[Erin] Second amendment conundrum

If some people in the factory carried handguns and knew how to use them, perhaps the murders could have been averted.

If Europe is to be judged, heavy restrictions on gun ownership probably wouldn't do much to lessen overall crime but it would significantly reduce the number of murders, especially shooting rampages like this one. Whether that's worth ceding a constitutional freedom is another question.

I was mostly thinking out loud, John E. I have many mixed thoughts and feelings on this matter.

Perhaps handguns should be more difficult to get than other guns; couldn't we repel threats to our liberty just as well with rifles or shotguns? Perhaps an age limit would help, though the shooter was 25. I don't know, honestly.

And my sympathies tend to lie more with those who say, no, restrictions aren't going to stop these guys. So what's the answer? Increased security at businesses? Arm everybody?

It's just such a senseless tragedy; I'm probably thinking more with my emotions here. I can see that I'm not being completely logical about this--I just keep thinking about the victims, and the loss to their families and the community.

While I support strict gun control, I think we also need to ask why the U.S. is such a violent society and what's wrong about a culture where violence is so prevelent. Since this is one social problem that can't be blamed on feminists and contraception, I'm curious to see what the crunchy con response is to our violent culture.

" I'm curious to see what the crunchy con response is to our violent culture."

Shoot the liberals?

Steve

Autoloading handguns have been available since the turn of the 20th century. High capacity models have been around since the 1930's. Yet these types of massacres were very rare before the last couple of decades. It's cultural.

I don't have the answer here but can offer one change that's different. Shooting unarmed people was portrayed in the media and culture much differently a couple of generations ago than now. Someone who did this half a century ago would have been called a coward and a low-life (and much worse). Their families might have moved and changed their names in shame. There was no attempt at "understanding why".

But that's hardly the case now. Look at the months of pop psychologizing and talk of bullying around Harris and Klebold. Look at the portrayals of Cho last year, showing pictures of him posing and sneering with his guns. Look at the many TV shows devoted to understanding why he would do this. Look at the outpouring of sympathy to his family.

The current media environment is a psychopath's dream. Someone who might have just killed themselves a few decades ago now has incentive to kill as many others as possible first. Then all of their grievances get a full public airing. They get justification. It's sick.

New York's crime rate has plummeted since the crack epidemic of the late 1980s/early 1990s.

Last I checked, its gun control laws have not been repealed.

Rich, I think you may have something there.

Another factor may be impulse control--our society doesn't value it at all. From earliest childhood we teach people that they can have what they want when they want it, and we don't exactly encourage looking at the long-term consequences of our actions.

Just check the stats in Great Britain for home invasions while occupants were at home since the imposition of strict gun control laws (effectively banning private ownership of handguns in England). They have spiked remarkably. Why? Because thugs understand that law-abiding citizens in England really don't have effective means of self-defense. So, they invade homes, during the daytime hours, armed with hammers and axes, brutalize the occupants, and leave with whatever they want.

Check the crime stats in the U.S. in cities that ban guns. They are always higher for every kind of crime than places that have conceal and carry laws.

There is a reason people in L.A. feel free to "fire at will" when they get pissed off in traffic whereas they tend to be a bit more reserved in Dallas (which boasts traffic arguably just as bad): In Dallas, one can sometimes actually see the gun the other driver has in his truck. In L.A., a criminal carrying an illegal gun can safely assume that 90% of others are not armed--and (s)he is free to fire away.

Gun laws do not reduce crimes with guns. Ever. Period. It is naive to think that were there stricter laws the massacre in Kentucky would not have happened. Gun laws do not actually affect anyone's ability to get a gun. They just put law-abiding citizens at more risk than the crazies.

While the talk about gun control is warranted, I'm more concerned not how this person was able to get a gun (or why in Kentucky you can keep a pistol in your car) but why this person felt they had to go to such an extreme measure over something seemingly as minor as the requirement to wear safety goggles.

Just how did we get to "I'm mad because my boss is making me wear safety goggles and my appropriate response is to kill him"?

Echoing other comments: society today is filled with grossly incompetent, irresponsible, and un-self-controlled people and it's getting worse all the time; and the free ownership of guns among such people is an accident waiting to happen (and often does, like today). How about gun ownership laws that involve a thorough psychological exam? I appreciate the drawbacks to any type of gun control though.

I want to make a couple comments I hope you will appreciate - I'll try to be brief. Back in my early college days I did a paper on crime, in my research I found DOJ predictions of increases in crime among offenders 14 -23 through the late 80s, and then increasing again in about 2005 - 2015 as the children of those offenders become about the same age. It's a values game and population game of demographics. Basically, they pass on their values, or lack of them to their children, and since they generally increase the size of the next generation crime will increase. I.E Johnny Snotnose and his wife have 3-5 kids with their lack of self-control and disregard for the law.

Meanwhile the demographics game comes into play with the law abiding families having 0 to .5 population growth.

Also in my studies was the desensitization of our youth through media such as music, games, and movies. It's pretty disturbing, unlike many of us, these kids don't have a real idea of the impact of violence, or develop and game mentality about violence. In video games the more violent you are, the more likely you are to win! We put a big emphasis in this country on being the "winner" - I'm not talking about sports which promotes positive social behavior and teamwork, - I'm talking about the "I gotta have it all" and I don't care what happens to you mentality.

Then in my studies for Criminal Justice I did papers on youth violence, etc. Generally, the nuclear family is gone, kids raise themselves without positive role models, and teens apply peer pressure to fit in with the group (substitute family) - morals are lacking and crime again increases. These environmental conditions promote violent kids without respect for older persons, because they no longer are provided older persons as role models, or they resent the older role models for not being more involved in their development years 0-14.

If you add economics, bullying, etc. you have a powderkeg waiting to target someone. Last but not least, is the fact we have lost our moral compass as a society. Employees are treated callously, pay is inadequate or disportionally distributed ( the rich get richer, etc.) while the working class barely makes ends meet. Even the most gentle of souls can be turned into a angry bear if enough buttons are pushed, opportunities denied, and neglected.

So, what about gun control, add in the equation of people being able to protect themselves and others, and many offenders think twice. If you can't create mass casualty, all of a sudden you are just a murderer who may have killed someone - and it doesn't make the national news, or gain attention to promote their sorrowful agenda.

I have to live in Winnebago County Illinois - restrictive Illinois laws promote crime - victims can't defend themselves on the street. It's a felony to transport a loaded weapon. I work armed security in Wisconsin - I have to be in a security uniform to do so. Absolutely no concealed carry in Wisconsin except for police officers. Beloit Wisconsin has a crime issue because of it's proximity to Winnebago County Illinois, and the inability of the people to carry a weapon in their car, or on their person. Self-defense is limited to only the protection of a human life, and so you have a duty to flee if it involves property.. you can only use the force not likely to cause injury(try to do that against a person who is trying to beat you with a fist); unless you or another person are threatened with immediate harm likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

That's my understanding of the problems with society and the law.

We need our right to bear arms, because a well regulated militia is necessary for the free state. That means we need it to protect us from a tyranical goverment - that was the fear of our founders. It should also allow us to bear arms to protect ourselves in our homes or in our travels from malicious minded persons who threaten us with great bodily harm or death.

I hope the Supreme Court decision this morning will avow our individual right to bear arms, and maybe get the ball rolling in favor of the individuals right to protect oneself.

I say we take the second amendment to its literal and logical conclusion and make the right to bear arms go hand in hand with the responsibility and eligibility to serve in the National Guard, Border Patrol, or Active Armed forces. Yeah, I'm suggesting conscription, in fact. The logistics would be complicated, and handicapped or otherwise ineligible people would have to get exceptions. But basically, your weapons permit would be your draft card. I'd still advocate for non-bearers to be subject to national service, if for nothing else to ensure that our elite upper middle classes, who are a little less likely to run around with weaponry, are also equally subject to service.

Consider Switzerland. The place is perfect and beautiful, and everyone is well adjusted, though I think that has more to do with demographics than anything. What surprised me was waking up one morning to find that everyone was suddenly in uniform and rather well armed, heading off to drill for the weekend. I mean EVERYONE who was male. Their entire male populace serves as Reservists, from the age of 16 to 60. Every neighborhood or village is based around an armory, and that constitutes the basic military unit. The entire country's divisions into Cantons is also partially based around military headquarters.

So sure, you can bear arms. If you are willing to serve in the military. And we'd have to call on people a lot to make this a real responsibility. You'd sit there polishing your rifle knowing that tomorrow you could be called up to fill sandbags in Missouri for four weeks. Or maybe for six months in Iraq (if we had more folks in uniform we would not have to be here for 15 months straight.) Might make people take their weaponry a little more seriously, or hesitate to purchase one.

I'm not sure I'm making any sense. This wouldn't eliminate criminal weapons trade, very little would. It's way past my bed time, I've been up messing with Army trucks most of the morning since I got off shift last night. Interest anyone in a superfluous Humvee? It only gets driven to the motor pool once a week for maintenance checks I swear.

Anyone in favor of European gun laws can catch the next flight to the nation of choice. The constitution protects the rights of Americans to own guns. I get sick of the same conversation over and over.

So sure, you can bear arms. If you are willing to serve in the military.

But the point of the Second Amendment is to preserve our right to use those arms AGAINST our military, not in it and for it.

The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that the people would not be disarmed and therefore helpless in the face of a powerful government. They also disdained standing armies, for the same reasons.

This is my problem with the "our soldiers are fighting for our freedom" cant, as well. No, they're not. There's nothing in Iraq, Viet Nam, Korea which threatened our freedom. If anything, our standing armies THREATEN our freedom.

The Founding Fathers understood this, but damn few modern day Americans do.

Gun laws must be the same everywhere.

Why? Should the same gun laws be in place for urban Manhattan as for rural Kansas?

When guns are hard to come by in other countries, people also use use knives (machetes are popular),

My midwestern city has had a spate of knife killings recently. I don't know what to make of it, other than perhaps it has something to do with a swelling illegal immigrant population.

Sed contra, we also have concealed carry laws (so guns are not difficult to obtain) and we have the toughest anti-immigrant laws in the country, so I don't know ....

I think a lot of the problem is cultural and lack of self control. Once upon a time children could take guns and knives to school during hunting seasons.

My wife's uncle, born 1918, would take his rifle and hunting knife to school and leave them in the cloakroom so he could hunt on the way home. He said all the boys did that during the depression. Bagging a deer was important for feeding the family. He could recall no instances of violence or mishandling of weapon on school grounds.

His son, born 1945, also would take his gun and knife to school.

While I agree in principle with this I am not sure I would trust the bulk of today's children.

I don't like guns. I do not own a gun. I am ambivalent about the morality of private ownership of any device whose only purpose is to harm another individual. I am disgusted by this ruling.

That four Supreme Court Justices could ignore the plain language of the Second Amendment, could ignore the entire history of gun law and jurisprudence, and somehow come to the conclusion that the DC handgun ban was somehow Constitutional is beyond me. It's ludicrous that this ruling wasn't unanimous in overturning a clearly unconstitutional infringement on the rights of District residents.

Oops.

Allen, mea culpa -- I totally misread your post to be contra the right to keep and bear arms. A second reading clearly reveals that you were expressing astonishment at the dissent, not the majority opinion.

My apologies.

No problem, fbc. I was probably being too cute by half, starting off with my general opposition to guns.

Maybe there are legal nuances I'm just not aware of, but it strikes me as astonishing that four justices thought this particular law held up to Constitutional scrutiny.

During the anti-gun Clinton Administration, The National Research Council, funded in part by the anti-gun Joyce foundation, was instituted to provide information on firearms. In 2005 it finally issued a report: "Firearms and Violence."

Researchers were unable to identify even one gun control program that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. Whether any gun control program or regulation was counter-productive was not addressed (surprise!) Nor was the cost to taxpayers and gun owners addressed (surprise!) But it was recommended that taxpayers provide funding for more studies (surprise!)

But who needs studies? Enlightened England just banned all handguns, like enlightened D.C. had, and crimes with handguns went through the roof (surprise!).

The point of my sarcasm is to point out that liberals lie about the benefits that surly will accrue from ever-new gun control schemes, including outright bans, while women (except Susan :-)) and old folks die in their homes and on the street. But the liberals get reelected for their efforts to do "the right thing", and like good Socialists everywhere, they have no shame. They rationalize that you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, i.e., get reelected. The latest attempt to do away with the God-given (it's not law-given, just law-codified) right to self-defense is to have Obama and a liberal Congress agree to a U.N. program to ban small arms world-wide.

Today's shamefully split Supreme Beings Court (it should have been an 8 to 1 decision to strike the D.C. ban, with the ACLU's Ginsburg dissenting) will only revitalize the U.N. gambit

the distance between "regulation is permissible" and "let's ban all handguns" is enormous.

In my experience, the pro-gun crowd is hardly monolithic WRT regulation. Outright bans or registration (*) will probably garner consensus opposition. But there are other regulations that many support, e.g., bans on gun ownership by felons, or "shall-issue" concealed-carry licensing. (Of course, there are some who oppose these as well.)

(*) WRT registration...note that much of the opposition here stems from fear of confiscation. I.e., if the government knows who has how many guns, it could one day use that information to "disarm America" (as an '07 op-ed put it). It's interesting to consider how many gun-rights types would actually oppose registration if one could GUARANTEE that the lists would _never_ be used for mass confiscation.