Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: Open Thread (320 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  good morning (22+ / 0-)

    and a warm hello to those that disagree with me on gun resonsibility legislation.

    My basic assumption is that everyone wants the same thing (a safer country, less gun deaths, less gun accidents). where we differ is how, but I am hoping more data on cause and effect will help us decide, and we need to go where the data takes us.

    http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/...

    In any case, i always assume good faith with you guys.

    Cheers!

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

    by Greg Dworkin on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 09:04:19 AM PDT

    •  The data (11+ / 0-)

      I suspect will likely show that people with lengthy criminal records are responsible for a significant proportion of gun violence, and that many of the victims also fit that profile, and are indeed involved in criminal activity themselves at the time they are shot. These are not the sort of people who will follow laws related to licensing, purchase restrictions, and so forth, and such laws are likely to have little or no effect on the ability of these people to obtain firearms.

      How would you address this problem?

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 09:42:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We have heard that pathetic excuse (5+ / 0-)

        over and over. By that logic, we can just repeal the entire criminal code, because criminals don't follow any of it.

        Anyway, the data say otherwise. Background checks and other measures do reduce gun crime in jurisdictions that perform them, compared with areas of similar population density, economics, and so on. In particular, there is no country other than the US that routinely has mass shootings outside of civil wars and insurrections. Finland is the worst, with 2 (two) mass shootings in its entire history. We had 16 in 2012 alone.

        Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

        by Mokurai on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:11:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do not (6+ / 0-)

          put words in my mouth. Your logical fallacy is entertaining, but ultimately of little use.

          If you merely want to punish criminal activity after the fact, a new law will serve fine. If you'd like to actually prevent crime from taking place, that approach may not work so well.

          You don't think it's necessary to acknowledge that some people will not follow the law? And that perhaps there are other ways to deal with this problem than restricting the law abiding, who generally do not commit crimes with their firearms?

          "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

          by happy camper on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:42:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Talk about punishing criminal activity (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero

            after the fact, Talk about punishing criminal activity before the fact? Why am I still taking my shoes off at the airport?  If I want to go to a pro football game anywhere in the country now I have to bring in personal items in a clear plastic bag.  These are knee-jerk reactions after the crime was committed.   I think this a reaction to the Boston marathon bombings, the underwear bomber and so on. They are checking for bombs, knives, Exacto knives, and  guns.  

            How about being proactive?  The second amendment does not address automatic weapons.  It addresses a well regulated militia.   Well regulated is in the second amendment.

            I do not understand how gun rights people use the second amendment which was written so many years ago.  This is a different world, and I don’t understand how background checks and registering is such an onerous thing.  I have to register my car, dog, cars and even my cats.  

            Page down, please.  Puter is  not behaving                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      The                                                                                                                              
            second amendment gave you some rights.  

            I still like you a lot, KV.  You are always civil,  I look forward to sparring with you, but we will rarely agree.

            Best,
            Piren

            A day without sunshine is like, you know, night. ....Steve Martin

            by Piren on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 03:36:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nope, you have it wrong. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon, KVoimakas, gerrilea

              1.  The only way to punish criminal activity is, usually, after the fact.  Unless you catch someone red-handed in planning or attempting to execute a criminal act.  Good luck with that.  Bureau of Pre-Crime, anyone?

              2.  A sports stadium is usually private property, or run by a private company, Constitutional Rights do not always apply there.  I think they are over-reacting, but I also don't go to those places, if I can at all avoid it.  (Full disclosure, I've worked security at a major University sports complex on occasion here in Tucson.)

              3.  The Second addresses "arms" of which 'automatic weapons' are a subset.  It barely mentions "a well regulated militia", but grammatically the focus and intent is on "the right of the people".  "Well regulated" is used in reference to the militia, not "the right of the people".

              4.  Most of the other Amendments were also "written so many years ago".  And yet all of them are still applicable today.  Until Amended via Article V of the Constitution, they still apply just as they always have.

              5.  Registration of all the things you mention has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with a revenue stream for the government.  

              6.  None of the Amendments "give" us any Rights.  They recognize pre-existing Rights and lay out limitations on the government.

              Your hate-mail will be graded.

              by PavePusher on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 04:13:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Has there been a mass shooting at a football (3+ / 0-)

              game? A concert?

              Concert goers have been screened for contraband for 2 decades (at least). Has there been a mass shooting at a Concert?

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 04:15:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The law was settled long before we were born. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher, Tom Seaview
              2. United States v. Cruikshank (1875)

                  6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

              You must be clear on this point: The Constitution Of The United States grants limited authorities to our created government, it does not grant me a damn thing.  I will still exist with unalienable rights even if our government ends tomorrow.  Our created government cannot grant me anything.  It must ensure my/our Equity Under Law.  It must protect the specific enumerated individual rights contained within the Bill Of Rights, not abrogate them.

              This point however does not stop ANY State from trying to do so.

              This argument has been addressed and settled for decades:

              The second amendment does not address automatic weapons.  It addresses a well regulated militia.   Well regulated is in the second amendment.
              The Heller Decision:
               Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
              As for all the machinations of our New American Police State that you mentioned, immaterial to this discussion, really.

              Owning a car is a privilege, just ask any person in our government.  And traveling, nope, we have no inherent right to travel....Ughhhhh!!!

              Cats, not sure about that one, but even in my most authoritarian State of New York, I do not have to register my cats.  Dogs must be licensed, why??? Because some other authoritarians thought up a good way to keep taxing us for the State's financial benefit and claiming it's for "public health".  They could have very easily mandated rabies shots or whatever and then fined people that were found not to have proof they did so.  The "licensing thingy" is because they assume guilt here in New York.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 04:55:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you believe that UBC, licensing & registration (3+ / 0-)

                are infringements under the 2A?

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 05:14:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, but I do understand the thought of not (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher, Tom Seaview, Piren

                  allowing convicted violent felons from owning an arsenal of toys.

                  Personally, I'd rather we didn't created those violent felons in the first place and focused our monies and efforts in helping every American create their very own dream.  More specifically, giving them the tools necessary for success in these United States.

                  Perpetual poverty and "voluntary" servitude to Amerika, Inc...does no one any good.  It destroys the human spirit and pits man against man.  It's a vicious self-destroying economic system doomed to collapse.

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 05:34:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely, and I think we will keep hearing it.nt (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero, OregonOak, LilithGardener
        •  Laws don't, generally, keep people from doing... (4+ / 0-)

          harmful things.

          Laws are agreements about what we consider to be harmful behavior, what we can and can not hold people responsible for, and what punishments can be applied for various harmful acts.

          So, your Strawman(tm) about "repeal the entire criminal code" is useless and not even very entertaining.  Nor has anyone suggested anything like it.

          Your hate-mail will be graded.

          by PavePusher on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 03:57:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  We are much larger country that Finland (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero, DefendOurConstitution

          so you would have to pick a state, with a comparable population, and geographical split of rural/urban, to make a meaningful comparison.

          I recced for the rest of your comment. The prior post makes an absurd argument that is right up there with the silly argument, "Well if there were no guns, murders would just use their hands."

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 04:13:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Data already shows that. The claim that there's (7+ / 0-)

        been no science on the subject is one of the big lies of the advocacy-driven faction in the public health community.

        The criminological community, on the other hand, has amassed a large corpus of scientific research on the subject, and they found exactly as you describe.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:36:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'll attempt to listen to the interview shortly. (9+ / 0-)

      Hopefully have some comments after that.

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 09:49:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  OK, agree on needing numbers and mental health. (7+ / 0-)

      A question though: You say we need to go where the data takes us. What if the data takes us to an extreme of ban all handguns? Do we pursue this (at great cost politically. I'd think we'd have Constitutional issues) even though the data says we should?

      To put a different way: at what point do we say "yes, we can obtain safety (X) if we infringe upon (y) but we shouldn't since we're infringing upon (Y) so much" in your mind?

      Nice interview.

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 10:08:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well this is a good news diary in that 2 of the 3 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, LilithGardener

      news pieces are good, common sense news. I am not sure what the scorecard is, but I have a sense that more of these common sense laws have been defeated since 12/14 than have been implemented/enforced. Is there any data on that?

      Christie is still trying to position himself as the popular candidate among Republicans by trying to push some common sense laws like the one above and this other one.

      Great to see that Illinois is implementing something as logical and simple as a lost gun must be reported within 3 days. Some responsibility/accountability is always great.

    •  and a belated good morning to you too. (5+ / 0-)

      in general the statistics are getting better not worse. I'm a glass half full kinda person.

      “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

      by ban nock on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 03:00:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Working through the report from the NRC (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, DefendOurConstitution

      Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence ( 2013 )

      http://books.nap.edu/...

      17 percent of high school students had carried a knife, gun, or club in the past 30 days. More than 5 percent had carried a gun. The same survey showed that more than 15.8 percent of high school students surveyed had seriously considered attempting suicide in the previous year., and 7.8% had actually made a suicide attempt.  (CDC, 2012b)
      Is anyone talking about teaching principles of self defense and de-escalation to teens?

      I'd support tax-payer funded training in both and think it could be taught in gym class.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 04:08:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site