Gun Control

In light of yesterday's tragic events at Virginia Tech, what are your thoughts about gun control?

If you are opposed to gun control, why do you oppose it? If you support gun control, what would your proposed gun control legislation look like?

How do you reconcile an individual's right to bear arms, under the U.S. Constitution, with community safety?

Okay, I'm for very strict gun control ... not banning, though ... but more controls on who can buy guns and for what reasons ... and equally stringent control on who can sell them ... my idea is to make people more responsible for the guns ... maybe even have some kind of system where gun owners have to have their weapons inspected annually, the way they used to do to make sure cars meet state emissions standards ... regarding the Constitution, one needs to remember that the rights it grants are NOT unconditional ... there's freedom of speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater (unless there really is one, of course) ... there's freedom of religion, but not if it involves certain drugs or polygamy ...

KromesTomes,

What do you think about the following ideas?

1. A mandatory psychiatric assessment for all first time gun owners seeking a gun permit, including a waiver of any privacy rights to medical / psychiatric records; and

2. An annual mandatory psychiatric assessment of all current gun permit holders.

Also, for those who support gun control, how would you propose to address the issue of the millions of unregistered firearms in the United States? How could any regulatory scheme deal effectively, if at all, with these weapons?

I very much agree with KromesTomes. Well said!

Speaking for myself, I cannot imagine why I would need a gun. The only reason I can see for ever considering the purchase of a gun would be for protection--protection from gun-wielding criminal types. If fewer criminal types (or general nut jobs, like the star of yesterday’s show) had guns, fewer citizens would feel the need for guns. Of course, the vicious circle continues because the police have guns, and therefore many criminally minded types feel they too should have a gun, to even things up.

Personally, I wouldn’t care if guns were banned, but constitutionally speaking, I feel it would be wrong. If we start making exceptions for specific things, and start changing the Constitution to fit those exceptions, we venture into some very dangerous territory--where does the line get drawn?

As KromesTomes points out, the US Constitution grants the right to bare arms, but this right (and others) are not given to citizens unfettered. I see nothing unconstitutional about placing restrictions on who can own a gun, who can carry a gun, and for what reason.

Regarding your questions Autodafe, in theory I would be fine with a “mandatory psychiatric assessment” (or an annual psychiatric assessment, for that matter), but find it implausible, as I do not see how a psychiatric profile could, in any incontrovertible sense, prove who is fit or unfit to own a weapon.

Lastly, if I had a good answer to addressing “the issue of the millions of unregistered firearms in the United States,” I’d run for some political office. Sadly, I do not...

I'm of the view that the 2nd amendment is a lot like the 3rd amendment in the sense that the circumstances under which it was created no longer apply. The 3rd amendment states that someone cannot be forced to provide living quarters for soldiers during peace time, and during war time only as prescribed by a law, something that really doesn't occur anymore.

Back during the revolutionary era when the people's right to bear arms was said not to be infringed upon because a well-regulated militia was deemed necessary for a free state, the people WERE the army. The people formed militias and brought their own weapons. So that is basically the limit. If militias are the backbone of our armed forces and they depend upon each member being able to bring their own arms, then the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Only they have a right to bear arms. Do convicted felons have a right to bear arms? Do mentally unstable people have a right to bear arms? Do minors have a right to bear arms? If the 2nd amendment were actually unconditional, then even the most minimal of controls that we accept in this country would be in violation of the Constitution.

The 1st amendment doesn't have such explicitly stated conditions, making it innacurate to compare it with the 2nd amendment. There is no constitutionally stated limit to things like free speech, although I think the limit of "can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" are reasonable. But what does that metaphor really mean? People bandy it about without really analysing what it describes. It doesn't mean that limits are allowable. It means that you can't do something that will result in the foreseeable, tangible, and immediate harm of others.

I agrees with Lunar in the sense that arms are no longer necessary to defend ourselves against an enemy. Also the type of weapons that average Americans are allowed to have are much more lethal that the founding fathers *ever* would have envisioned. It's stunning to me that a young man with a history of mental illness would be able to buy not one but two assault rifles. I would like to see as some had mentioned an mandatory psychiatric assessment of all gun owners and/or a ban on assault weapons which are in no way useful for legitimate purposes of gun ownership such as hunting or even self defense and which make tragedies such as the Virginia Tech Tragedy become much more lethal in a much shorter period of time

I agree with Chris Rock, a bullet should cost $9,000

While I agree in principle with just about anyone who advocates stricter gun control (frankly, I wouldn't care if private ownership of guns were banned outright), I don't see a way to bring it about. This country is already an armed camp, and you just aren't going to get people to cheerfully hand over their guns.

We will, unfortunately, have to face the reality that a lot of people own guns who shouldn't. So gun violence is a threat we all face at some level. And while I don't fully accept the self-defense arguments of some gun advocates, maybe we need to consider that perpective. Who knows? Maybe the gun lobby would get a little concerned if it turned out that the hated liberals started arming themselves.

Excuse me Iam a liberal & a gun owner. Was raised to hunt & fish & could if necessary shoot to maim or kill. Iam also angered by those gun people who feel that it is allright to have weapons of mass destruction in their homes, but really how many of these citizens are there? I think many Americans are paranoid so the gun lobbyist play to that. No, I don't want to give up my guns, but I don't mind waiting to buy another if I chose to or registering of said guns. The fight isn't about the constitution, but about who is making money.

Have you all read the thread "War Profiteering"? It is worth joining & recommending.

I understand your irritation at my strident tone. And while I won't retract the statement, I will stress that I did say "I wouldn't care if" and meant precisely that, no more, no less, i.e. I'll deal with it either way. It's not going to influence my votes, and isn't likely to happen anyway.

The first paragraph of my post also was a lead-in to the second part, wherein I said that the more liberal/progressive types should get a lot more weapon-savvy themselves (which you apparently are anyway). A more credible case could then be made for reasonable regulations on weapon ownership.

Also, note that I said that "I don't fully accept the self-defense arguments." I could just as well have said I "only partially" accept them.

You might also like to take a look at my library under the tag "guns." And I don't have nearly all recorded yet.

"The first paragraph of my post also was a lead-in to the second part, wherein I said that the more liberal/progressive types should get a lot more weapon-savvy themselves (which you apparently are anyway)." - redmeatliberal

In the end, there's no point in the left arming itself; the conservatives will always pack more heat than the left, and, in a nation like ours (in which less than 25% of the public identify as liberal, even though: a) every single founding father was a liberal {lowercase "r"} republican; and b) a majority of representatives of both parties endorse neoliberal economic policies), one can expect the police and the military to defend the conservative interest in any and all apocalyptic scenarios.

In other words, it would be far more practical for left-leaning citizens to try to convince their friends and, as such, the general populace, to recognize the right-wing fearmongering for what it is. Only then will they vote for left-leaning representatives on a more consistent basis.

As far as constitutionality goes...

When we say 'conditions that no longer apply', we are getting on shaky ground; the US has been relatively lucky (at least since the Civil War) in not having any good reason to station large numbers of active forces in civilian areas. We certainly have not been forced to repel any invasions lately: Pearl Harbor was certainly an attack on a military target for strategic reasons, not a land grab.

I don't think the Constitution is at fault here. I think it has more to do with our cultural bias against 'duty to retreat'. Despite decades of progress as a civil society, we are still a bunch of closet vigilantes; guns are just a convenient way of 'defending our rights'.

I don't want to be paranoid about this. I don't want to justify gun ownership by saying that we need to arm ourselves against future invasions by hypothetical evil regimes. And most of my gun-owning friends and neighbors would characterize an excuse like that as loony in any case; they're more afraid of OUR government than someone else's.

What they WOULD say is that they are defending their selves, or their family, or their property from...whoever. In the rural West, at least, we've got to get around this argument before we can make any progress at all.

I think a 'duty to retreat' is a difficult sell in American culture; law enforcement would also have to be much more responsive and effective than it currently is, everywhere.

Living in Alaska I see this a bit differently. I don't own a gun, but most of my friends do, and when I travel with kids in the woods, I carry one. It would be irresponsible for me to take five kids on a four day bike trip down the denali highway without a gun.

So, if you want to regulate guns, what do you do about people who do need guns, even if only on an occasional basis?

(PS, the kids are trained in gun safety, and told that if any of them touch the gun for anything other than an emergency, the whole trip is over. I have never had to use it, nor have the kids ever touched it.)

Every one of those kids should have their own gun for protection. If every child had a gun, only bullies would get shot.

I don't think I would worry about gun regulation for the folks you are talking about. Look how successful America has been in getting machine pistols and other automatic weapons off the streets.

I completely disagree with you, geneg.

Not only for the simple reason that every clique is a target for some other clique, not only for the simple reason that there is no constitutional provision which allows for one to murder another citizen (even if he or she should happen to be a bully), not only for the simple reason that there has been a series of lunatic assaults by children upon other innocent children, not only for the simple reason that the inner cities of America are held hostage to gun violence, but for the simple reason that our 2nd Amendment rights were established in a time when it: a) took an individual 3 to 5 minutes to load an individual shot; b) said individuals felt a need to defend themselves from a new British invasion or an understandably hostile native Americans; and c) in much of the country, an individual's life really did depend on supplementing his personal resources or diet through hunting. It's 2007, and we're living in a very different world.

As for America's success in getting automatic weapons off the street, well, I think we may be living in different worlds! The assault weapons ban was not renewed when the issue came to a head (prior to the 2006 election). In other words, "hunters" can now buy weapons which can make a moose's chest cavity explode. That's ridiculous, and just a little scary, if you ask me.

Well the definition of "assault rifle" is pretty squirrely. It differs from state to state for one thing. The major difference is not that the bullet can make a moose's chest cavity explode. If that were the case, no one would use them, because we shoot moose for meat, and that is a waste of good meat.

Properly speaking, at least in many locales, an assault rife can fire off more than one round at a time. Sometimes that means without reloading or cocking the gun, in some places it means simultaneously. Many people up here modify their rifles to be able to fire two chambers for the primary reason that once you shot an animal, you HAVE to kill it, which, if you are a bad shot, can mean a miserable romp through the woods chasing a wounded animal. Not to mention what it does to the animal. (I know someone who butt shot a caribou with an arrow, and spent a day and half going after it.)

Things are not always what they appear to be.

#13: "When we say 'conditions that no longer apply', we are getting on shaky ground;"

You're absolutely right. I should have said "currently doesn't apply" instead of "no longer applies." Surely, we don't have a need for a citizen army at this point in our history to defend our freedom, but it's impossible to exclude that possibility in the future. And if that condition cannot be definitively excluded as a possibility, doesn't that mean that there should be no infringement (no regulation) upon the right to bear arms just as a precaution against that situation, as far flung as it may be? Hmmm....

14> Doesn't sound like Eastern Oregon is all that different. Arctic, are you anticipating defending yourself against bears, or against bandits?

Once again:

law enforcement would also have to be much more responsive and effective than it currently is, everywhere.

Now, we have a tough problem as far as geography goes, in the West and particularly in Alaska: LOTS of square miles and not much budget for cops. Plus plenty of people don't trust cops in the first place (I have a tendency that way myself...).

'Duty to retreat' really means two things. The obvious one is the obligation to move away from confrontations if you have a way to do so. The less obvious thing: working to lower the general level of hostility in the first place.

One of the ways to achieve the latter is to make confrontations less threatening. Another is to stop tolerating the behavior of those who end up in these situations.

Sure, if you're off camping (esp. with kids) in an area where you have a fair chance of being mauled by a bear, carrying a gun is certainly defensible. But those who justify gun ownership as their 'constitutional right' when they are actually satisfying a fetish are in a different category.

I'm not saying we're not ALLOWED to carry guns. We are.

I'm not saying there aren't situations where we need guns. There are.

I'm not even saying we won't need to be armed in the future. I hope not, but it's certainly possible.

What I AM saying is that we don't need so many. With so many around, SOME get into the wrong hands; these are BAD people, no question. But guns are MUCH easier to kill a person which than about anything else; anything else (except maybe a car) takes a lot more courage and skill.

There is NO easy solution to this, as has been painfully clear to me after growing up in a hunting family (deer and elk every winter) and 30+ years living in a small rural community where gun ownership IS more than just a fetish.

But we should be looking for one, not making excuses.

I am fine with having a license for gun ownership. You have to go through a course...much like a driver's License.

In some European country if you are caught driving under the influence of alcohol you lose your driver's license for life. End of story. If gun's were licensed, and monitored closely, perhaps taken away if abused, maybe it could work.

Nevertheless, the people I am the most afraid of are those who think the governments is out to get them (and they might be right); and their right to bear arms is clearly in their minds to protect themselves, their families and THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS (whatever those might be...).

The only experience I have had with guns is those used by a drunken young man in the parking lot of our community center during a party. Not needed!

I used to consider myself pro-gun control. Like Rosie O'Donnell, I had the epiphany that it really doesn't matter.

The NRA owns the lobby. As long as they hand scads of cash to the pollies inside the Beltway, we don't have jack-spit to say on the matter. Now, all I want is firm gun registration, so that I'll know who has guns, that I might avoid them like the plague.