Skip to main content

View Diary: Poll: It turns out supporting gun safety legislation is also smart politics (63 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why is (9+ / 0-)

    Nidal Hasan a "terrorist" for shooting up a room full of people at Fort Hood and James Holmes "mentally ill" for shooting up a room full of people in Aurora, CO?  

    The Newtown murders were just the tipping point.  Really, millions of sane, sad, disgusted, fed-up people just decided that if we as a nation did not do something about our absurdly ineffective gun laws in the wake of twenty small and 100% innocent children being slaughtered in their classrooms, that really said something pathetic about American society.  

    And we didn't get anything done, which says something pathetic about American society (and dysfunctional, lobbyist controlled Congress).  The fact that the gun lobby and the noisy, scared, angry, paranoid, uniformed minority got their way is pathetic.  It's a national embarrassment.

    I still wonder about Nancy Lanza, presumably a reasonably intelligent woman, keeping seven guns and numerous large-capacity magazines in a gun cabinet in her house, with a clearly disturbed 20-year-old son living under the same roof.    

    •  Clearly disturbed by which measure? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      noway2, Not A Bot, Very Long Range

      Our rights are based on the rule of law, which means definitions are important.  Was Adam Lanza ever diagnosed as "clearly disturbed" by a doctor?  Was he found mentally ill by a court?  Why do you believe he was "clearly disturbed"?  Is it because he had Aspergers?  Does that mean all persons with Aspergers are legally denied their rights?

      You mention "absurdly ineffective gun laws", and I'd like to get to the root of that.  Does that mean all individuals with Aspergers should be banned from owning a gun?  Should all parents of mentally ill children be banned from owning guns?  If you think that Aspergers sufferer Adam Lanza should have failed a background check, you have to state exactly why, and then be consistent over all citizens.

      I'm asking these questions because you seem to be very close to saying our Constitutional rights can be entirely dismissed as soon as some armchair psychologist says "Eh, he's clearly disturbed".  Our rights don't work that way.  

      For better or worse, Adam Lanza had no due process with regard to his mental state, and thus would not have failed any background check that doesn't devlove into gross profiling.  So discriminatory profiling of the mentally ill is acceptable now?

      Note:  Group housing for developmentally challenged individuals was turned down by zoning comittee in a suburb near me.  One of the actual reasons given was "those individuals can be dangerous, and no one wants to live next to them.  It'll hurt property values"

      •  Faito is saying (3+ / 0-)

        Adam Lanza's mother acted in a fatally incomprehensible and ultimately stupid way by not keeping her weapons locked up. Is there even a question about this?

        •  The question is about rights (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Not A Bot, Very Long Range

          No, there is no question that Mrs. Lanza should have kept her guns locked up.

          My question is whether Mrs. Lanza would have failed a background check and been legally prevented from owning guns, based on her son's mental state.

          •  Because Lanza would (4+ / 0-)

            have passed a background check is not a reason to oppose a background check that could have stopped the Aurora and Tucson shooters. This doesn't mean that Newtown is somehow off limits when the subject of background checks comes up. The idea isn't to prevent another Newtown if that means every condition that existed in Newtown would be duplicated in another setting. The idea is to prevent more horror if that can be done. That's what preventing another Newtown means.

            And Faito offered Lanza mental status as an aside about his mother's behavior, not a statement about Aspbergers as a disqualification for gun ownership.

      •  The state gun laws DO NOT WORK. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, TheFern, Glen The Plumber

        The 10 states with the weakest gun laws in America collectively suffer from a level of gun violence that is more than twice as high as the 10 states with the strongest gun laws.

        In 2005,  Seung-Hui Cho (V-Tech shooter) had been declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice and ordered to seek outpatient treatment.  This did not stop him from legally purchasing 2 semi-auto pistols and lots of ammo.  Norm sees no problem with that; I do see problem with that.

        2A:  A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

        It's astonishingly clear that the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago, and its purpose is long past.

        The amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.

        There is no "right of insurrection" in the USC.  If there were, the USC would be a self-destructing artifact.

        I get it.  You love your AR-15 and your AK-47 and you think all gun laws are "infringing" on your rights (although you surely do not belong to a "well regulated militia").  It's pointless to argue with you.  

        •  A couple points (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Not A Bot

          First, I don't own a single gun.  No I don't love guns, but I do love Constitutional rights.  And that's what this discussion is about.

          For the V-Tech shooting, I agree with you.  If an individual is declared mentally ill by a judge, that should void 2nd Amendment rights.  That's due process and I said so.

          But do you agree that an individual who has not lost his rights through due process in court still has them?  Or not?  Is suspision or racial profiling the same as due process?

          Finally, sounds like you want to change the Constitution.  Put it to a vote then, that's how it works.

        •  I'm calling BULLSHIT on that study (0+ / 0-)

          The interactive map at:

          shows Illinois ranking 41st in overall gun deaths based on a per capita figure. Alaska, because of it's tiny population, ranks 1st.

           But the number of firearm deaths in Chicago alone (in one month) far exceeds the number in Alaska for the whole year.

          The study skews the rankings to benefit high population states and depicts rural states as being "more dangerous."

          More BULLSHIT that does nothing but destroy the credibility of the Democratic party in rural America

          •  JAMA found the same thing. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber

            Their report (based on CDC, ATF & FBI reports) looked at indicators of gun violence like aggravated assaults with firearms, the percentage of guns traced to crimes within two years of their purchase, and the rate at which guns bought in one state are recovered in another after a crime is committed, a measure of illegal gun trafficking.

            When all 10 indicators of gun violence were taken into consideration, Louisiana — the state with the highest rate of gun homicides, and one of the states with the highest numbers of firearm deaths among children from 2001 to 2010 — ranked as the most violent state. Hawaii had the lowest overall rate of gun violence, followed by Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, all among the 10 states that an analysis last year by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence found had the toughest laws.


            Obviously, we know that correlation is not causation necessarily...but it suggests that there could be a causal relationship.


            •  All per capita calculations (0+ / 0-)

              Studies that use the same (flawed) methodologies to get the same results prove nothing.

              I suspect that we have 15 to 20 counties that are in high-population density/metropolitan/drug ridden/ difficult socio-economic areas that are skewing firearm violence statistics nationwide.

              •  Meh. (0+ / 0-)

                Gun-fans always whine about methodology when they don't like the study's results.

                The scary black urban gangbanger with a Glock is especially scary to middle-aged suburban white guys who suffer from irrational fears that said gangbangers will for no known reason travel out to the 'burbs to murder them in their sleep.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site