In the wake of the Arizona shooting, some of us clearly want to talk about both references to and policies for the nation's favorite topics: GUNS. 1. On the issue of policy, here's a column from yesterday's times asking why we can't regulate guns kind of like we do toys at least. Interesting bits: "Handgun sales in Arizona soared by 60 percent on Monday, according to Bloomberg News, as buyers sought to beat any beefing up of gun laws. People also often buy guns in hopes of being safer. But the evidence is overwhelming that firearms actually endanger those who own them. One scholar, John Lott Jr., published a book suggesting that more guns lead to less crime, but many studies have now debunked that finding (although it’s also true that a boom in concealed weapons didn’t lead to the bloodbath that liberals had forecast). A careful article forthcoming in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine by David Hemenway, a Harvard professor who wrote a brilliant book a few years ago reframing the gun debate as a public health challenge, makes clear that a gun in the home makes you much more likely to be shot — by accident, by suicide or by homicide. The chances that a gun will be used to deter a home invasion are unbelievably remote, and dialing 911 is more effective in reducing injury than brandishing a weapon, the journal article says. But it adds that American children are 11 times more likely to die in a gun accident than in other developed countries, because of the prevalence of guns. Likewise, suicide rates are higher in states with more guns, simply because there are more gun suicides. Other kinds of suicide rates are no higher. And because most homicides in the home are by family members or acquaintances — not by an intruder — the presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of a gun murder in that home. So what can be done? I asked Professor Hemenway how he would oversee a public health approach to reducing gun deaths and injuries. He suggested: • Limit gun purchases to one per month per person, to reduce gun trafficking. And just as the government has cracked down on retailers who sell cigarettes to minors, get tough on gun dealers who sell to traffickers. • Push for more gun safes, and make serial numbers harder to erase. • Improve background checks and follow Canada in requiring a 28-day waiting period to buy a handgun. And ban oversize magazines, such as the 33-bullet magazine allegedly used in Tucson. If the shooter had had to reload after firing 10 bullets, he might have been tackled earlier. And invest in new technologies such as “smart guns,” which can be fired only when near a separate wristband or after a fingerprint scan. We can also learn from Australia, which in 1996 banned assault weapons and began buying back 650,000 of them. The impact is controversial and has sometimes been distorted. But the Journal of Public Health Policy notes that after the ban, the firearm suicide rate dropped by half in Australia over the next seven years, and the firearm homicide rate was almost halved." 2. For the whole rhetoric/imagery arena, here's a column by an academic, (SF Chronicle), talking about the "semiotics" (use of symbols, basically) in the debate about Palin's website. He's pretty liberal, but I like the use of semiotics in the discussion -- relevant to Limbaugh too. Mainly, I think people are just pandering to their more right-wing audiences, and it's not that big of a deal. In poor taste, given our level of gun violence? Definitely, but we're talking about Limbaugh and Palin! Didn't exactly attend finishing school (or any school, really.) Okay, have at it, and let's leave the shooting thread about the shooting, the victims and the Congresswoman's recovery. (Just my suggestion.)
I, unsurprisingly, don't think we need any new gun laws. That being said, there is something that could be improved that was brought to light with this shooting. Loughner passed the FBI's background test and bought the handgun 2 years after he was declared mentally unfit for service in the Army. Maybe the Army should have shared that information with the FBI, and maybe the FBI should have used that in their screening process.
There was an interesting NPR interview yesterday, where they talked with the judge that approved some obscure paperwork that removed the kid's drug charges from his record. "I thought to myself, this kid probably wants to buy a gun." There are a few little loopholes and better communication tools we could use for gun permits, IMHO. Mental illness would be a BIG one to me. Here are policies I don't see a problem with: * no extended clips. I said this in another thread, but why on Earth, unless you're on offense, do you need this? * 1 gun purchase per month. (as per the article). I bet Ottomaton and ROXRAN will call me crazy on this one.
I'll always feel that education (gun safety and otherwise) and rehabilitation (mental health and criminal/drug) will go father towards preventing gun violence than almost any law we can come up with. That being said, if you feel you need extended clips and assault rifles, then you're probably a prime candidate for mental health help I just mentioned. (no offense, ROXRAN :grin: )
Sensible regulation should be maintained with an emphasis on education and rehabilitation--I agree. I have a large gun collection, 16+, and love to shoot/hunt. As a liberal, I can't close my eyes and plug my ears to how destructive the gun culture in this country is. I posted in another thread how creeped-out a modern gun-show makes me feel but I am not comfortable with "smart guns" and or restricting gun purchase to one a month. From a purely political standpoint, any attempt at gun regulation and or law changes at the Fed level will only incite more right-wing rallying and solidify the base even more than it is. I think a good number of right-center independents would see this as more "gub-mint" intrusion as we KNOW conservatives would. I don't know that Dems have the stomach for a knock down drag-out fight on guns right now when we have to fight a huge conservative majority in congress and a Senate that isn't fillabuster proof--I'd rather NOT give the right another emotionally charged issue to explode over.
I'd never have one in a handgun, but I have them for two of my rifles. Two reasons: 1. They're fun. 2. It's convenient for squirrel or varmint hunting. OK, it's mostly just the first reason. As someone who has bought multiple guns for raffles and such, I think this is a terrible idea. I will say that more than one gun purchase in a month does raise red flags. My old roommate, who has quite an arsenal, got the "come back in three days" response to a background check for a gun when he had bought a gun the week before. That isn't supposed to be kept on record, but apparently it is.
I was just reading an article over at CNN about White House press secretary Gibbs being asked by a Russian reporter if that America's freedoms to bear arms lead to these types of consequences (e.g. nuts bearing arms to shoot innocent people). Apparently, Gibbs got all huffed and puffed about it abruptly ending the press briefing. The Russian reporter had a damn good point imo. If we are guaranteed a right to bear arms, then we do have to live with the consequences. I personally don't like guns and I don't really want to own a gun. When I see all these nuts out there bearing arms, I don't want them to have guns, either. And, the fact is you cannot keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and nuts if our constitution says we have a right to bear arms. Sure, they try and they fail....because guns are so readily available from many sources in this society. I personally believe there should be very strict gun control laws but it won't happen because of groups like the NRA. I applaud the Russian reporter for getting his point across. He has a perfectly valid point that many want to turn a blind eye to in tragedies like this. When tragedies like this happen, it is because of our granted freedoms and the only real solution is to restrict those freedoms. But, that is not going to happen. So, when is the next massacre? Somehow, I don't think the founding fathers had this crazy society we live in today in mind when they put in writing we have the right to bear arms.
I'd like to use this opportunity to use similar logic, and go off against two of my MOST HATED items, besides guns, of course. They are SPOONS and PENCILS!!! Something should be DONE about them! Spoons make people FAT, and PENCILS misspell words! DO SOMETHING PEOPLE!!!!11
You are absolutely right, we have a guranteed consitutional right that imparts great freedom on one hand and a grave responsibility on the other. I guess you could call me a gun-nut based on my other posts on the subject but I agree with you that the the crazies with guns are far too plentiful. Furthermore, there are plenty or "normal" people that have NO business owning a firearm and they make my skin crawl as much as it does yours.
Even amid the radical vision of new rights created by 5 guys in heller - the right to bear arms is expressly conditioned upon such being a part of a well-regulated militia. Time to start regulating again and stop living in fear of NRA extremists.
I am with you on that Sam--the NRA is an extremist orginization. Not sure where I saw this, but I understand that Bush 41 ripped up his NRA after they called the government officers at Ruby Ridge "jack-booted government thugs"...but, Bush 41 was also for sensible gun control and thus not one of the good-ole'-boys.
Nice. I'm curious where you got the idea to post this. You're not the first person I've seen today post almost the exact same thing. And nice comic Donny. It's really sad how true that is.
No thanks on the new gun laws. Thank for asking though. Feel free for any politician to commit political suicide though.
So those of you who are poo pooing ANY regulations on guns with the "slippery slope" strawman of infringing on your God Given Rights. Does that include nuclear weapons? Tanks? Airplane bombers? Should your ordinary citizen be able to obtain those just as easily as the government? I mean, if this is about being able to over though the government at a moment’s notice isn’t it kind of concerning to you that the government has access to these weapons and you don’t? WasUp wit dat?
The slippery slope argument seems pointless. When we had the assault weapons ban which also banned the extended clip used in the AZ shooting, nobody tried taking anyone's guns away. It didn't happen. There was no erosion of the people's ability to own firearms. It showed that we can have regulation without the slippery slope effect ruining it and destroying the 2nd amendment.
