What happened in Connecticut and earlier this year in Aurora was tragic. Still, it would be nice to see one suggestion from the pro-gun control side that might actually have prevented either of them. Short of confiscating every firearm in the country – which seems virtually impossible – none of the solutions I’ve seen suggested would do a damned thing to prevent gun crimes.
Also, I’d love to see some logic explaining how the (admittedly horrific) actions of a very few disturbed individuals somehow justifies, say, taking away my daughter’s right to protect herself with a handgun someday. Because I don’t quite see the connection.
But what do I know?
UPDATE: The appropriately-named Jeff at protein wisdom has further thoughts. Read it all. I’ll wait.
Let me know if you get an answer.
Ban military style assault rifles for civilians. Why would anyone need these?
If you or anyone with reasonable access to your guns has been diagnosed with [whatever mental issues are agreed upon, I'm not the guy to decide that], then you can’t buy guns. Sorry.
ENFORCE
That’s a good start, no?
Sorry for the double post. Acted like it wasn’t working.
I believe James Madison answers that question pretty well in the text of the second amendment. For a free state to be secure the people’s right to bear arms can not be infringed upon by the government. The Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean that the people have a right to own and carry firearms for self defense.
Automatic weapons are already essentially banned and legal “military-style assault rifles” are (for the most part) rifles with cosmetic additions to make them look more like the weapons soldiers and cops use. I fail to see how banning a scary-looking gun will keep kids safe in schools. The Connecticut asshole had two pistols on him in addition to the rifle he used (which I’ve read would not have been banned by the former assault weapons ban anyway) and the guy in Aurora used a pump-action shotgun.
Yes, I’m sure Madison was thinking of semi-automatics with cop-killer bullets when he wrote that. Then again, I don’t think we agree on what the Second Amendment is for.
You need a handgun for self-defense or a shotgun for hunting. If you are looking to fire more than one bullet per second, I have serious reservations about your intentions.
I’m interested in your thoughts on the mental health restrictions though, since I think that’s far more relevant and absolutely would have prevented Sandy Hook (as it happened, can’t predict everything) and likely Aurora.
I have no problem with mental health restrictions, although they wouldn’t have prevented Sandy Hook since the kid wasn’t legally in possession of the guns he used. If he hadn’t killed his mother I’d be at the front of the line advocating harsh penalties on her for not sufficiently securing the firearms she owned that he used. But just because her kid was a lunatic doesn’t mean she shouldn’t have been allowed to own a gun. Who decides that? Unfortunately, and this is the thought I have had most often thinking about this tragedy, shit happens.
As far as “assault weapons” go…
Putting a flash suppressor or a bayonet mount on a rifle doesn’t make it shoot any faster than one without. And guns with that kind of thing were the only ones banned by the assault weapons ban of the late 90′s. Fully automatic weapons have been all but impossible for civilians to get since the late 30′s, and that’s the kind of weapon to which I think you’re referring. A pistol that’s not a revolver is likely semi-automatic, in that you pull the trigger and a bullet comes out, and the action of firing chambers the next round. And if you’re fast enough I bet you can put more than a round per second through one of those.
No offense, but it’s hard to discuss restrictions on firearm ownership with someone who doesn’t seem to know basic things about guns.
But that IS my proposal, that since he would have had reasonable access, she would not have been allowed to own guns. I don’t care if that’s “not fair” to her.
You’re right, I don’t know shit about guns and I don’t care to learn just to have conversations about them with people who will never change their minds. I knew I probably got a lot wrong but figured you might ignore the technicalities and consider the sentiment. Can you honestly tell me that there is a legitimate sporting or self-defense use for that Bushmaster thing Lanza was toting?
I don’t have a problem with people owning guns to hunt or to protect their families from intruders at home or even to shoot for fun in controlled situations. But most gun owners I know don’t have one or two; they have a dozen and they love to talk about how much damage each one can do. These people scare the shit out of me.
To be honest, I don’t think you really want an answer like you claim in your post. If you did, you’d contribute your knowledge of guns to the conversation and help the rest of us come up with one.
Let’s say hypothetically that someone driving a Dodge Charger loses control and hits a school bus on the way back from a field trip. The car was going 110 miles per hour when it did so. All the kids on the school bus are killed in the ensuing accident. After the fact it turns out the person driving the police car didn’t have a driver’s license, suffered from bipolar disorder, and rammed the bus because his father was a bus mechanic and didn’t pay enough attention to him.
Some questions based on this hypothetical:
1 – Would you take someone seriously if they said things in response to this event like: “Ban police-style cars that can go over 90 mph. Why would anyone need these?” and then when someone points out that just about any car that’s not a Prius can do that, have them flip out and suggest that the person isn’t interested in solving the death-by-car problem this country has?
2 – Would anyone on the news be talking about the need to have a national conversation on car ownership?
3 – Would anyone seriously suggest that if there were no cars, this accident wouldn’t have happened and have people take them seriously?
4 – If someone said that the guy’s mother shouldn’t have been allowed to own a car because her (adult) son was bipolar and then doubled down saying “I don’t care if it’s not fair to her” would you think that person had a reasonable idea?
5 – Would people be calling for the head of the American Automobile Association, protesting outside AAA headquarters, or saying that the deaths of the kids on the school bus were on their hands?
We can all probably agree that the answer to those questions is “no.” We’d be talking about this one deranged individual and maybe suggesting harsher penalties for driving without a license. If we talked about it at all, considering how many people die in car accidents every year. And consider this – car ownership is not a right the government is constitutionally obligated to defend.
Not trying to be a jerk here – I’m seriously making a point.
In answer to Denny’s question up top, no I haven’t really gotten much beyond what’s here. I had a conversation on Twitter with someone who actually knew something about guns and even owned a couple (ooh, scary!) – someone I knew would be on the pro gun-control side – and while it was civil most of his suggestions were well-meaning but in my opinion wouldn’t have done much to prevent either the atrocities in Connecticut nor Aurora. But still I give him props for being civil and not flipping out.
For the record, my suggestions to answer my own question are these: get rid of the signs everywhere that say “Gun Free Zone” because they may as well say “No One Here Can Effectively Defend Themselves If You’re A Psychopath Intent On Killing Dozens Of People Before Killing Yourself”. If someone has passed the background tests and the training required to get a CCW permit, let them carry wherever they want. If a private property owner decides they want their property to be a “gun free zone” then fine, but the property owner is liable for any gun-related injuries or deaths that occur on their property. Cinemark (the theater chain the guy in Aurora shot up) would be verging on bankruptcy right about now were that to be the case in real life, I imagine.
I would encourage as many people ELIGIBLE for a concealed-carry permit to get one. Especially teachers, professors, and anyone working in a place that might be considered a target for a maniac hell-bent on killing lots of people. If someone in my kids’ school is carrying a gun, I hope it’s my son’s preschool teacher and not some lunatic whose cat told him to KILL. Most people might not remember the incident at the New Life Church a couple years ago – I do because it was a few miles up the interstate from us – but a mass shooting was stopped in its tracks because someone with a concealed carry permit put down the shooter before he could do much.
Note the word “eligible” up above. If you aren’t responsible enough to have a gun, you shouldn’t have one. I have two kids and if I get a firearm (that’s right, I don’t have one) you can be damn sure there’s no way they’ll be able to get to it. Believe it or not, must gun owners I know are as safety conscious – or more – than I am. I realize that kind of wrecks the “gun owners are scary scary people who just love their killing machines” narrative, but it is what it is. Bottom line: if everyone follows basic gun safety that anyone who takes a concealed carry course learns, you’ll never see gun injuries and deaths from accidental shootings. If someone does accidentally injure or kill someone with a gun, I have no problem making them face severe penalties for doing so.
It’s an emotional topic. But as I said on the Twitters not too long after the Sandy Creek tragedy happened, hard cases make bad law. And making laws because “most gun owners I know … scare the shit out of me” is a pretty awful idea. Sadly that seems to be the default for a lot of people.
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, our understanding of what the Second Amendment has to say and what its writers meant is critical to any understanding of what we need to do about crimes like the one in Connecticut.
This is what bothers me about so much of what gets bandied about regarding that amendment: the people who wrote it had just finished fighting a civil war using almost entirely an all-volunteer, self-armed, self-equipped force of citizen soldiers who brought their guns and ammo to the fight in contravention of British restrictions on civilian firearms ownership. In 1787, nearly all militias were local, organized and trained by townships or cities, equipped with whatever rifles and ammunition the volunteers brought to the muster, and with the very clear understanding that the enemy needing killing could just as easily be the government as bandits.
So, yes, Madison was thinking about assault rifles used to kill large numbers of people. He had just been involved in that very kind of undertaking, albeit with the weapons of the day, not a few years before the Second Amendment got written.
That brings us to what I see as the crux of the present day argument: any law that restricts private ownership of firearms necessarily assumes that the motivations that existed in 1787 do not exist today. If we ban private ownership of assault rifles, for instance, we are monopolizing that force in in the hands of the government with the presumption it will not use that monopoly for tyranny. We have no such guarantee and, therefore, have no reason to make such a presumption.
Now, Jason, to be honest, I don’t think you want an answer like you claim in your replies that doesn’t involve “ban scary guns I don’t understand.” If you did, you would see the answers that have been provided by people who do understand both guns and the Second Amendment and take them into consideration. That claim to enlightenment works both ways.
Your move.
First of all, I’m sorry you saw my response as “flipping out.” I shouldn’t have made the comments about guns that I did, operating on very limited knowledge of the subject. But at the time, I didn’t see any other way to make the point.
Second, I have a hard taking someone who calls himself “Bacon Ninja” seriously. Does that mean your opinions are invalid?
Third, we all know that this point behind this post is There Is No Gun Control Solution And I Won’t Even Entertain It. I read your twitter exchange, and you engaged in the same tactics there, dismissing every idea as something that wouldn’t have stopped Sandy Hook.
But let’s look at your car accident questions:
1. Cars and guns are not really comparable things. The purpose of a car is transportation. Sometimes cars are used for sports where transportation is not really a factor. The purpose of a gun is to kill or wound a living being, whether this is an animal or human or extra-terrestrial invader. Like cars, guns are sometimes used for sports where killing is not a factor.
Still, there are considerable regulations on who is allowed to own or operate an automobile, and cars are designed to be hard to operate if you’re not supposed to be operating them. In order to keep someone who is unauthorized from operating a car, all you need are dealers who follow the rules and responsible owners who don’t leave the keys lying around. While it would still be technically possible to operate a car at this point, most people don’t have the skills to do so. Is a “gun key” (some separate element required to make a gun work that can be easily kept on your person when you do not have the gun with you) an unreasonable thing? I don’t think so. These could be designed to be as convenient as possible (one key for multiple guns, etc.).
But anyway, if it was determined that there were a huge number of fatalities were caused by cars going faster than 90 as compared to cars going under 90, I wouldn’t have a problem with requiring automakers to limit a car’s speed to 90. I would also encourage investigation into the individuals driving the cars that caused the accidents to see if there are patterns that might lead to certain people being kept from obtaining licenses.
2. Probably not, but if speed was indeed determined to be the primary factor, then there would probably be some talk about speed limits or the design modifications we’ve already discussed.
3. Why does “gun control” = “get rid of all guns?” I haven’t heard anyone say that, and I think I’ve been pretty clear that I don’t believe that. But I’ll answer your question with a question: How would that accident have happened if there were no cars? It couldn’t have. It would be a perfectly logical statement to make.
4. Again, cars are different from guns. If guns were nearly impossible for anyone to just pick up and use (for example, if gun keys existed), then I wouldn’t suggest that restriction for guns either. Further, a car is, for most people, a necessity in order to carry out daily business. This is not true of guns.
5. Did the AAA spend a shitload of money “lobbying” for fewer restrictions on cars in your scenario? If so, then maybe they would. That said, people who are focusing on the NRA as the sole enemy here are as misguided as those who claim that since we can’t avoid these incidents entirely, we shouldn’t even try to make them less likely to occur.
I’m also sorry my opinion of the gun owners I know bothers you, but it is what it is. Just like your experience with concealed-carry heroes (and I really do see the argument there, although I’m not sure I trust the average American as much as you seem to), my experience with gun-owners has been that most seem to be nearly salivating to be just that kind of hero. To be fair, it’s very likely that I know gun-owners who I don’t know are gun-owners because they don’t talk about it constantly. If so, then those people don’t scare me at all. It really is about the individual, not the gun.
Denny,
I fail to see how a shed full of guns is a “well-organized militia.”
As you state: “In 1787, nearly all militias were local, organized and trained by townships or cities, equipped with whatever rifles and ammunition the volunteers brought to the muster, and with the very clear understanding that the enemy needing killing could just as easily be the government as bandits.” How would you say that compares to the militias of 2012?
Consider the amount of cooperation, orchestration and disregard it would take for the “government” to “use that monopoly for tyranny.” I would love to see the scenario that you honestly find conceivable in which the United States government decides to use its armed forces against its own citizens. Is this really a fear you live with?
The fact is that, as a direct result of the government Madison helped design, the Second Amendment is pretty much unnecessary. I understand why it was included at the time and why it was put at #2. They had no idea that their experiment was going to work as well as it did, and the Second Amendment was a well-conceived safety net. But I can assure you that the idea was not to write off careless mothers who provide easy-access arsenals for their disturbed sons to mow down a bunch of kindergartners as an unfortunate side-effect of a necessary freedom.
Also, note that the Second Amendment does not say “the right to haphazardly keep and bear unlimited arms of any nature shall not be infringed.” The United States could impose a one revolver per person limit and not be in violation of the Second Amendment. I wouldn’t be in favor of this, but the concept of what is “guaranteed” by the Second Amendment is often overstated.
Jason, I do support a common-sense system of licensing and training could be all that is really needed to fix a great big part of this problem. Simply saying that, if you want to have a certain category of weapon, you have to get the proper license and training to use it, could eliminate all sorts of problems. We do that with motor vehicles, why not with weapons? As some one who has a lot of experience with both, I would have no problem with that kind of regulation. It’s when people start talking about limiting or banning things that I start to disagree.
As a student of history, I know that the transition from libertine republic to tyrannical dictatorship can be quick. Several 20th century examples should point to that fact. Yes, I can envision all sorts of scenarios in which the government of the United States musters its forces against its own citizens. It happened several times during the 20th century and dozens of times during the 19th. In fact, in a way, that was what the Civil War was all about.
But keeping it in the 21st century, events like this one should give everyone pause: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/01/31/fbi-uses-chainsaw-in-raid-on-wrong-fitchburg-apartment/
I stand by what I had to say on Twitter and here. Here’s why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre
Except that, even with those laws, this still happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
Keep in mind that when I mention limits (which I prefer to outright bans for most things – those tend to have a counterproductive “holy grail” psychological effect), I probably don’t mean for mentally stable, responsible citizens. I do think that manufacturers should (voluntarily or by law) make guns more difficult to operate if you are not the owner or intended operator, just like cars. But on top of that, if you don’t meet some sort of mental health requirement, you can’t own guns.
But also remember that our freedoms are frequently limited when it becomes a matter of public safety. The old “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” example, for instance. Sometimes a line has to be drawn. It seems like it would be a better idea for gun enthusiasts to help draw the line instead of trying to break the pencil.
I understand your point about the UK incidents, but I think you need to look a little more closely at what happened in each one that you reference. The Dunblane incident involved a shooter entering a school and killing fifteen children and a teacher in the gymnasium at once. The Cumbria incident is entirely different, actually a series of shootings by the same man, but only involving one or two victims at each location, many of which were shot from his moving car. While it’s still awful, this type of spree allows more opportunities to be stopped than the single-location mass shooting does. It’s unfortunate that it wasn’t in this case.
The point is it is impossible to keep people from killing other people, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make it more difficult. I’m glad to see that you’re at least on board with increased licensing/training regulations. I really think that the mental health aspect of this cannot be ignored. I know it makes people uncomfortable, but with conditions like autism, there is a demonstrated lack of capacity for empathy, which should probably be a major red flag. Most autistic people are unable to obtain driver’s licenses, so shouldn’t we be even more concerned with limiting their access to firearms?
The FBI story is unfortunate, but I don’t see how it illustrates your point. A mistake was made, but their intent was to apprehend a criminal, not terrorize a citizen.
The Civil War was fought by two opposing governments, neither of which was unarmed or helpless. Again, I’m not seeing the connection.
What you’re proposing is that a government made up of elected citizen representatives will someday collectively choose to turn an army of citizen volunteers against its entire unarmed citizenship for some purpose that you have not made clear. And everyone that would need to be involved in that would go along with it.
Jason, first, I think a lot of this conversation hinges on definitions. You assume yours are correct. I assume mine are correct. When they are at odds, that presents a problem. Who gets to be right?
I grant that the British examples I present are not precisely what happened in CT, but that does not make them illegitimate. They do illustrate the point that the mantra, “We need to make sure this never happens again.” is illegitimate because it still does. The same thing happened in Norway, which has very strict gun laws.
It’s not that the FBI example happened once. It’s that happens regularly, which speaks to my further point:
Violent action by a government against its citizens doesn’t have to involve its military. Look at what’s happening in Egypt right now as an example. The fact is, I am far more concerned about the heavily militarized law enforcement agencies than I am about the military. Those agencies can and do cause a great deal of harm, and given their charter to enforce the law, the turn is very easy and happens often all around the world. All it takes is one law people choose to resist, and suddenly it’s a problem. For example: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Raw_Milk_Raid_Timeline
As far as the Civil War goes, yes, both governments were armed, but until later in the war, the US still considered citizens of the CSA citizens of the US. It may be a weak point, which is why I listed it last and with caveat. If you want a better example, look at the pensioner riots or Kent State.
My point about the British examples was not that they were different from CT (one of them is very similar actually) but that they are different from each other and don’t really illustrate your point.
But there’s a bigger problem and that is that it seems you think my argument is banning guns will end mass shootings, and that’s just not true. I don’t really think that’s anyone’s argument.
My argument continues to get buried under paranoid theories about the FBI attacking citizens or whatever it is you’re getting at. There are a number of questions that I’ve posed that have been completely ignored by you and Bacon, who appears to have bailed on this discussion completely.
Most importantly, what is the legitimate purpose of a Bushmaster rifle like Lanza used in the Sandy Hook shooting? Why does a private citizen NEED to own a gun like this and keep it in her home where her autistic son lives? What purpose does it serve that cannot be achieved by other, less destructive guns? In case you’re unclear:
http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/carbon_15.asp
Thanks to the NRA, we’ll probably never know for sure which exact gun Lanza used, but most reports suggest it was one of those. But take your pick and explain to me why anyone needs to own that gun. And if it’s because the government might one day decide to storm their house for no reason one day, I think we’re done here.
Oh, and thanks for introducing me to sourcewatch.org. Lots of interesting stuff there… http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/12/11908/nraalec-reactionary-gun-agenda
I just saw this comment and approved it. The links got it stuck in the spam filter. The same thing happened to Denny’s comment the day before. I just didn’t see this one until today. I’m going to try and answer your questions.
“Most importantly, what is the legitimate purpose of a Bushmaster rifle like Lanza used in the Sandy Hook shooting?”
I imagine it’s used for hunting relatively small game and home defense.
“Why does a private citizen NEED to own a gun like this and keep it in her home where her autistic son lives?”
We agree that the mother should have secured her weapons better. As to why she felt she needed it, who knows? Maybe she wanted it because it’s easier to aim and shoot than a handgun and she was concerned about protecting her home. Maybe she liked shooting prairie dogs (if they have them in Connecticut) or something. I think a lot of our disconnect is that it never occurred to me to ask this question in the first place. But that’s a whole separate post.
“What purpose does it serve that cannot be achieved by other, less destructive guns?”
Perhaps you can share with me an example of another, less destructive gun that you have in mind. That way I can answer your question better.
“Why does a private citizen NEED to own a gun like this and keep it in her home…?”
http://www.qando.net/?p=14594
Also let’s note no one answered the suggestions that I provided after being requested to “contribute [my] knowledge of guns to the conversation and help the rest of [you] come up with [a solution].”
I don’t really buy the hunting explanation. It’s my understanding (from listening to/reading those more knowledgable) that these types of guns are essentially AR-15s, which were designed specifically to take advantage of the fact that soldiers in shoot out situations don’t really aim, but just fire in the general direction of their targets. This does not seem to lend itself to a precision shooting situation. If I’m mistaken on this, I apologize.
While the kid used an assault weapon to protect himself and his sister, it doesn’t mean he needed it. Any gun may have worked just as well. Still, his father is obviously responsible enough to make sure his children understood how to use it safely and that’s commendable. All I would ask is that we don’t leave that to chance.
As for your suggestions, I did address concealed carry at schools later, but would add that I agree with most of what you propose. As long as anyone who does not follow CCW training is held liable in a significant way, I’m fine with it.
Generally speaking, an AR-15 is significantly easier to shoot accurately than a handgun is. If I recall correctly (and it’s been like 14 years) I barely qualified with the M9 (handgun) when I was in ROTC but qualified with the AR-15 with ease a few years later at basic training. Same range, same instructors (probably) but a rifle is much easier to shoot accurately.
And the AR-15 a civilian can use is significantly different from those a soldier would be issued. I think I covered this earlier, with the whole automatic-semiautomatic distinction.
“Still, his father is obviously responsible enough to make sure his children understood how to use it safely and that’s commendable. All I would ask is that we don’t leave that to chance.”
Unfortunately there’s not really any way that I can see that wouldn’t leave it up to chance to some extent. Shit happens sometimes and it’s awful. In my world, the best we can do is incentivize responsible gun ownership and penalize irresponsible gun ownership.
Frankly, most rifles are easier to use than most handguns. However, no rifle, no matter how designed, is an area effect weapon. It’s important to remember that round fired from any firearm has to follow a very precise ballistic arc to hit its target. That only happens when the user is accurate.
What people fail to understand is that there are hundreds of other semiautomatic rifles used by people for legitimate purposes everyday that are not AR-15s but that use the same rounds, carry the same capacities, but were exempted by the 1994 assault rifle ban and are exempted under Feinstein’s current bill. Why? Because they’re designated as hunting rifles and their only defining characteristic is that they do not share interchangeable parts with an AR-15. The AR-15 shares no special advantage over any of them and gets singled out only because it happens to look like a military weapon.
To me, this whole issue keeps going back to the “well-regulated” part of the 2nd Amendment. The issue here is not whether this rifle or that is more lethal, accurate, or whatever, but whether we are keeping firearms out of the hands of people who, for whatever reason, should not have access to them. In the end, we’re really talking about people control, not gun control, and that facts fits in nicely with the observation that it’s people, not guns, that kill other people.