abound but here in the rolling timber that's not as much an issue. The determining factor isn't the caliber, IMO, but the hunter's ability to pass on a sloppy shot.

    Parent

    Yeah I gotta wonder (none / 0) (#52)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:59:04 AM EST
    Where those people who think semi-automatic guns are so easily converted to full automatic are coming from, esp given that crimes involving "machine guns" in popular parlance are almost unheard of in the past several decades.

    Thanks for explaining the technical reasons why it might not be so easy, in a way that most people can understand. I can't say for sure you are correct, because I've never researched this question, but clearly common sense should win out. What criminal gang wouldn't want machine guns? And yet basically none of the guns seized in sweeps or involved in crime are full automatic. Clearly it must not be that easy.

    Parent

    I had a 1911 (none / 0) (#56)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:13:12 AM EST
    .

    I once had a 1911 pistol in .45ACP that would "double" from time to time.  That is two shots from one trigger pull.  Scary.  I have seen a few semi-auto pistols go full auto.

    If wear and dirt can do that, it can't be that hard to do on purpose.  

    Parent

    Resolution? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cylinder on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:26:09 AM EST
    Was it the leaf spring or a trigger job?

    I polished the hammer on my daughter's new Remington 597 to lighten the trigger a bit and smooth out the pull being very careful to maintain the geometry on the notch. Even with care, I've probably introduced an uneven wear pattern that, in time, can cause some less-than-optimal results - so I have to remember to replace the hammer at some point.

    Parent

    Yeah, I agree, (none / 0) (#153)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:25:46 AM EST
    the conversion of "semi" to "full" automatic is pretty much a non-issue, imo. Besides the difficulty, as you articulated, why would you want to? If some monster was intent on mass murder he would be far more "successful" using a semi because the speed a fully automatic gun fires at would almost surely guarantee that most of the shot would be "wasted."

    I guess my point is that there are far more effective measures that can be taken to reduce gun related deaths and I fear that getting diverted with "conversion" debates would just dilute those efforts.


    Parent

    I wonder if I smell a red herring (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by womanwarrior on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 10:05:52 PM EST
    When Philadelphia tried to pass stricter gun regulation to deal with its urban problems, the more conservative legislature promptly stopped it.  The NRA will not allow what it thinks is the camel's nose into the tent.

    Look, instead of saying what we shouldn't do or can't do, can we come up with some suggestions of what might help?  I know there is no perfect solution or "silver bullet" but too damn many kids are being killed.  It is not just Sandy Hook; it is the streets of Chicago and the streets of Philadelphia and lots more places.  It is kids finding guns in their houses and shooting themselves or others.  We do not have gun SAFETY.  I would really like to see gun owners do some constructive thinking that will work, and not stay in the NRA tunnel.  The NRA is for the gun manufacturers to make unlimited money, some of which they donate to the NRA.  They have lost their way on gun SAFETY.  

    the Brady group is in the same tunnel (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:04:13 AM EST
    as the NRA, just on opposite sides. Gun reduction and more gun control laws will not change the reasons these people kill. Address those reasons, and intervene early, when they get their first gun offense. If they can't use guns, they'll find an equally or more destructive device, like setting things on fire and blowing things up. Guns are the means by which they express their rage. That's the issue that should be addressed first. Early interventions, graduated sanctions, accountability and counseling where needed, to name a few.

    Parent
    People kill with guns every day (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:01:15 AM EST
    all over the country. It's not just rage-aholics.

    Parent
    Isn't it too late... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:04:07 AM EST
    Address those reasons, and intervene early, when they get their first gun offense.

    At this point?

    Parent

    Adam Lanza's first firearm offense (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:14:43 AM EST
    was at Shady Hook school. To the best of my knowledge Holmes and others first firearm offense were the mass killings.

    Parent
    What does this mean? (none / 0) (#95)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:07:36 PM EST
    intervene early, when they get their first gun offense.

    react afterwards?

    Parent

    It is a shame that the CO sheriffs (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 10:31:15 PM EST
    did not choose to come out swinging in defense of our 4th Amendment rights.  

    that's why we need to be so vigilant (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:12:55 AM EST
    about protecting our second amendment rights. If we give up on this, and let them restrict it or take it away, what's to prevent them from going after the 4th Amendment next? Once you give the Government power, it rarely gives it back. It sets a terrible precedent.

    Parent
    Where have you been Jeralyn? (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:28:23 AM EST
    They went after our 4th Amendment rights and seriously diminished them through FISA and various other actions in the name of homeland security. Unfortunately, actually losing those rights did not generate the fervor of protecting constitutional rights from those shouting 2nd. Amendment. In fact, many of the same people protesting now either were completely absent from the scene or supported first Bush or Obama in their actions.

    Personally I felt more protected with the absolute right to warrants, habeas corpus and the right not to be put on a "kill list" than the right to own any and all types of weapons.

    Parent

    It seems (none / 0) (#16)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:42:15 AM EST
    to me that Jeralyn has been covering all threats to our rights.

    Parent
    Every day for (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:15:02 AM EST
    10 years here.

    I've also said many times,

    We need to vigilantly preserve all our Constitutional rights, and with the Third Amendment being obsolete, the Second Amendment is only one away from the Fourth.


    Parent
    Most people view 4th adendment violations... (none / 0) (#19)
    by redwolf on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:00:36 AM EST
    as something that only happens to bad people(I.E. criminals) and are generally fine with that.  Most people have no idea how such violations happen to regular everyday people due our popular entertainment and media reports down playing or out right ignoring such violations. Very few people are ever arrested by the police so they simply don't know the truth of how police forces operate these days.

    The types of gun control being pushed are almost entirely aimed at people who are not criminals.  Making me a felon simply because I own a semi-auto firearm is a pretty direct threat to my way of life and my liberty.

    From my reading history only slaves are never allowed to bear arms.  The only governments who disarm their populace either greatly fear rebellion or they want to reduce a portion of the population to little more than slaves. It was necessary for the Nazi and the communists to disarm their target populations before they could enslave and eliminate them.  Armed people can resistant the tyranny of the majority.  Disarmed minorities have to suffer at the hands of their masters whims.  

    Parent

    Thank you for providing proof of (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:06:59 AM EST
    how 2nd. Amendment right advocates view our other constitutional rights.

    You have been very helpful in proving my point.

    BTW, get back to me when only bad people are shot with AR15s and high capacity magazines.

    Parent

    Wrong (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:18:40 AM EST
    From my reading history only slaves are never allowed to bear arms.

    There were many gun control laws that date back to the founding of the country. Depending on the state, various groups of people could not own firearms:  Native Americans, women, Catholics, Jews, and white men who did not own property. So, yes, the whole myth that "everyone" owned a gun and that it was how our country was founded is a complete lie.

    Armed people can resistant the tyranny of the majority.

    Hahahahahaha!

    The fact that you think your "semi-auto firearm" is going to protect you when the big bad government comes a knockin' is truly laughable. Even if there is a whole group of you armed with your "semi-autos", guess what the government has?  Drones, tanks, nukes, aircraft carriers, submarines, chemcial weapons, etc.

    You don't stand a chance.  Unless, of course, you get with a teenaged Patrick Swazye and Charlie Sheen and then you can all yell "Wolverines!"

    Parent

    May not stand a chance. (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:34:59 AM EST
    "You don't stand a chance.  Unless, of course, you get with a teenaged Patrick Swazye and Charlie Sheen and then you can all yell "Wolverines!" "

    But it's still better than being led like lambs to slaughter. Point of reference. Six million Jews in 1930's and 40's Europe.

    I, at least want the opportunity to yell "wolverines" when tyranny comes a-knockin' rather than being dragged out of my house on my knees.

    Parent

    Chuck0 (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:37:56 PM EST
    I think you really ought to read this

    Parent
    And with this (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 12:36:36 AM EST
    But it's still better than being led like lambs to slaughter. Point of reference. Six million Jews in 1930's and 40's Europe.

    you just lost the argument.

    That was quick.

    Parent

    All I can say is the (none / 0) (#32)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:30:19 AM EST
    Vast majority of families owned some type of gun when our country was founded and I hope you are not relying for your research on Arming America, and leave it at that.

    Parent
    Not just "some type" of gun (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:36:57 AM EST
    Muskets - and almost entirely long guns, at that.  Not to mention the fact that there was very little (if any) law enforcement and no standing army at all, which is hardly the case any longer

    You seem to be suggesting that jbindc's "research" is inaccurate.  How so?

    Parent

    Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:37:21 AM EST
    We have had gun control laws all along, as I've stated. I have no idea what Arming America is, so no, my facts are not from there.

    Guns were also expensive, so, no, everyone did not have them.

    But keep the NRA myth alive!


    Parent

    jbindc (2.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:43:32 AM EST
    I think you pulled your "guns were expensive" from Arming America.

     "Household gun ownership in early America was more widespread than today - in a much poorer world".

    http://law.bepress.com/nwwps-lep/art9/

    I have never belonged to the NRA.

    Parent

    Great point. (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:11:46 AM EST
    Our military's
    Drones, tanks, nukes, aircraft carriers, submarines, chemcial weapons, etc.
    have made firearms insignificant. That's why our military has stopped carrying firearms.

    Parent
    whooosh... (none / 0) (#75)
    by sj on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:59:21 AM EST
    Great point. (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:11:46 AM EST

    Our military's
    Drones, tanks, nukes, aircraft carriers, submarines, chemcial weapons, etc.
    have made firearms insignificant. That's why our military has stopped carrying firearms.



    Parent
    clearer for you. Maybe if you reread it a few times you'll be able to understand it.

    Parent
    as if (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by sj on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:40:42 AM EST
    The first time you missed jb's point.  This time you missed my point.

    Misinterpreting someone else's comment is not the same thing as making a point.  So I'm gonna go with...

    whoooosh....

    Parent

    missing it.

    Parent
    oy (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:11:43 PM EST
    What is it with you people who (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:28:36 AM EST
    don't seem to grasp that the proliferation of guns and the casual way in which many of them are used represent a much greater and direct threat, not to my "way of life" but to my life itself?

    Why don't you get that?

    Maybe you feel free because you have weapons, but I don't feel free because you - or anyone else - have them.  

    Parent

    Anne (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:36:27 AM EST
    Because your statement is hysterical fear mongering.

    You are in little danger of your life ending because of a gun.
    Most likely you will die of a disease, usually involving your heart. Jeralyn's published the mortality statistics on here more than once before.

    By the way, here's the local firearms statistics:
    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bal-demographics-of-2012-baltimore-homicides-20 121231,0,4137229.story

    Arson: 1
    Blunt force: 7 (3.6%)
    Handgun: 181 (83.4%)
    Knife/sharp object: 20 (9.2%)
    Shotgun/rifle: 2
    Strangle/suffocation: 2
    Vehicle: 1
    Other: 3

    Gender:
    Male:  196 (90.3%)
    Female:  21 (9.7%)

    Race:
    Asian: 1
    Black:  204 (94.4%)
    Hispanic:  1
    White: 10 (4.6%)

    Age groups:
    Juvenile: 11 (5%)
    Adult:  206 (95%)

    35 and over:  72 (33.2%)
    25-34:  68 (31.3%)
    24 and under: 77 (35.5%)

    Motives:
    Argument:  14
    Arson:  1
    Child abuse:  6
    Dispute over money: 2
    Domestic:  3
    Drugs:  3
    Neighborhood (dispute?): 1
    Retaliation:  3
    Robbery:  10
    Other:  10
    Unknown:  163

    Parent

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:38:16 AM EST
    83% of homicides from guns.

    Thanks for proving Anne's point.

    Parent

    Yes (1.50 / 2) (#42)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:47:07 AM EST
    I "proved" Anne's point:
    Because in a city of roughly 600 thousand people, 180 or so of them were killed by guns, and somewhat around 90 percent of those killed were criminals killing other criminals, and were usually in the young black male demographic.

    I should also point out that even being generous (assuming every rifle or long gun is an assault weapon) the "assault weapons" that most people here are hooting and hollaring about only accounted for 3 deaths.

    Seems if you go by Baltimore, handguns are more deadly.
    Course if you go by common sense, stupid policies like our drug war are far more to blame.


    Parent

    So, by your logic (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:31:58 AM EST
    Because most people don't die in car crashes, we shouldn't have speed limits, or safety regulations, or seat belt laws, because you are more likely to die from heart disease.

    O-kay.

    Parent

    Being murdered is the only problem? (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:52:45 AM EST
    Being robbed, assaulted, shot and injured, etc., etc. aren't?

    If pointing out the risk of being a victim of gun crime is "hysterical fearmongering", why is it that you have repeatedly complained that you can't carry a gun in Baltimore?  You're more likely to die of a heart attack, right?

    Such "fear mongering" ...

    Parent

    I've also repeatedly complained (1.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:02:55 AM EST
    That I can't carry pepper spray, a taser, or legally even purchase the passive protection of a bullet proof vest.

    I've also mentioned several times how I was mugged at gunpoint less than two blocks away from the police station at east Baltimore street, and how I've been randomly assaulted twice.

    It would be nice to be able to legally protect myself when I'm out on the streets of one of the most dangerous cities in the country.

    Parent

    So confusing (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:29:59 AM EST
    When Anne voices concern about being the victim of gun violence, it's just "hysterical fearmongering" - she's more likely to die of heart disease.  When you do it, it's not.

    Go figure.

    Parent

    Lets see if I have this right (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:37:24 PM EST
    Total: At least 31940 people died from gun injuries in 2011.

    If Anne statement is hysterical fear mongering,

    how about the rational used to justify keeping semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines

    I, at least want the opportunity to yell "wolverines" when tyranny comes a-knockin' rather than being dragged out of my house on my knees.

    Or

    Protection against the hordes coming to steal your food.

    Please provide the statistics on how many people tyrants drug out of their homes and killed or how many people were killed by the hordes wanting to steal their food in 2011 to support these so called rational fears.

     

    Parent

    You sound like (none / 0) (#38)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:41:21 AM EST
    a drug warrior.

    Parent
    Wtong. Might want to get your (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:49:36 AM EST
    "hearing" checked.

    There was nothing in my comment that related in any way, shape or form to the drug war, or the criminalization of drugs or the need for more laws.

    But thanks for playing.

    Parent

    "Wrong" not "Wtong." (none / 0) (#45)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:51:03 AM EST
    Guess I need my eyes checked.

    Parent
    Gun control (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 05:28:07 PM EST
    Frontier towns -- places like Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge -- actually had the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation.

    In fact, many of those same cities have far less burdensome gun control today then they did back in the 1800s.

    Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check."

    A check? That's right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you'd check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not. link

    h/t to Zorba

    Parent

    Do rights evolve over time? Or no? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:02:50 AM EST
    So Jerilyn (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:34:09 AM EST
    The Sheriff's say (and I agree) the tragedies of Sandy Hook and Aurora, Colorado should not be used as a "backdrop" for gun control laws.

    are you saying that an identified problem in our society is no reason to pass corrective legislation.

    a small number of people who have (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:06:27 AM EST
    a problem does not mean a constitutional right for the rest of us should be restricted. Address what is causing the rage and/or illness in these people. Restricting rights of law abiding citizens should be a last resort.

    Parent
    It doesn't have to be rage, nor does it (5.00 / 9) (#17)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:46:21 AM EST
    have to be mental illness; sometimes, it's stupidity, it's sheer impulse, it's the over-confidence in one's power that guns confer on some people - and I'm sorry, but there's no way to realistically address those things.  Too bad, because I generally have a low tolerance for stupid, and would sure appreciate a decrease in the number of stupid people I encounter.

    Guns make it too easy for these kinds of people to indulge and give in to their impulses; sure, what's to say these people wouldn't pick up a knife or resort to using their fists, but what's to say that if those were the only choices, it might actually make someone think twice?  If you want to hurt someone with a knife, or your fists, you can't do that from a safe distance - you have to be up-close-and-personal about it, and that means a risk to one's own safety that isn't present when a gun is available to aim from 20 feet away.

    The "small number of people who have a problem" are managing to endanger the lives of the rest of us, and there's something wrong with that and it needs to be fixed.

    You know and I know - we all know - that neither mental health issues nor the many other ills that plague society - poverty, homelessness, lack of education, substance abuse, unemployment - are, in and of themselves, ever going to be addressed in such a way that violent gun deaths will be significantly reduced.  Conservatives who resist efforts at gun control also resist spending even one penny on the kinds of things that might prevent or reduce the violence, so talking about mental health, etc, is just that - talk - and it's going nowhere, as usual.

    Address the plight of the unarmed person, who leaves the safety of his or her home for work, or school or shopping, and has to do so in fear that someone who's having a bad day will decide to solve his or her problem by shooting them.

    And no, the answer isn't for everyone to have a gun.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#49)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:57:05 AM EST
    Address the plight of the unarmed person, who leaves the safety of his or her home for work, or school or shopping, and has to do so in fear that someone who's having a bad day will decide to solve his or her problem by shooting them.

    How about that same person who is afraid to being clocked by a drunk driver.  Or, even better, that same person afraid of being attacked by someone looking for drug money.  

    Parent

    I think the purpose for the (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:08:20 PM EST
    2nd amendment should be understood.

    The 2nd amendment was put in place to preserve existing state governments.  It was not put in place to arm individuals against government, quite the contrary.  

    The first part states the reason: "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

    The second part establishes the means: "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Seventeenth and eighteenth century militias depended heavily on BYO for weapons.

    Since the Militia Act of 1902 the 2nd amendment is an anachronism.  The 2nd amendment was really an anachronism at the end of the Civil War.

    Free speech is not absolute and neither should possessing deadly weapons be absolute.

    You seem to suggest("Restricting rights of law abiding citizens")bearing arms is an absolute.

    Parent

    what constitutional right do you have to (4.50 / 8) (#28)
    by observed on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:06:22 AM EST
    own an AR-15?? If you have that right, why not an anti-aircraft launcher.
    Why not a suitcase nuke?
    NONE of those are arms as defined by the founders.
    If one is allowed, why not all?

    Parent
    Language has meaning (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cylinder on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:33:49 AM EST
    If you have that right, why not an anti-aircraft launcher.
    Why not a suitcase nuke?

    Because they would have counted neither as arms. Through the evolution and adaptation of language, we now use the word firearm where the founders would have used arms. The founders aren't guilty of poor diction in this case.

    You may argue a MANPAD as arms, but you run into two problems - first, it is a specialized device that requires tools and knowledge not common to all soldiers. Second, it is has a mission not common to all soldiers. That is, it wouldn't be effective to have a platoon of soldiers armed only with MANPAD tubes.

    Parent

    Says who? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:46:30 AM EST
    The founding fathers used the word "arms", not the word "firearms".  If they meant only "firearms", they would have used that word.  What evidence is their to suggest that they were discussing only guns?  Moreover, what evidence supports the idea that only weapons "common to all soldiers" or general training and knowledge are covered by the 2A? (BTW - Grenades and RPGs require no specialized training or knowledge).

    Parent
    What was the venacular in (none / 0) (#46)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:51:30 AM EST
    1700s?  What year was the term firearm first used?  

    Parent
    The 1640s-1650 (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:57:40 AM EST
    Are you suggesting "originalism" (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:14:08 AM EST
    should govern our interpretation of the Constitution?  Ala J. Scalia & his views of the "dead" Constitution?

    Parent
    Evidence (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cylinder on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:04:41 AM EST
    The evidence is scattered throughout the musters, the political writings and statutes of the day. Men and arms were generally counted seperately from artillery, cavalry, etc. The unit provided the crew-served weapons and the militia members came equipped with arms.

    The founders were well-aware of RPGs. It wasn't that many years until they even wrote a song about them.

    Parent

    Just making it up (3.67 / 3) (#59)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:20:14 AM EST
    Links?  Case law?

    There is zero evidence to support the claim that the writers of the 2A were limiting the term "arms" to guns.  Under that theory, a ban on knives would be legal, but a ban on machine guns/armor-piercing ammunition would be illegal.  There is also zero evidence to support the notion that the 2A protects weapons that can be operated by a single individual versus a crew.  Otherwise, prohibitions on hand grenades, RPGs and submachine guns would be illegal.

    Silly.

    Parent

    Columbian, Colorado (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by koshembos on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:59:00 AM EST
    The sheriffs have a tin ear for recent history. It's almost as if they support killings. Changes are frequently caused by politics. The sheriffs want human kind to change to support their crooked views. Politics is what people use to organize and achieve social results.

    The whole 2nd amendment cult is bizarre and fits 1776. Most people couldn't defend themselves no matter how powerful the weapon they are holding. Most people face absolutely no danger.

    It seems that the sheriffs were sitting in a movie theater showing a Western.

    I take it you don't live out west (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:10:10 AM EST
    where parents teach their children to use guns responsibly at an early age and get gun training.

    There are 300 million guns in this country. How many homicidal shooters have their been? Not ver many. A person intent on using a gun to commit a crime will steal a gun or buy one on the black market. Gun laws won't stop them. Our penalties for killing and attempted murder are already sky high. People think laws will make them safer. Not from the small group intent on doing this kind of damage.

    Parent

    culture change needed (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Lora on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:12:46 PM EST
    Our numbers for gun deaths are astronomical by comparison with any other civilized country.  This must change.

    Laws are one answer and only a part and not the best answer.

    Our gun control laws do not "take away guns" in a general sense.

    We had 3,000 deaths over 10 years ago from a terrorist attack, and a whole slew of laws infringing on a whole slew of constitutional rights got passed.  Did they make us safer on airplanes?  (Maybe...?) Did they make us safer in general? (Doubtful...?)  Were they worth passing even though many of them are constitutionally challenged?  (Mostly I think not...)

    It seems to me (I'm not a constitutional scholar) that regulating certain weapons that are incredibly much more technologically advanced than were known in the time of our founding fathers does not necessarily infringe on the people's right to bear arms.

    I agree in general that responding to a single tragedy by passing an emotionally based law or set of laws is not appropriate or beneficial.  

    However, this was a particularly horrendous tragedy in a growing set of similar continuing tragedies, where no effective response had been previously given.  It took some emotion to get past the deafening roar of the NRA that guns don't kill people.  (My answer: people kill people -- with guns.)  

    Parent

    Oy (4.00 / 4) (#63)
    by sj on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:03:38 AM EST
    I take it you don't live out west (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:10:10 AM EST

    where parents teach their children to use guns responsibly at an early age and get gun training.

    Because all of us Colorado natives loves us some guns.  

    Speak for yourself and don't even try to speak for all of us who were raised in and/or live "out west".  Because you're not speaking for me on this issue.  

    Parent

    They don't? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:04:37 AM EST
    People think laws will make them safer.


    Parent
    Of course they don't... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:14:52 AM EST
    if anything it is more likely the more laws we have, the less safe we are.

    The law is one of the most dangerous weapons known to mankind, imo.

    Parent

    BS (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:04:07 PM EST
    Yeah, right - I'd be so happy if there were no laws against rape, child abuse, murder. It would be freaking nirvana libertarian paradise. We'd all be so safe and free, la la

    Parent
    Laws against murder... (none / 0) (#152)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:20:10 AM EST
    how's that working out?  Where is the safe nirvana laws against murder have created?

    But of course you know I'm not talking about no laws against rape and murder, two of the few I'd keep around...I'm talking about no new laws that give prosecutors new weapons...surely you can't deny the many victims of the law and their suffering.  

    The law can be a useful tool and/or it can be a dangerous weapon, kinda like a gun now that I think about it.

    Parent

    Hey, they were your words. (none / 0) (#167)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:03:31 PM EST
    I didn't write them.

    Less laws/no laws are best and make us safer.

    = Just the same old libertarian nonsense.

    Parent

    Your words... (none / 0) (#172)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 07:58:27 AM EST
    more laws = better & safer...that's not nonsense?

    I hope the law never criminalizes your hobbies....you'll learn what danger really is.

    Parent

    Since Molly specifically referenced (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 11:15:43 AM EST
    laws against rape, child abuse, and murder, I think your line about hobbies was somewhat out of place.

    Look, we know that in kdog's perfect world, there are no laws, and people just somehow get along, live and let live; it is kdog-topia, I guess.

    But that's not real, it's just not.  People are selfish, they get angry, they want things they don't have, they are damaged in ways that cause them to harm others; dealing with those things without structure is chaos.

    I'm frankly getting a little tired of hearing, "well, it's not going to stop someone who really wants a gun," as a reason not to look at ways to better use and implement the laws we have, and to close the gaps in those laws, even if that means "new" laws.  

    Guns are weapons.  Having the power to kill someone requires great responsibility on the part of those with that power in their hands; the government can only do so much: it can regulate who can and can't buy them, and it can deal with the consequences of what people do with them, but it can't control how people use them and for what purpose.  That's no reason not to do what we can to keep guns out of the hands of those who have proven that they can't handle them safely and legally.

    To my mind, the 2nd Amendment is seriously flawed, and so are the arguments of those who use it to justify a lack of government regulation.


    Parent

    Kinda like the sound of that kdog-topia, (none / 0) (#183)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 11:18:04 AM EST
    sounds like a nice way to live...

    Parent
    Utopia is Atlantis... (none / 0) (#192)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 12:02:57 PM EST
    the question is what kind of f*cked up place you prefer to live in, free & f*cked or controlled & f*cked.

    Or who you are more afraid of...your neighbor or your legislator.  

    Parent

    I'm not exactly sure what hobbies (none / 0) (#173)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 10:19:02 AM EST
    would be criminalized by banning AR15s and high capacity magazines.

    Could people still hunt without them? Could people still shot skeet or shot at targets or compete in shooting competitions?

    Those activities existed prior to the existence of semi-automatic weapons or high capacity magazines. I see no reason why those hobbies would not be able to continue without them now.    

    Parent

    What if your hobby... (none / 0) (#174)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 10:38:54 AM EST
    is shooting an AR15 with a high capacity mag?

    Don't get me wrong, I see no allure to such an activity MO...but isn't that a simply a question of leisure time taste?  I ceratinly don't see why it is societies concern if a responsible gun owner want to go to the gun range and fire off high capacity mags with an AR15.  Weird idea of fun, to be sure...but playing devils advocate because I know what it is like to have your hobby, that harms noboby, criminalized.

    Parent

    The solution is (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 10:46:45 AM EST
    License only certain facilities to have AR-15s, after extreme and thorough background checks, and inspections on a regular bases, where individuals can go and shoot these guns at targets.  Then, the guns are left there, locked up, and separately from the ammunition.  These gun range facilites would have to have extra expensive insurance and could be held liable (civilly and criminally) if their weapons were then used in the commission of a crime.

    There is no reason for an individual to own these types of weapons.

    Parent

    "Basis" not bases (none / 0) (#176)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 10:47:02 AM EST
    If AR15s and high capacity magazines (none / 0) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 10:57:46 AM EST
    harmed no one, we would not be having this conversation.

    There are all kinds of sensible restrictions that are in place because they prevent harm to our fellow citizens. Not all restrictions are bad. There is such a thing as the common good. Not having the equipment to kill a large number of people in a matter of minutes would IMO be in that category.    

    Parent

    If every AR15 and high capacity mag... (none / 0) (#180)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 11:04:32 AM EST
    in America was used to harm somebody we'd have corpses stacked to the heavens, no?  The majority of that garbage out there isn't being used to harm somebody...at least not yet, knock on wood.

    If we could uninvent the damn things I'd say do it...but the cat is out the bag and I don't see how legislation is gonna put the cat back in.  I can see how legislation will create more problems....making criminals out of the responsible gun owners who aren't a problem, creating new bueracracies and systems that cost money at a time when we are supposedly broke and talking about austerity, giving gangsters another way to get rich.

    Parent

    You don't need EVERY ... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 11:40:09 AM EST
    ... AR-15 to be used in a crime before you have a serious problem, and you shouldn't wait until you have a "majority" of them being used by criminals to take action.

    It's all about the magnitude of the risk compared to the benefit of the object.  Fertilizer is extremely useful when used properly, but it's highly regulated (despite the fact that 99%+ is used properly) because of the potential for harm.  I may enjoy shooting machine guns, mortars or RPGs, but the enjoyment of my "hobby" shouldn't override the risks these things present to other whose hobby is staying alive and not worrying about every yahoo with a Rambo complex.

    Parent

    Do you have a magic number on how many people (none / 0) (#186)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 11:34:04 AM EST
    a year need to die or be injured before you think these restrictions would be justified? Does every AR15 and high capacity magazine need to be used to kill or injure innocent people before you think it would be good to restrict them?

    Australia was able through legislation which included a buy back program successfully address this issue. I personally see no reason why we can't do the same if people really want to do it.

    Legislation would not make criminals out of law abiding gun owners. Responsible, law abiding gun owners could choose to obey the law. Gun owners who purchase their weapons or ammunition on the black market or through straw purchases even now are not responsible, law abiding gun owners.  

    There is no way anyone is going to convince me that a person being able to shoot high capacity magazines using semi-automatic guns for fun is worth even one persons life let alone the number who have been killed or injured this year alone.

    Parent

    I just think we're wasting time and energy... (none / 0) (#189)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 11:43:36 AM EST
    our streets and neighborhoods are already drowning in this sh&t...ban and restrict away but I don't think it will do much to reduce the carnage...not until we get the root of the issue, what is plaguing our human hearts and human minds?

    If individual rights and liberty aren't a concern, wouldn't it make more sense and be more effective to ban the doemstic manufacture and import of these weapons and magazines?  I mean as long as Bushmaster is allowed to manufacture as many as it wants, they will find their way to the streets, by hook or by crook.  Is the reason we aren't looking at the manufacturing side because the state still wants to be able to buy this sh*t for their many agents?

    Or is it that it is not a "business friendly" approach?  Why just go after individuals and not the corporations?  Or is there a legislative propasal that addresses manufacturing that I missed?

    Parent

    I'm fine with them going after corporations, (none / 0) (#196)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 12:20:27 PM EST
    preventing importation and restricting who can purchase these weapons.

    I don't see why it has to be an either/or situation.

    Even with good legislation it would take time to get the majority of this sh!t off the streets but it could be accomplished over a period of time. As we have seen, the longer no action is taken the more problem it becomes.

    Unfortunately, I think there will be little or no meaningful legislation passed and we will continue to see this escalate with more and more people gunned down. But hey, some people can continue to have fun.

    The real danger is that the NRA will prevail and the law makers will demonize everyone with any type of mental illness while keeping in place and expanding all the types of weapons that can be purchased.

    Heyhoos can continue to legally get their jollies by terrorizing their fellow citizens by walking through neighborhoods and stores under the guise of showing everyone that assault weapons are just lovely accessories to your wardrobe. Of course, once people walking around with their weapons become so commonplace that people no longer panic, they will become even more of a target for the next mass murders since I doubt he will walk around with a sign and blaring lights announcing that he is not just a person who gets his jollies by terrorizing his fellow citizens but a mass murder.  

    Parent

    For some, having the equipment and developing the skill capable to hit a small target at, say, 200 yards, is rewarding. Ar/hunting rifle blends are becoming quite popular these days as the power is enough to take game down quickly and humanely yet the recoil is greatly diminished.

    Parent
    Just how many lives are your willing to (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 11:38:36 AM EST
    sacrifice so that you can have fun? Do you have a magic number on how many people need to be killed and injured each year before you might consider that your fun is too high a price to pay?

    Parent
    No has died, or even broken a fingernail, (none / 0) (#193)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 12:06:05 PM EST
    due to my involvement.

    Parent
    I see (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 12:36:24 PM EST
    As long as you personally do not kill anyone there is not a number too high to make you think that maybe the price is too high.

     

    Parent

    We all make choices in life. (none / 0) (#203)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 01:12:38 PM EST
    I notice you choose to personally live a life that revolves around burning oil, despite the number of deaths it causes and/or will cause.
    I'd hazard a guess that you own some jewelry that has gold, diamonds or other precious materials that originated under, shall we say, questionable practices, that did and will continue to result in deaths. Etc., etc, etc. At what point is the price too high for you?

    I am in support of actions which will reasonably prevent the wrong people from obtaining guns and will not unreasonably restrict responsible gun ownership.

    I know it's rewarding to you to paint those who don't march in lockstep with your absolutist world view as horrible monsters. Some of the rest of us don't.

    Parent

    Absolutist? (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 01:35:18 PM EST
    Not sure how you could categorize your attitude about your "need" for semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines as anything other than an absolutist world position. So that is rather like the pot calling the kettle black.

    BTW, at least one of your guesses is totally off base. Also, along with supporting more effective gun restrictions, I also support alternative energy sources so that we can get away from an oil based society as quickly as possible.

    Parent

    If the recoil of a regular hunting ... (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 11:45:23 AM EST
    ... rifle is an issue for someone hunting, perhaps they should look at other hobbies.

    BTW - I enjoy target shooting, but the fact that someone wants to live out their Rambo fantasies isn't sufficient reason to justify civilians owning high-capacity magazines.

    Parent

    it's a lot easier to do if the gun's recoil hasn't put you way off the target. And what can I say, a sweet recoil is a sweet recoil.

    Parent
    Meh - If you need a second shot ... (none / 0) (#201)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 12:39:14 PM EST
    ... and want a light recoil, there are lots of choices in traditional hunting rifles - Winchester Super Shadow Model 70 (.243), Remington 700 Mountain Rifle, Winchester Featherweight, Winchester M70 Coyote - to name a few.  Just as important (if not more) would be the choice of rounds.

    Either way, not (IMO) enough to justify assault weapons/high-capacity mags.

    Parent

    As I said (none / 0) (#204)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 01:14:37 PM EST
    Ar/hunting rifle blends are becoming quite popular these days as the power is enough to take game down quickly and humanely yet the recoil is greatly diminished.
    Kind of the best of both worlds.

    Parent
    Hey (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 12:25:20 PM EST
    Some people think driving their car at 100 mph on the highway is fun too.

    Doesn't mean it should be legal on every street...

    Parent

    "driving their car at 100 mph on the highway."

    Parent
    Sort of the point ... (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 12:40:50 PM EST
    ... of this debate ... where we set the "speed limit" for guns.

    Parent
    Indeed. (none / 0) (#205)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 01:16:56 PM EST
    There are "speed" limits already established, some want them lower, some want them higher, some prefer the status quo. Some, shockingly, even claim there are none...

    Parent
    And this is one of the best comments (none / 0) (#103)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:26:35 PM EST
    On this thread.

    Here's some information about how are legal system as a whole has become corrupt , abusive, and worse: arbitrary:

    Criminal law problems 1

    Criminal law problems 2

    Good job, Kdog. I wonder who the new laws will inevitably screw over, since most of our "Representatives" in Congress can't even be bothered to read what they pass anymore anyway.

    Parent

    No need to wonder... (none / 0) (#127)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:44:14 PM EST
    the poor and the unconnected will get screwed, same as always.

    If I thought we could legislate our way to Utopia, I'd be on board, but we know what the road to hell is paved with.  And I've seen what past attempts at better living through legislation and criminalization have done...made criminals out of almost everybody, with the same societal messes to live with, and some new wholy unnecessary ones.

    Parent

    Our gun laws make it easier to get a gun. (none / 0) (#24)
    by redwolf on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:13:20 AM EST
    A friend of mine got an illegal gun on streets of Chicago for personal protection at 25-50% discount over what it would have cost at the gun shop.  If there were no gun control laws he would have had to pay full price for that fire arm.  But once a gun goes illegal(serial numbers filed off) it's price actually goes down because of the danger from the police finding you with it.


    Parent
    That's just baseless (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:55:07 AM EST
    If that was true, people simply wouldn't file off the serial numbers, selling the gun at full price.  The price of the gun is less because it's used, and if it's been used in a crime its value is less because you could wind up in trouble if you're found with it, irrespective of any gun control laws.

    Parent
    I do (none / 0) (#76)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:59:43 AM EST
    and while I have problems with the Assault weapons ban I don't see the practical need for high capacity  mags-- literally the only non-human targeted use is varmit plinking and even then 10 rounds is a decent size mag.

    Parent
    Tell us (none / 0) (#147)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:14:08 PM EST
    how many of the mass murderers (Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Columbine) had prior criminal records.

    Parent
    cal, tell me (none / 0) (#149)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:52:05 PM EST
    how many of the mass murderers (Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Columbine) had prior criminal records...happened in gun free zones...

    And the answer is???? All of them.

    Anybody besides me see a connection???

    Parent

    Just you and Wayne LaPierre (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:34:40 AM EST
    BTW - Remember when you talked about that little thing called "causation", Jim?  If you want to just look for "connections", how about the fact that 2/3 of recent mass killings occurred in places where the public was legally entitled to carry guns.  By your logic, I guess we should look at implementing gun-free zones everywhere!

    Parent
    But it's not just about mass killings. (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:00:10 AM EST
    And it's not just about rage and mental health issues.

    It's about an epidemic of guns and violence in our society - one that is daily and continual in urban and other areas, as well as one that is punctuated by horrific mass shootings. We are inured to it.

    It's also about a regression to cowboy culture in our society  (stand your ground, teachers packing, etc) - and innocent people paying the price.

    I just cannot understand why you see the Second Amendment literally. We don't live in that society anymore.

    teachers packing (none / 0) (#68)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:13:49 AM EST
    .

    ...teachers packing, etc) - and innocent people paying the price.

    Well as a point of fact none of the teachers at Sandy Hook were packing.  Very tragically 26 of the innocent paid the ultimate price for lack of an effective tool to stop the mad man.  

    Fake gun free zones are an invitation to mass murder.

    .

    Parent

    Not much of an "invitation" ... (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:25:57 AM EST
    ... considering that 2/3 of recent (2009-2013) mass shootings occurred in places where guns could lawfully be carried.

    Parent
    Nice cherry picking. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:22:22 PM EST
    Nineteen of the 43 incidents (44%) took place in private residences. Of the 23 incidents in public spaces, at least 9 took place where concealed guns could be lawfully carried. All told, no more than 14 of the shootings (33%) took place in public spaces that were so called gun-free zones.

    So of the mass shootings in public places a majority of 14 out of 23 took place in fake gun free zones.  

    Since fake gun free zones make up but a tiny percentage of all public places the wildly disproportionate occurrence of mass shootings in those locations makes their description as magnets/invitations for mass murder quite accurate.

    .

    Parent

    How about this? (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:31:45 PM EST
    Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines

    As lawmakers across the country and in the nation's capital debate possible restrictions on high-capacity magazines, one question emerges: Are these ammunition-feeding devices, which allow a shooter to fire many times without reloading, in fact commonly used by mass killers? We examined the data from Mother Jones' continuing investigation into mass shootings and found that high-capacity magazines have been used in at least 31 of the 62 cases we analyzed. A half-dozen of these crimes occurred in the last two years alone.

    SNIP

    Gun rights advocates argue that larger magazines, which can add convenience for gun owners who enjoy sport shooting, are simply "standard" for semiautomatic handguns and rifles. The debate turns semantic quickly, in the same contentious vein as the one over the definition of "assault weapon." Law enforcement officials, meanwhile, tend to agree that no law-abiding citizen needs high-capacity magazines for self-defense.

    Gun rights advocates also commonly argue that mass shooters could kill just as easily by rapidly reloading smaller magazines, and that a ban would make no difference. But such capability requires extensive training under intense conditions, according to Chipman. "Anyone who's been a cop or in the military knows that that's not something you can do unpracticed," he says.



    Parent
    Chipman is a bozo (none / 0) (#156)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 11:07:01 AM EST
     
    But such capability requires extensive training under intense conditions, according to Chipman.

    ...police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.

    Lanza had no trouble reloading.  Perhaps Chipman thinks a few minutes or and hour of practice is "extensive training."  

    .


    Parent

    A "Bozo"? (none / 0) (#158)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 11:42:12 AM EST
    So there's no real difference between a shooter who has high-capacity magazines and lower-capacity magazines?

    Parent
    not much diffference (none / 0) (#160)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 12:10:55 PM EST

    A practiced shooter can do a mag change in about a second, a novice maybe two or three seconds.

    Keep in mind that no one is going to make the existing millions of normal capacity magazines disappear from the face of the earth.

    Parent

    So if there's not much difference, ... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 01:48:45 PM EST
    ... why the big fight for them?  Of course, your 1-3 seconds would assume ideal conditions, something hardly present during a mass-shooting.

    OTOH - Colonel Bill Badger - the guy who tackled mass-shooter Jared Loughner as he was reloading - would probably disagree.  Same for the three guys who tackled mass-shooter Colin Ferguson while he was reloading.  Same for Jacob Ryker, who tackled Kip Kinkel while he was reloading.  Same for the guy who tackled the White House shooter while he tried to reload.

    Keep in mind that no one is going to make the existing millions of normal capacity magazines disappear from the face of the earth.

    Good thing no one said it would.

    Parent

    Who's "cherry picking"? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:35:00 PM EST
    You're the one claiming gun-free zones are an "invitation to mass murder".  Now you don't want to count mass murders that occurred in private residences because, what ... the victims aren't dead? They weren't killed with a gun?  They aren't "mass murders"?

    Looks like that invitation got lost in the mail.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#155)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 10:27:35 AM EST
    .

    That is because those murders in private residences are almost always targeted at the individuals living or working there.  If you want to kill the rest of the family, at home when they are sleeping is a lot easier than chasing them around the mall.  

    The public place shootings like Sandy Hook, and the Aurora theater shooting on the other hand are committed by the mentally unbalanced looking for a high body count and care nary a fig who gets killed.  That kind of a shooter is not going to go to a private residence because there won't be as many targets there.

    The public place shooter and the private residence shooter have different motivations.  So to be more accurate, public place mass shooters disproportionately prefer fake gun free zones for their killing ground.  Since these shooters often spend weeks or months planning their sprees the invitation of a fake gun free zone is obvious and documented by the stats you linked.

    .

    Parent

    And? (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 11:07:13 AM EST
    So you only want to count the public mass killings, because it fits your baseless fairy tale.  Guess we know who's doing the "cherry-picking".

    BTW - You're suggesting the Aurora killer (and others) chose a movie theater because it was a "gun-free zone", yet you offer not a single, shred of evidence.  The places targeted by mass killers are merely places where there are a lot of people ... that's it.  The stats I provided show nothing more than these killers choose places where the public gathers, not "gun free zones".

    Harris and Kliebold weren't deterred at Columbine even with the presence of an armed, trained police officer.  Assuming that the mentally unbalanced killer even considers it as a factor (a hee-YOOOGE assumption with no evidence to support it), why would it even concern them, given no that an armed civilian hasn't been shown to have stopped a single mass shooting (out of 62) in the past 30 years?

    The sun rises 100% of the mornings, yet it's not caused by the rooster's crowing.  Get back to me when you have actual evidence that gun-free zones are "invitations" to mass shootings.

    Parent

    You provided the evidence (none / 0) (#161)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 12:53:12 PM EST
    .

    Public place mass shooters disproportionately choose fake gun free zones to do their killing.  That is the fact of the stats you linked.  The public gathers in more places that are not fake gun free zones, yet those more numerous places are chosen less often.  Telling.  For example the Aurora theater shooting was in only one of six theaters in the area that was a fake gun free zone.  Telling.

    given no that an armed civilian hasn't been shown to have stopped a single mass shooting (out of 62) in the past 30 years?

    This mass shooter in Pearl Mississippi killed two and injured 7 and was on his way to kill more when stopped by an armed civilian.  

    On Sunday, December 9, 2007, at about 1 p.m. Murray, armed with a semi-automatic rifle and two pistols, entered the foyer of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and fatally shot two and wounded three others before himself being shot and wounded by Jeanne Assam, a former sworn Minneapolis police officer and a church member acting as security. Murray then took his own life.

    Both shooters were stopped by armed civilians before they could get the body count above four.  

    .

    Parent

    not exactly just "civilians"... (none / 0) (#178)
    by Lora on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 10:58:21 AM EST
    ...Jeanne Assam, a former sworn Minneapolis police officer and a church member acting as security.


    Parent
    Zing! (none / 0) (#179)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 11:01:35 AM EST
    You should read more carefully (none / 0) (#185)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 11:32:10 AM EST
    1.  The shooter had already stopped shooting and was driving away by the time the armed "civilian" (a commander in the Army Reserves) retrieved his gun.

    As swiftly and inexplicably as it began, the rampage was over. Woodham turned and headed back outside while Myrick, 36, a commander in the Army reserves, sprinted to his own truck and retrieved the .45 automatic he kept there. Spotting Woodham near the parking lot, he shouted for him to stop. Instead, Woodham got into his car and tried to drive away, but he lost control and came to a stop as Myrick raced up to him. "I could see him sitting there, holding on to the steering wheel, his knuckles white, those glasses on him," recalls Myrick. Putting the muzzle of his handgun to Woodham's neck, he ordered him out and held him until police arrived.

    2.  As Lora pointed out, a former police officer and security officer for the church.

    Care to try again?  Surely, there must be lots of examples out there ...

    Parent

    Interesting point (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Lena on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:58:58 AM EST
    about teachers "packing"... this idea is the most addle-brained, cockamamie, lame ideas I have EVER heard from the NRA... and they're not exactly known for moderation and common sense.
    Right, my daughter's teacher is supposed to walk around the classroom, checking homework and helping kids at their desks, with a gun (in a holster? in her pocket? tucked in her socks? after all, it has to be convenient to have any utility in stopping a serial killer with a semi-automatic weapon who bursts into her room and starts peppering the class with bullets). So the kids with ADHD, emotional disturbances, impulse control problems, even the innocent class clowns, all have potential access to her gun, especially if she happens to be paying attention to one kid and another one sneaks up behind her.
    This is so insane, I can't even believe anyone has to dignify this with a response. The last thing we as a society should want is MORE guns in school.

    Parent
    Tsk tsk (none / 0) (#81)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:19:04 AM EST

    Gun clubs at school:
    http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1416268_.html

    Armed police at school:
    http://www.examiner.com/article/posse-guards-schools-armed-retired-police-officers-patrol-arizona-sc hools

    And the idea , if it doesn't involved armed security, would be for the principal to have access to a firearm in a locked area of the office. Remember that in Newtown, according to what I've read, the principal actively fought, unarmed, against the aggressor. She might have lived hypothetically, only God knows had she been armed. Anyway, some private schools already have a similar set up.

    None of this is unprecedented. And yet, even in the worst areas of the country, children are still far safer in school than in any other place.

    Parent

    And the point of that would be? (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:37:27 AM EST
    And the idea , if it doesn't involved armed security, would be for the principal to have access to a firearm in a locked area of the office. Remember that in Newtown, according to what I've read, the principal actively fought, unarmed, against the aggressor. She might have lived hypothetically, only God knows had she been armed.

    1. If it's in a locked area of the office, what makes you so sure the principal (or anyone else) can get to it in time? Doesn't it just become a locked gun and the result is the same?

    2. How will you account for anyone who knows the principal (or teachers) keep guns and decide to "pull a prank", or break in?  You think teenagers are above that?

    3. You have no way of knowing if the principal was armed, that she could have lived or saved lives.  Maybe.  But the chance is just as great (or greater) that a) she would have been killed anyway and her gun taken by Lanza, giving him yet another weapon,or b) someone else in the office would have been killed by her shooting in a panic or in the crossfire.

    Why aren't you advocating for something like the principal to have a taser to subdue a gunman?

    Parent
    HEY (1.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:06:56 PM EST
    A Taser might be a good idea.
    Heck, a baseball bat would have been better than what she had to work with.
    But a gun is more certain to stop someone than either of those things.
    We don't know what would have happened if she had access to a gun. We do know what happened because she didn't have access to a gun.

    Parent
    But then I read about the (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:02:35 PM EST
    decision to have "code red" drills in school, where blanks will be fired to simulate an attack, and I wonder why it is that people like me are demonized for wanting fewer guns on the street, but supposedly intelligent people think simulating gunfire in a school hallway makes sense.  

    Bold in the quote is mine.

    Parents are upset over a school shooting drill planned in the Chicago suburbs that simulates the sound of gunfire, CBS Chicago reports.

    Jay Sargeant, principal of Cary-Grove High School, said in an email to parents that students will participate in a "code red" drill on Wednesday. It will include somebody shooting blanks from a gun in the hallway "in an effort to provide our teachers and students some familiarity with the sound of gunfire."

    School spokesman Jeff Puma said the small number of parents who have contacted the school are evenly split for and against the drill.

    Parents who are against it say a "code red" drill is probably necessary, but the simulation of gunfire takes it too far and may upset some children.

    Parent Sharon Miller called it absurd.

    "If you need to run a drill, you can run a drill," Miller told WBBM Newsradio's Bernie Tafoya. "They run fire drills all the time, but they don't run up and down the hallway with a flamethrower."

    "Absurd" is putting it mildly.

    Parent

    Like our "air raid drills" in the 60's (none / 0) (#101)
    by Lora on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:17:48 PM EST
    We had to go to the gym and crouch with our heads down our arms over our heads and our butts up in the air.  This was supposed to save us in case of a nuclear attack.  Heh.  At least no simulated nuclear bombs were detonated!

    Parent
    slayerzero please put your (none / 0) (#88)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:47:53 AM EST
    urls in html format or your comments will be deleted. Long urls skew the site.

    Parent
    Thank you Jeralyn (none / 0) (#92)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:04:47 PM EST
    I apologize, I forgot.
    I can guarantee any more links in this thread from me will be properly done.


    Parent
    But, think about the benefits (none / 0) (#159)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 11:49:16 AM EST
    To the learning curve:

    "Alan gets an `A."  (pat on the head)

    "Beatrice gets a `B."  (pat on the head)

    "Cary gets a `C."  (pat on the head)

    And, Doofus gets a.......BLAM!

    p.s. I truly hope this wasn't offensive to anyone; I meant it to be as ridiculous as some of the comments proposing the arming of teachers being posted here.

    Parent

    The Colorado Sheriff's Association (5.00 / 8) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:42:32 AM EST
    represents the opinion of 62 residents of Colorado. By the spokesman's admission there is disagreement among the sheriffs on parts of the statement.

    The sheriffs opinion, which amounts to a statement by .0000119% of the population of Colorado, is in direct contrast to the citizens of Colorado where, according to the article Jeralyn mentions, over 60% of Coloradans want an assault weapons ban and a ban on high capacity magazines, and 80% want universal background checks on gun sales.

    Great comment (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:06:53 AM EST
    And in Conservative counties they have to re-elected.

    Parent
    Oops forgotten words (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:07:23 AM EST
    They have to get re-elected

    Parent
    And... (none / 0) (#191)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 11:57:30 AM EST
    the last time I checked, we elect these sheriffs to enforce the law (hence the term "law enforcement"), not to interpret the law and what is and what isn't constitutional.  That's why we have the judical branch of government.  

    These clowns with badges certainly do not speak for this Coloradoan.  

    Parent

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#197)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 12:23:16 PM EST
    Wonder if you feel that way about them arresting drug offenders...

    Just sayin'....

    Parent

    Gun deaths (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:48:54 AM EST
    Set to exceed traffic fatalities in US by 2015.

    Guns and cars have long been among the leading causes of non-medical deaths in the U.S. By 2015, firearm fatalities will probably exceed traffic fatalities for the first time, based on data compiled by Bloomberg.

    While motor-vehicle deaths dropped 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, gun fatalities are rising again after a low point in 2000, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend.

    And while gun ownership has declined in the US (a nebulous number, as many gun owners who do not have a legally registered gun will not report truthfully), the fact remains that:

    While recent gun sales haven't led to an increase in crime, research indicates that over time, higher levels of gun ownership are associated with increased rates of homicide and suicide, Webster said. The Sandy Hook killings are a "potential game changer" for gun-control laws and the response to it unlike any incident he's seen in 20 years of studying gun violence, he [Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore] said.


    I note they don't want to find out (none / 0) (#96)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:09:50 PM EST
    and don't CARE why people are killing themselves.
    Let's just pretend it wouldn't happen without guns.

    Parent
    It wouldn't happen as often (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:35:07 PM EST
    The Brady Act caused a drop in suicides:

    Another way to measure the effects of the Brady Act is to focus on suicides, an important public health concern since more people die each year by gun suicides than gun homicides in the United States. We do find that the Brady states experienced a greater reduction than the non-Brady states in gun suicides to older people, who have the highest rates. While this drop was partially offset by an increase in non-gun suicides, our evidence suggests that the Brady Act has saved lives by reducing the overall suicide rate among older Americans. Interestingly, the effects of the Brady Act on suicide seem to be caused in large part by the act's original waiting period requirements, which were phased out in late 1998 as states moved to an "instant check" system.

    When Australia instituted stricter gun control laws and a national buyback program in 1997, the firearm suicide rate dropped by 80%, with no increase in the non-gun suicide rate.

    Parent

    From wiki (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:08:45 PM EST
    Historically, Australia has had relatively low levels of violent crime. Overall levels of homicide and suicide have been in decline for several decades, while the proportion of these crimes that involved firearms has consistently declined since the early 1980s. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined 47%.[25] According to a 2011 report from the Australian government, "...the number of victims of homicide has been in decline since 1996. In 1996, there were 354 victims and 260 victims in 2010. This is a decrease of 27 percent." And furthermore, "The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009-10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 1995-96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation)."

    Firearm suicides have fallen from about 22% of all suicides in 1992[26] to 7% of all suicides in 2005.[27] Immediately following the Buyback there was a fall in firearm suicides which was more than offset by a 10% increase in total suicides in 1997 and 1998. There were concerted efforts in suicide prevention from this time and in subsequent years the total suicide rate resumed its decline.



    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#119)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:48:19 PM EST
    If people want to kill themselves, they'll find a way. We should be trying to figure out why people want to kill themselves.

    Instead we talk about "suicide by gun" because many of us want to pretend guns are the problem.

    Parent

    Walk and chew gum (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:07:46 PM EST
    We can try to figure out why people want to kill themselves and get them help and take measures that make it harder for suicidal people to get their hands on a gun easily - like the Brady and the Australian laws.

    Instead we talk about "either/or" because some people want to pretend that guns aren't the problem.

    Parent

    Not sure of your point (none / 0) (#121)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:02:52 PM EST
    There is no evidence cited in the Wiki for the claim that overall levels of homicide and suicide have been "declining for several decades".  However, the study I linked to shows homicide and suicide rates from 1968 through 2006  (Figures 1a and 1b).  Firearms suicides were either flat or increasing from 1968 through 1987, when they began to decline.  But, as the authors of the study noted, the firearms suicide rate dropped much more sharply after the gun buy-back.  Non-firearm suicides were actually increasing from 1978 to 1998, when they began to drop.

    Parent
    Well, Fig 1a shows that firearm suicides (none / 0) (#128)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 04:01:34 PM EST
    have, in general, been trending downward from about 1988 thru 2006.

    It also shows that non-firearm suicides, in general, trended upward from about 1978 thru 1998, and then a downward trend from 1998 thru 2006.

    The Buyback was implemented in 1996.

    Parent

    Not according to (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 04:05:01 PM EST
    former Prime Minister John Howard:

    In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres -- each with more than four victims -- causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.



    Parent
    Well, here's an actual report (none / 0) (#130)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 04:53:28 PM EST
    from the Australian Institute of Criminology. Take a look at Fig 1, it does not look like the long term trends quite support the Minister's self-congratulatory pat on the back.

    Parent
    Looking at Table 1 (none / 0) (#131)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 05:17:56 PM EST
    In 1991, there were 505 suicides by firearms.  In 2001, there were 261.

    Looks like a big decrease to me.,,,

    Parent

    Um, first of all, your PM quote is about (none / 0) (#135)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:01:08 PM EST
    the effectiveness of the 1996 legislation, ie, the post 1996 legislation firearm suicides, however your comment above is about something different, it's about the reduction in suicides by firearms since 1991, from 5 years before the 1996 legislation.

    But, that's OK let's look at that.

    As you correctly point out, in support of exactly what I said, suicide by firearms was trending downward during that entire 11 year period.

    But the question is, what effect did the 1996 legislation that the PM was touting have?

    Well, here's what the AIC themselves wrote:

    the number of firearms suicides declined consistently from 1991 to 1998, but has since fluctuated [from 1999 through 2001]

    iow, the AIC does not support the PM's claim.

    Parent

    As I said, ... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 05:19:31 PM EST
    ... not sure of your point, unless you just like repeating part of what I've already said.

    It's almost like you want to make one, too.


    Parent

    Oh I think you get it. (2.00 / 1) (#137)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:19:44 PM EST
    When Australia instituted stricter gun control laws and a national buyback program in 1997, the firearm suicide rate dropped by 80%, with no increase in the non-gun suicide rate.
    The Buyback made no significant difference in the previously existing decades-long trend toward lower firearm suicide rates, and the non-gun suicide rate did continue it's decade's-long increase for several years after the Buyback before dropping thereafter.

    Parent
    "No significant difference"??? (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:29:05 PM EST
    Says who?  Now that you finally have said it, let's look at your evidence ...

    (crickets chirping)

    Oh, wait ... that's right you cite none, despite the fact that:

    1. You've still shown no continuation of a "decades long trend" (originally you claimed "several" decades) - in fact, you acknowledge the decline in firearms suicides began only 8 years before the change in Australian gun laws and Buyback.  More importantly, you now claim that the Buyback made "no significant difference to the previously existing decades long trend toward lower firearms suicide rates", despite the fact that the data shows an acceleration in suicide decline, a fact that's been confirmed by other studies.

    2.  You also now claim that "the non-gun suicide rate did continue it's decade's-long increase for several years after the Buyback before dropping therefater", presumably indicating, ... well, ...

    ... something ...

    Parent
    support your contention that "the firearm suicide rate dropped by 80%" due to the buyback.

    2) The non-firearm suicide rate did, in fact, increase  after the buyback, continuing it's decades-long increase, after which it decreased (mea culpa, I wrote "decades-long" twice in my comment above, it should only have been once), the decrease being credited to the renewed Oz gvt efforts toward suicide prevention.

    Two completely misleading points from you.

    Parent

    Uhhhmmmm, ... read it slowly (none / 0) (#145)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:35:35 PM EST
    Seriously.  The authors (using the data) very explicitly address the argument you're trying to make.  Not only does the second study explicitly point out that the decline in firearms deaths (particularly suicides) accelerated after the gun law reforms, but the authors of the first study spell it out very clearly:

    We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on nonfirearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate.

    They go into much more detail if you just look at the study.  Now maybe you have some issue with the conclusions of these peer-reviewed studies, but I'm just citing the data and the studies.  OTOH, I'm still waiting for you to cite a single study supporting your claim that the decline in firearms suicides was merely the continuation of a "decades long" or "several decades" trend, despite the fact that the decline began only 8 years before the Buyback, in 1988.

    (Cue crickets)

    I still have no idea what point you're trying to make about the non-firearms suicide rate, other than (once again) falsely claiming that it was increasing for decades.  The studies I've linked to show no such "decades-long" trend, and you've cited nothing.  What have I said that's "misleading" about this?

    Parent

    in the 49 page study you helpfully linked to - you were referring to in your initial comment.

    1) Contrary to your professor's study, the Aus Gov research says differently.

    Australian Institute of Criminality: the number of firearms suicides declined consistently from 1991 to 1998, but has since fluctuated [from 1999 to 2001]

    And, like I've explained several times now, according Fig 1a that you reference, the non-firearm suicide rate increased from a low in 1978 to a high in 1998. Yes, that 2 decade trend of increasing rates qualifies as "decades-long."

    2) What you wrote originally:

    When Australia instituted stricter gun control laws and a national buyback program in 1997, the firearm suicide rate dropped by 80%, with no increase in the non-gun suicide rate.
    [my bolds]

    is very different from what you have now quoted from your study:

    We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on nonfirearm death rates.

    Your study is correct here. As your author clearly shows in Fig 1a non-gun suicide rates continued to increase for several years after the buyback, and he correctly concludes that the buyback had no significant effect on the non-gun suicide rates.

    Your comment is incorrect, your comment says the non-gun suicide rate did not increase following the buyback, when in fact it most assuredly did.

    Parent

    Heh, heh, heh - no problem (none / 0) (#164)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 04:43:33 PM EST
    My bad (I guess) for not realizing that you would have trouble spotting it in that "49 page study", given that it was in the very first paragraph.

    1)  Just in case it wasn't completely obvious to everyone reading my first post, when I said:

    "When Australia instituted stricter gun control laws and a national buyback program in 1997, the firearm suicide rate dropped by 80%, with no increase in the non-gun suicide rate"

    ... I was referring to the fact that there was no increase due to the Buyback program.  The same would apply to my statement that "the firearm suicide rate dropped by 80%" (i.e. it was due to the Buyback program, as opposed to two random, unrelated events inexplicably referenced in the same sentence).

    2)  You originally claimed (citing Wiki) that "overall levels of homicide and suicide have been in decline for several decades, while the proportion of these crimes that involved firearms has consistently declined since the early 1980s".  I asked for evidence showing a "several decades" decline in overall suicide and homicide rates and firearm homicides/suicides, since the study I provided shows no such thing.  You quote the stats in the study which show an increase - not a decline - in one of those four rates - non-firearm suicides.

    Still waiting.

    3)  

    Contrary to your professor's study, the Aus Gov research says differently.

        Australian Institute of Criminality: the number of firearms suicides declined consistently from 1991 to 1998, but has since fluctuated [from 1999 to 2001]

    Uhhhhmmmm, ... that's not contrary to the study I cited.  Look at Table 1a of the study.  It shows the "fluctuation from 1998-2001, following by the continued decline.  perhaps it might help if you would actually say how you think contradicts my study.

    You can do it.

    4)  

    The non-firearm suicide rate did, in fact, increase  after the buyback, continuing it's decades-long increase, after which it decreased (mea culpa, I wrote "decades-long" twice in my comment above, it should only have been once), the decrease being credited to the renewed Oz gvt efforts toward suicide prevention.

    "Credited" by whom?  An unsourced claim in Wikipedia?!?  Hahahahahahaha ....  Seriously???  

    More importantly, my claim was that the non-firearm suicide rate did not increase due to the Buyback.  (BTW - You do realize that the Australian legislators did not magically wave their hands and complete the buyback immediately upon passing the law, right?  The Buyback occurred during the latter part of 1996 and most of 1997.)  So if you want to make the claim that non-firearms suicides increased for about a year after the Buyback and unrelated to the Buyback, then reversed the two-decade trend of increases and declined, unrelated to the buyback, .... knock yourself out.  Pointless and irrelevant, sure ... but whatever it takes.

    Parent

    1. Thanks, your original was unclear.

    2. The AIC says that the rate of gun-suicides dropped consistently from 1991 thru 1998, and then fluctuated, ie, up one year, down the next, through 2001.

    iow, no 80% drop due to the 1996/1997 buybacks.

    Parent
    Not a single knot (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:40:13 PM EST
    1.  Heh - you're right.  There might be some idiot out there thinking I was saying that when I said:

    When Australia instituted stricter gun control laws and a national buyback program in 1997, the firearm suicide rate dropped by 80%, with no increase in the non-gun suicide rate

    ... I was merely making random, unrelated statements, as opposed to stating that the drop in suicides caused the drop in suicide rate.

    2.  Not remotely.  You're claiming that, because the suicide rate did not drop immediately upon completion of the Buyback in 1997, the buyback didn't cause the drop.  As if, somehow, the removal of a large percentage of firearms could not result in lower firearms suicides a mere few years later ... if it didn't happen immediately, it proves the Buyback didn't cause the drop.

    That's funny.

    I've cited two, peer-reviewed studies (2006 and 2010) that conclude that it did.  There are more out there.  You've cited one report (2001) that concludes that it didn't.  Oh, ... wait ...

    .... never mind.

    Your report doesn't even do that.  Your conclusion is merely your interpretation of the report.

    Want to try again?

    Parent

    Meh. Most people just cut and paste (none / 0) (#170)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:29:50 PM EST
    the sentence from the original document, as it's much faster, easier and ensures there's no misunderstandings. Apparently you feel the need to rewrite a sentence that was previously perfectly clear, and peer reviewed no less. Can't imagine why you'd need to do such a thing, but hey, we all have our issues.

    It is to laugh. You are going hang your hat on the absurd proposition that people continued to commit suicide with the guns that they no longer had for 5 years from 1998 thru 2002, but stopped by 80% committing suicide with those same guns that they no longer had, magically, out of the blue, from 2002 to 2006?

    Good luck with that.

    Oh, yeah, sorry the Australian Government's research on the topic isn't peer-reviewed. You'll just have to live with that as I'm sure they do.

    Parent

    Not even a good try (none / 0) (#171)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 10:07:20 PM EST
    I know you're a big fan of cutting and pasting, but I wasn't originally quoting the study.  I linked to the original study because a peer-reviewed study is good evidence, as opposed to say - a report that doesn't even say what you wish it said.

    Heh.

    BTW - It's not an absurd proposition - and it's not mine.  It belongs to the authors of all of the studies that have concluded the very same thing.  But you think it's "absurd", so the question is who to believe.  Experts publishing peer-reviewed studies, ...

    ... or some schmuck who cites a report that doesn't even support his own opinion?

    That was easy
    .

    Parent

    And, this just in today (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:18:59 PM EST
    Phoenix gunman opens fire in office building, wounding 7

    and this

    CHICAGO -- A 15-year-old majorette who performed at some of President Barack Obama's recent inauguration festivities has been shot to death in Chicago.

    Police say Hadiya Pendleton was shot in the back Tuesday in a South Side park and died at a city hospital.

    Authorities say Hadiya was one of about 12 teenagers sheltering from heavy rain under a canopy when a man jumped a fence, ran toward the group and opened fire. The man fled the scene in a vehicle. No arrests have been made.

    But nope - we don't need to do anything about guns.

    Precisely (none / 0) (#136)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:16:43 PM EST
    "We" do not need to do anything about guns.
    We do need to find out why that guy was targetting someone though.

    Parent
    Sure, laws shouldn't be enacted as (4.43 / 7) (#27)
    by observed on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:04:16 AM EST
    a response to singular tragedies.
    Since mass shootings are anything but singular, and gun homicides anything but rare, the point doesn't apply to gun control.

    Pssstttt (4.20 / 5) (#69)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:15:49 AM EST
    Anne works in the very same city and you have no idea whether she's been the victim of violent crime in the past ...

    ... so I guess concern for being the victim of gun crime is only "hysterical fearmongering" if you're using it to argue in favor of gun control, as opposed to using it to justify ownership of a gun.

    She may work here (none / 0) (#104)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    I LIVE here.

    And in a working class/poor mixed  neighborhood at that.

    But thanks for playing.

    Parent

    Ahhhh, ... so if you're merely ... (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:40:16 PM EST
    ... commuting into and working in a dangerous city, your concern for gun violence is "hysterical fearmongering", whereas if you live there and want to use it to justify gun ownership, it's not.

    Heh.

    BTW - As a resident of a "working class/poor neighborhood" (but one presumably not involved in crime/drugs/gangs), are your odds of being killed with a gun still lower than dying from heart disease ... like Anne?

    Parent

    Last time I checked, no one's (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    wearing any signs that say, "I live here" or "I just work here."

    Parent
    I tried getting my co-workers ... (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:22:54 PM EST
    ... to wear them when I taught in a high-crime neighborhood on the East side, but they mocked me for my "hysterical fearmongering".

    Parent
    AND, you forgot (none / 0) (#154)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:57:05 AM EST
     "hooting and hollaring."

    Parent
    You don't??? (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:28:28 PM EST
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by sj on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:08:54 PM EST
    I live in Baltimore and I don't cringe in fear the way you do.  

    Spent my childhood in working class/poor mixed neighborhood.  Incredibly, as recently as that, my grandparents had no plumbing at all -- only hand pumps and outhouses.  It was ethnic, not ethnically diverse.  I learned there that people are people.  Some pachucos are jerks and criminals or criminal wannabees and others ... aren't.  It didn't make me afraid of everyone around me.

    You talk tough, but reading your comments you seem to be just filled with fear.

    Parent

    You Baltimore folks... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by fishcamp on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:57:42 PM EST
    maybe should come on down here and I'll take you out fishing and you can get away from what sounds like a horrible place to live.

    Parent
    I only work there; I live about (none / 0) (#169)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:15:22 PM EST
    25 miles north of the Inner Harbor, on 5 acres in the country.  It's a great place to come home to, but we have crime here, too.  Seems the criminal element discovered that we feel so safe here, we don't bother to lock anything, so we had a rash of car break-ins and thefts from sheds, and so on.  When it happened to us, we started locking up, but we didn't consider buying guns.

    Parent
    I'd be delighted to come on down (none / 0) (#195)
    by sj on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 12:16:30 PM EST
    but then I would be delighted to be back home after.  I love Baltimore.  It's a lovely city.  It was a major player historically although it's true that recent times have been hard times for the city.  Many of these wonderful old brownstones are in need of rejuvenation.  

    This is my old neighborhood.  Pictures of the wonderful and the ugly both.  This is my current neighborhood which has a lot more going for it in the way of restaurants, shopping, etc. Plus the wonderful Walters Art Museum.  Truly a world class museum.  

    I miss the park, though.

    Parent

    Actually, sj (1.50 / 2) (#118)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:44:44 PM EST
    You do cringe in fear.
    Of ME having a gun.
    The criminals of this city certainly don't lack for firearms.
    Of course you also cringe in fear of me having a taser, pepper spray or even wearing a bullet proof vest.

    Why are you so scared? And if you are not scared why can't I defend myself (since our POLICE DEPARTMENT obviously can't) with passive weapons like pepper spray?

    Lastly, having as I've said been the VICTIM of 3 violent crimes, maybe I have a little more reason to fear than most of the commenters here who probably live in suburbs or college towns. My whole existence is proof positive that really stupid (as Baltimore cities laws concerning guns and personal protection devices are) laws don't protect anyone.


    Parent

    How is one person ... (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:20:21 PM EST
    My whole existence is proof positive that really stupid (as Baltimore cities laws concerning guns and personal protection devices are) laws don't protect anyone.

    ... being the victim of 3 crimes proof that Baltimore cities gun/personal protection laws are ineffective, let alone "really stupid"?  Memphis, Atlanta and St. Louis have much fewer restrictions and easier access to guns and they have a higher crime rate than Baltimore.

    Parent

    If I knew who you were (none / 0) (#134)
    by sj on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 05:29:07 PM EST
    and encountered you on the street I might "cringe in fear". As it is, you're just conceptual trouble that I don't think about when I go about my day to day life.  Frankly, I don't think about you at all unless you comment.  I don't automatically assume everyone I encounter is a potential assailant, I assume that they have the business of their day to day life to deal with.

    Parent
    whoops (none / 0) (#112)
    by sj on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:13:26 PM EST
    that neighborhood was not mixed, but was solidly lower/working class chicano.

    Parent
    Simply sayin "no" is not a solution. (4.20 / 5) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:45:34 AM EST
    We have a very serious and painfully obvious problem with gun violence, and the old cliches of a bygone era just don't cut it anymore. There is no rational reason in this day and age for civilians to be owning military-style assault weapons -- and yes, I'm going to continue to call them exactly what they are.

    Those sheriffs (1.60 / 5) (#43)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:49:14 AM EST
    .

    Those sheriffs are so heartless.  Don't they realize its "For The Children TM."

    .

    What a disgusting comment. (4.33 / 6) (#139)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:08:11 PM EST
    And yes it IS heartless. Some of us really do care about children being slaughtered in the classroom, and the enabling of that by gun fetishists and the NRA.  Your mockery notwithstanding.

    Parent
    Thankfully the 14A exists... (none / 0) (#2)
    by terraformer on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 09:23:01 PM EST
    Also, gun regulation and legislation should be up to the states. What East and West Coast city dwellers and politicians like Mayor Bloomberg want for their high density, over-populated states may not be necessary or desirable to those of us in other states, particularly western states like Colorado, Wyoming, Montana. "One-size- fits- all" laws are rarely the answer.

    Otherwise people in states like MA, NY and the coasts would be screwed all for factually unsupported (based sometimes in outright lies) logical fallacies.

    Or, ... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 09:59:09 PM EST
    ... the people in states like Colorado, Wyoming and Montana ...

    Parent
    True... (none / 0) (#48)
    by terraformer on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:56:03 AM EST
    It goes both ways depending on the issue.

    Parent
    I was talking about ... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:58:25 AM EST
    ... this issue.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#53)
    by JDB on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:01:48 AM EST
    CSOC will not waver on our defense of the Constitution, and will stand to preserve every constituent's right to possess a firearm.

    Jeralyn, do CSOC members play any role in enforcing current federal laws against felons, domestic violence misdemeanants, etc. from possessing firearms?  Or are those folks not "constituents"?  A lot of our gun cases (SDWV) come from interaction with local law enforcement.

    Seems to me (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:03:52 AM EST
    That if you are so afraid that you desperately want to carry a weapon and are upset that you can't, that you've been victimized (for which I am truly sorry), and you live in a dangerous area, maybe you should consider moving elsewhere.

    And for the record, you DID respond to Yman...

    the comment you are replying to (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:16:52 AM EST
    was deleted for slayerzero calling a commenter a "troll."

    Parent
    sure (none / 0) (#77)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:04:37 AM EST
    I'd move if I had the economic means to do so.

    And as for responding to that goof it was the first time in months. He or she talks very authoritatively, but rarely LINKS to anything, and has a wonderful skill at deliberately missing the point and/or changing the subject.

    Parent

    Guns illegally owned by 20,000 in CA (none / 0) (#78)
    by lily on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:10:50 AM EST
    link

    Nearly 20,000 registered gun owners in California are ineligible to have guns yet still do, and it could take three years and $25 million for authorities to confiscate the weapons, law enforcement officials told a legislative committee Tuesday.

    The latest statewide sweep happened in September and collected 553 firearms, 141 of which were assault weapons, according to a letter from state Attorney General Kamala Harris to Vice President Joe Biden.

    Of those currently on the list, 32 percent have a criminal history, 30 percent have mental health issues, 20 percent have an active restraining order against them, and 18 percent are wanted persons.

    Oughta be a law against that. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:57:22 AM EST
    Oughta be resources ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:19:17 PM EST
    ... to get those guns out of the hands of felons, DV perpetrators, addicts, metal patients, etc.  

    More importantly, you're right - there actually should be a law in the 49 other states that don't have a system to cross-check registered gun owners with offenses that result in a prohibition on ownership.


    Parent

    I agree wholeheartedly with Jeralyn (none / 0) (#86)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:41:07 AM EST
    Unfortunately, this country has knee jerk reactions to nearly every ill or incident. The idea that "we gotta pass a law" every time something bad happens is ridiculous. I submit that we have more enough laws against violence and murder. Do we really need new ones?

    Jeralyn is exactly right in her statement concerning what's next? If you forfeit your 2nd amendment rights for safety, what's next? And yes, other are right that the 4th amendment is sliding away and I'm not happy about that. I surely would like see as much uproar about the eroding the 4th amendment as their is the 2nd. However, we have to protect all of our constitutional rights or we will eventually have none.

    There are limits (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:01:43 PM EST
    On the First Amendment, which I would argue, is the most basic, most important amendment and the foundation of all the rest of our freedoms.  There are limits to most of the rest of the amendments as well.

    Why shouldn't we have limits on the Second Amendment? Why do gun supporters think this is the holy grail and should be untouched?

    Parent

    present on the 2A?

    Parent
    Not as many as there should be (none / 0) (#99)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:16:41 PM EST
    it all comes down to a matter of degree.

    Parent
    Many gun lovers (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:39:37 PM EST
    At least, those who are vocal about it, want few, if any, restrictions on their right to have a gun.

    They don't want background checks.

    They don't want guns to have to be registered.

    They don't want limits on how many one person can own or buy at one time.

    They don't want limits on ammunition.

    They don't want bans on certain types of weapons, as ridiculous as that is.

    What I'm hear they DO want is:

    Every school personnel armed to the teeth.

    Every schmo on every corner walking around armed to the teeth.

    Parent

    you want more, others want less, still others prefer the status quo.

    As I said, a matter of degree.

    Parent

    There are restrictions on who is permitted (none / 0) (#144)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:04:50 PM EST
    to own guns. There aren't any restrictions on types of guns or ammo.

    Parent
    Is this a serious comment? (none / 0) (#182)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 11:16:09 AM EST
    There are no restrictions on owning machine guns?  "Sawed off" shotguns? Automatic shotguns? Other automatic weapons? etc?

    Parent
    Limits on the 2nd A (none / 0) (#100)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:17:40 PM EST
    From the Baltimore Sun

    A good article that shows some of the challenges and some of the stupidities of gun control.

    Parent

    You'd be safer if (5.00 / 6) (#120)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 02:12:37 PM EST
    Nearly all firearms used to commit crimes in Maryland were initially sold legally, and the challenge of the gun proposals is trying to stem the transfer of thousands of guns to second and subsequent owners who undergo no background screenings and are difficult or impossible to trace.

    The fix is actually pretty simple, but folks on your side of the debate don't want to fill out any paperwork.  Y'all have some fear of ink in addition to fear of losing your guns.

    Responsible gun ownership is ensuring your gun doesn't get into the wrong hands.

    Parent

    *I* currently don't have a gun (none / 0) (#143)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:52:25 PM EST
    I have "access to" guns in a locked gun safe about 4 miles away and out of the city limits.

    Thanks again, for your assumptions.

    Parent

    On (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:25:52 PM EST
    the other hand, don't you think that when the dogs were turned loose on black protesters in Selma Alabama back in the 60s - don't you think that had an effect on congress to finally pass some civil rights legislation?

    Parent
    Please show me just one comment (none / 0) (#207)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 01:46:32 PM EST
    where I've stated this:
    your "need" for semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines