GMTom wrote:Hence guns are highly regulated, background checks are required, we limit what you can or can not own, we limit where they can be used or where they can be carried, we require special permits to conceal them. You want to compare regulations? Gun regulations are far more strict than are smoking or alcohol regulations. You seem to say those regulations worked where banning of the product was not required, I assume you also must then assume similar measures are in order for guns and assault weapons. So once again, I thank you for being on our side!

If we were talking about a total ban on guns, you'd have a point. But I'm not, so err.. you don't.

We do, however, ban certain types of car (I know of several models that the US won't allow as imports without modifications for safety reasons, and some of those can't be modified to fit).

The point I was making was that we have changed the regulations on alcohol and cigarettes and cars, often because we have found that doing so will reduce risks. And they seem to work, properly applied. So, let's improve the regulation on guns, yeah?

That's not the same as a full ban. Ok?

I haven't argued for a ban of rifles and shotguns. They are often necessary tools in rural areas. And can be responsibly owned by hunters

so rifles and shotguns that don't "look scarey" (you are calling for a ban on assault weapons) and only hunters can be responsible?

Where did he say that? Why do you insist on twisting ricky's words like that. Sure, he says stuff that is sometimes wrong, or badly put, but this was pretty clear. He said that guns 'can be responsibly owned by hunters'. That is not the same as saying what you have taken it to mean: 'can only be responsibly owned by hunters'. You put the 'only' in and are using it as a stick to beat ricky with. Problem is, it's not a stick, it's a straw man.

tom

Hence guns are highly regulated, background checks are required,

Not really.
Background checks are currently only conducted in about 40% of purchases. Hence the move to increase the requirement to cover things like sales at Gun Shows....
If you really think guns are highly regulated, compare them to cars....
Whereas drivers are required to be licensed, to pass driving tests, to carry appropriate insuance, to register their cars and license their cars .... gun owners ? Not so much.
Drivers can be stopped for almost any excuse and have their requirements checked... Gun owners? In New York City there was aggressive stop and search for unregistered and unlicensed guns..... anywhere else?
Cars are required to have seat belts, air bags etc. Guns?
High performance race cars are not allowed on the streets.... High capacity and high rate of fire assault rifles are allowed....
So not a great comparison.

If you want to spend millions on gun education, good for you. How shall that campaign be paid for Tom? A tax on bullets? A high registration fee? Thats how anti-tobacco ads are funded...

DF, rather than another confusing post with nested quotes, I'll answer you as follows:

1) My reason for referring to those links was not to defend my point about otherwise intelligent people doing dumb stuff with guns. It was to respond to your assertion/implication that for a 3 year old to be able to shoot a semi they'd need to be really clever and really strong, so it's impossible. My response is that it's not just semi-automatics that 3 year olds can pick up and shoot, as borne out by reality. And if one of those was a semi-automatic, then your point is disproven completely.

2) We ban some poisons and accelerants from domestic use. We don't ban all. Similarly, I don't see what's wrong with applying the same logic to weapons. We can ban some weapons from domestic use, while still allowing others.

3) Yes, in each of those case, the gun owner did something dumb. Well spotted. But are they low IQ, or did they just have a quick lapse? Before you answer, please explain how you know without mindreading powers. One of the gun owners, by the way, was a cop. Cops are supposed to be trained in the use and storage of their weapons, and are supposed to not be dumb-asses.

4) And on that one, your response "The last one was in a police officer's home. No mention is made of where the parent's were." And? They weren't the gun owners - the police officer was, and he was the kid's uncle. Hair-splitting can be fun, but we aren't just talking about parents, we are talking about gun owners.

5) "I'm not shrugging. It's very sad. But, on your logic, we should get rid of farm equipment, sports, cars, bicycles, and all manner of things--because kids get hurt and/or killed." Nope. We should regulate them. That may include banning certain activities and certain things. Prescribing and Proscribing. You are using the word 'logic' to mean something it does not. I have not called for a ban on all guns. I have said in this thread (more than once), that I don't intend to argue for a total ban. So, my 'logic' also does not call for a total ban on sports or cars or any of the other things on that list. My 'logic', however, would indeed suggest that we should ban the most dangerous sports (such as base jumping in populated places, or bare-knuckle boxing), etc, and improve regulation of other things that we know to cost lives. An iterative process rather than a dogmatic all-or-nothing one-off position is also worth considering.

6) "You want to ban guns . . . amend the Constitution." I don't want to 'ban guns', as much as supporting a ban on 'certain types of gun'. As has been done for a long time Constitutionally already - machine guns are banned. Citizens are not allowed to own them, and other military-grade weapons are also illegal. No Constitutional Amendment needed. And anyway, the argument that the Constitution trumps what is right or wrong is not going to cut much ice with me. If it needs to be amended, so be it (it's not like it's written in stone), but either way that is not sufficient reason to argue that we should not change how things are.

I mean, it's quite clear that before the 1860s, it could be argued (thanks to various clauses) that slavery was Constitutional. And it did indeed apparently require an Amendment to do it. But before that, it was simply a non-sequiter to suggest to anti-Slavery campaigners that if they wanted to ban slavery they should amend the constitution or shut up.

Guys, we do limit some types of guns available. You want a machine gun? ..can't have it! bazooka? nope, mortars? nope
All sorts of restrictions, all sorts of registrations and licenses required. The problem is that you point to restrictions on cars and alcohol and the comparison is the same already, you want to go farther and ban assault weapons yet we have shown over and over that assault weapons are not a big problem. They do far less damage, statistically they are hardly even used in violent crimes. You point to statistics to support your positions yet ignore the statistics regarding assault rifles, the statistics simply are not on your side yet you continue to insist on their ban.

And comparing to slavery?
where in the constitution did it state anything even remotely similar to:
"the right of the people to keep Slaves, shall not be infringed?"

Grasping at straws

and how to pay for these programs? Don't know, don't really care, my point is that is the fix, not a ban. If you want to fix the problem, then a bandaid is not going to help when you require surgery.

Whereas drivers are required to be licensed, to pass driving tests, to carry appropriate insuance, to register their cars and license their cars .... gun owners ? Not so much.

again, maybe here is your answer? but guns do have similar costs and requirements "not so much" is your answer?
In New York we have to have a hunting license to use your gun, it requires you pass safety classes
registration, yep

Drivers can be stopped for almost any excuse and have their requirements checked... Gun owners? In New York City there was aggressive stop and search for unregistered and unlicensed guns..... anywhere else?

does it really matter if this happens elsewhere? we have a perfect example of it not working so well. Check the New York Times, how many armed robberies, murders, etc do you see every day?
And guess what, try walking down the street with a gun, you will be stopped often by police! Concealed weapons, maybe not but can you hide a car in your jacket? Not a good comparrison

Cars are required to have seat belts, air bags etc. Guns?

there you go, require gun locks
problem there is many states and areas already require them and again, it does not seem to have worked has it?
You want to compare seat belts in a car to a gun? ok, your car has seat belts, your gun has a trigger lock, does everyone wear a seat belt? ...it's exactly the same comparison yet again.

High performance race cars are not allowed on the streets.... High capacity and high rate of fire assault rifles are allowed....

"high performance" cars are not allowed on the streets?
Muscle cars are allowed, Corvettes are allowed, high performance engines are most certainly allowed or are you comparing say an Indy car with a Machine gun? Both are "high performance" and both are illegal, A Corvette is pretty darned high performance, so is an AR15 (in your mind) so the situation once again most certainly is a really good comparison.

Next?

tom

where in the constitution did it state anything even remotely similar to:
"the right of the people to keep Slaves, shall not be infringed?"

The slave-trade clause permitted the continued importation of slaves until at least 1808, a provision that many condemned. The fugitive-slave clause protected slavery even in free states: If a slave escaped to a free state, his status remained that of a slave. In 1850, the Fugitive Slave Law even required the capture and return of runaway slaves by citizens of the North.
In addition, under the three-fifths clause of the Constitution, each slave—who had no legal rights as a person—counted as three-fifths of a free person when determining the basis for congressional representation and direct taxation.

The 3/5 clause indeed did include recognition of slavery in the Constitution. By the way, the 2nd Amendment does not mention guns, or firearms.

danivon wrote:DF, rather than another confusing post with nested quotes, I'll answer you as follows:

1) My reason for referring to those links was not to defend my point about otherwise intelligent people doing dumb stuff with guns. It was to respond to your assertion/implication that for a 3 year old to be able to shoot a semi they'd need to be really clever and really strong, so it's impossible. My response is that it's not just semi-automatics that 3 year olds can pick up and shoot, as borne out by reality. And if one of those was a semi-automatic, then your point is disproven completely.

Not so. I never said dumb actions could not result in tragic situations.

Consider: if you leave a 3 year-old with a gasoline can and matches, are you dumb?

If you leave a 3 year-old with prescription drugs that can kill an adult if they overdose, are you dumb?

A gun is of an even higher order. If you cannot even keep it in a holster with its safety on, then I really think you ought to go to jail. Period. That is beyond idiotic.

I'd have to see the weapons. I guarantee you no 3 year-old on the planet could fire my Beretta 92F. First of all, getting it out of the holster would be mechanically difficult (snapped in). Secondly, the safety would be on. Thirdly, the trigger pull for the first round takes some serious strength. It's just not possible for a 3 year-old to fire it.

2) We ban some poisons and accelerants from domestic use. We don't ban all. Similarly, I don't see what's wrong with applying the same logic to weapons. We can ban some weapons from domestic use, while still allowing others.

Poisons and accelerants are not protected by the Constitution.

3) Yes, in each of those case, the gun owner did something dumb. Well spotted. But are they low IQ, or did they just have a quick lapse? Before you answer, please explain how you know without mindreading powers.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you've handled weapons.

What's the first thing you learn? To treat every weapon as if it's loaded until YOU establish the fact that it's not.

What's the second thing you learn? Don't point a weapon at anyone unless you intend to use it.

What's the third thing you learn? Secure your weapon.

If these people are not stupid, I don't have the burden of proof. You do. What they did is beyond reason. Would you leave a three year-old alone in the driver's seat of a running vehicle? Would you leave a 3 year-old alone with a pit bull you were unfamiliar with? Would you leave a 3 year-old alone with a pedophile? Would you leave a 3 year-old alone with dynamite and blasting caps (leaving aside the legality of possessing them)?

Why not?

Because you're not daft!

One of the gun owners, by the way, was a cop. Cops are supposed to be trained in the use and storage of their weapons, and are supposed to not be dumb-asses.

Not exactly fair. Based on that article alone, you don't know what the situation was. The child did not appear to be a resident of the home. We don't know if the cop was home, awake, etc. So, you've gone a step beyond mind-reading.

4) And on that one, your response "The last one was in a police officer's home. No mention is made of where the parent's were." And? They weren't the gun owners - the police officer was, and he was the kid's uncle. Hair-splitting can be fun, but we aren't just talking about parents, we are talking about gun owners.

So, tell me, where was the gun? Where was the uncle? For all you know, he could have been on vacation in Hawaii and the parents could have come over to feed his cat.

That's why I say: you've gone a step beyond mind-reading. You have no idea.

5) "I'm not shrugging. It's very sad. But, on your logic, we should get rid of farm equipment, sports, cars, bicycles, and all manner of things--because kids get hurt and/or killed." Nope. We should regulate them. That may include banning certain activities and certain things. Prescribing and Proscribing. You are using the word 'logic' to mean something it does not. I have not called for a ban on all guns. I have said in this thread (more than once), that I don't intend to argue for a total ban. So, my 'logic' also does not call for a total ban on sports or cars or any of the other things on that list.

But, more children are killed, maimed, and seriously injured by other activities than by guns.

For example:

Skateboard-related injuries account for an estimated 50 000 emergency department visits and 1500 hospitalizations among children and adolescents in the United States each year. Nonpowered scooter-related injuries accounted for an estimated 9400 emergency department visits between January and August 2000, and 90% of these patients were children younger than 15 years. Many such injuries can be avoided if children and youth do not ride in traffic, if proper protective gear is worn, and if, in the absence of close adult supervision, skateboards and scooters are not used by children younger than 10 and 8 years, respectively.

My 'logic', however, would indeed suggest that we should ban the most dangerous sports (such as base jumping in populated places, or bare-knuckle boxing), etc, and improve regulation of other things that we know to cost lives. An iterative process rather than a dogmatic all-or-nothing one-off position is also worth considering.

Here's where we disagree. I don't think its the government's role to determine every aspect of our behavior. I don't think the government should have to send cops out to check my farm equipment, do a search of my property for skateboards, or inspect my home to make sure my prescriptions are properly secured.

I know I've stretched your position, but I've a point: you cannot anticipate and outlaw everything that might hurt someone.

And, of course, alcohol kills many more people than guns, but you wouldn't ban that, would you?

It's selective outrage on your part.

6) "You want to ban guns . . . amend the Constitution." I don't want to 'ban guns', as much as supporting a ban on 'certain types of gun'. As has been done for a long time Constitutionally already - machine guns are banned. Citizens are not allowed to own them, and other military-grade weapons are also illegal. No Constitutional Amendment needed.

That's not entirely correct.

Ownership of those weapons is heavily regulated and restricted, but not illegal.

And anyway, the argument that the Constitution trumps what is right or wrong is not going to cut much ice with me. If it needs to be amended, so be it (it's not like it's written in stone), but either way that is not sufficient reason to argue that we should not change how things are.

We disagree. I don't see anything "wrong" with gun ownership, even of semi-automatic weapons with magazines of larger than 10 rounds. You are welcome to your opinion.

I mean, it's quite clear that before the 1860s, it could be argued (thanks to various clauses) that slavery was Constitutional. And it did indeed apparently require an Amendment to do it. But before that, it was simply a non-sequiter to suggest to anti-Slavery campaigners that if they wanted to ban slavery they should amend the constitution or shut up.

Right, but the Framers could only have a country in which slavery was legal. There would have no winning the Revolution without it. You can argue the morality of their position, but that would not impact the morality of slavery itself. They chose pragmatism.

That has nothing to do with speech, press, assembly, religion, the bearing of arms, etc. They did not put "the right to own slaves" into the Bill of Rights.

Oh, and btw, I know of officers who have been busted for trafficking in narcotics, assault, child molesting, and theft. So, it's not like every police officer is honest or reasonably intelligent. That would make them like most everyone else.

The first thirty seconds explains it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbqq9Mp7XGw

This is a survivor of the first mass, senseless shooting in the US. She's testifying about the incident before Congress. It addresses most of the gun control arguments, so argue with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sEYGcXS ... _embedded#!

Guys, we do limit some types of guns available. You want a machine gun? ..can't have it! bazooka? nope, mortars? nope
All sorts of restrictions, all sorts of registrations and licenses required. The problem is that you point to restrictions on cars and alcohol and the comparison is the same already, you want to go farther and ban assault weapons yet we have shown over and over that assault weapons are not a big problem. They do far less damage, statistically they are hardly even used in violent crimes. You point to statistics to support your positions yet ignore the statistics regarding assault rifles, the statistics simply are not on your side yet you continue to insist on their ban.

This is an interesting, very important post from Tom. In effect he's conceded that the 2nd Amendment is already applied selectively, which by extension must mean that there's nothing inherent in the wording of the Amendment that prevents further regulations being imposed. I'm glad we're able to move past the whole "tell it to the Constitution" line of argument.

As for the argument Tom was actually making, as opposed to the one that's implied by what he said, in fairness he does have a point. Assault rifles are not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. Certainly they're far less of a problem than handguns. Obviously I don't feel that my position is especially hypocritical though because I'd be quite happy to see both of them more stringently regulated. Sure, handguns are the bigger menace and more deserving of action, but there are political considerations that make this very unlikely. It doesn't mean that legislators should be ignoring all other problems that are less serious just because they're not able to tackle the most serious problem.

Thanks for playing along boys, you continue to point out laws intended to keep alcohol and smoking in check. We have laws that keep guns in check and yes, some should be improved and some should be altered. But bottom line, we have not banned smoking or drinking. This topic was originally about banning handguns and turned into banning assault weapons, both are not required. Instead of a ban we should be looking at ways to improve safety apart from taking them away and you gun abolitionists keep going from one idea to another, what is it you really want? Pointing out our alcohol laws only strengthens the need to not eliminate guns but rather correct any problems in other ways.

Good of you to magnanimously declare victory. How 2003!

Still, you seem to have missed this but:

Sassenach wrote:This is an interesting, very important post from Tom. In effect he's conceded that the 2nd Amendment is already applied selectively, which by extension must mean that there's nothing inherent in the wording of the Amendment that prevents further regulations being imposed. I'm glad we're able to move past the whole "tell it to the Constitution" line of argument.

To remind you, there are bans on machine guns, and on other weaponry.

On your other argument, I've already pointed out that certain types of car cannot be legally driven in the US. Similarly, there are rules on what cigarettes and alcohol is legal. If a product breaches those rules, it can't be sold.

So, why not guns?

because their already is. You are talking about limits not bans and we do have limits. The topic started as a ban on handguns mind you, it evolved into banning assault weapons. The question became WHY? why are assault weapons so bad in our society? The damage done is lesser than many if not most other weapons, the number of crimes committed by them is minute, the "problem" simply isn't there and calling for their ban is frankly dumb. If you wish to compare to alcohol or cigarettes then we have already shown the two remarkably similar. In regards to what sass wrote, did you read my reply? I was one who agrees with him and said we are not so different! We can find room to work on the real "problem" banning a thing that is hardly ever used in crime is simply a first step towards further banning of handguns and more, the problem needs to be addressed and a ban on assault weapons is not answering any problem in the least now is it?

Tom, for the umpteenth time, you already ban some types of weapon and that includes particular firearms. That is more than 'limits'

Also, this thread did not start on banning handguns. It started on looking at various suggestions following the Belcher shooting. Then, in Newtown, someone shot up a school with his mom's semi-automatic rifle.

But how do you know a ban on assault weapons solves no problems?