Gun Control: It's time for Oregon to Take the Lead
I doubt we'll ever see any change on gun control at the federal level, but is there anything that can be done statewide?
If so, I encourage a discussion of gun control legislation that could be passed by our State. Let's continue to be leaders in this country, let's make it 100 times harder for someone to buy a gun, and bullets, while we're at it.
Oregon Legislature, there's still time left. Go ahead, make my day!
|
April 18, 2007 |
Albert Kaufman | Comments (89 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 18, 2007 9:06:27 PM
Oh wow. You're going to get deluged by comments, pro and con.
Posted by: Thom | Apr 18, 2007 9:22:49 PM
I could get behind good gun-control legislation, though it's way, way down on my to do list. Here are some bigger fish...
30+ civilians die violent deaths on any given day in Baghdad. Today it was 150+
30+ students die on American campuses each week due to binge drinking or suicide.
60, 70, 80+ Americans die in Iraq every month.
I won't tear down other people's attempts to tackle gun crime, but that said, i wish Dems would emphasize more urgent issues.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 18, 2007 9:51:14 PM
(Thom, could you use a secondary identifier for your name? We're trying to avoid the use of common first names - especially where they can be easily confused with prominent people. It doesn't need to be your real last name; "Thom from Tigard" is fine -- but it needs something more.)
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Apr 18, 2007 11:05:02 PM
alrighty!
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Apr 18, 2007 11:07:22 PM
Oh good, knee-jerk reaction. Paranoid Schizophrenic guns went off. Only 100 times harder, then by the same logic we should make it 100 times harder for you to exercise your speech, what do you think - you take my guns, I muzzle you? This is the same silly stuff, recycled for the latest tragedy.
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 18, 2007 11:11:21 PM
Huh?
You have GOT to be kidding me...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
WE all wondered, on the anti-Lars thread, how long it would be...now we know.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Apr 18, 2007 11:29:20 PM
excuse me, but for some of this, what happened in VA changed nothing. i was against the massive ownership of guns in America, and i'm still against it. we don't need all these guns, and we don't need them to be easy to get, and we certainly don't need anything that does more than stop a burglar or the invading Redcoats. there's nothing knee-jerk in what i believe about guns; it's what i've always believed. guns are part of the national sickness.
Posted by: jim karlock | Apr 18, 2007 11:37:38 PM
Albert:Let's continue to be leaders in this country, let's make it 100 times harder for someone to buy a gun, and bullets, while we're at it.
JK:Good idea, Albert. Provide more, guaranteed disarmed victims, for the predators and nuts out there. We could start with making it harder for stalking victims to get guns, then maybe we could follow up with law abiding home owners in high crime neighborhoods.
In case you didn’t notice, guns were banned from that school. I seems that the crazed, suicidal, murderer somehow ignored the law.
Guns are also banned in Wash DC, murder capitol of the US. Fat lot of good it does.
Guns are banned in Japan. They just had a mayor gunned down. (In gun ban areas, only the police and criminal gangs have guns - which group would you like to see run Portland?)
Switzerland has real machine guns (no crummy semi-auto assault weapon - a real full auto assault weapon) in most houses and shooting is the national sport. They have a low murder rate. It isn’t the gun any more than Rosie O’donald’s problem in the fork.
Guns are here - learn to live with them. One might even save your life some day, if you learn how to use one.
PS: Did you notice that guns are a right, just like free speech, the press etc. I hope you are willing to see George II regulate your speech like you want to regulate other’s guns.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Apr 18, 2007 11:41:46 PM
PS: I could probably make a gun in a day's work using Home Depot materials and fire ammo also from Home Depot (which doesn't carry ammo)
Thanks
JK
Posted by: JMG | Apr 19, 2007 1:15:56 AM
(This was first published not too long after Kip Kinkel, but before Columbine, before VA Tech, and all the other examples that are sure to follow for as long as we keep asking the wrong questions (how can we get rid of guns) instead of the right ones (how can we cut the risk and the harm that guns cause).
The only update I would make is this: How's that war on drugs working out for us? And drugs--more plentiful, cheaper, and potent than ever--aren't protected in the Constitution, and we sure as hell can't seem to get rid of them. So what would ever make anyone think that a prohibitionist strategy would work with guns?
-------------
Fighting Fire with FIRE--Firearms Insurance Required Everywhere
We can fix the gun problem. We can make America safer, without limiting
our right to bear arms. And we can do it without an expensive, dangerous,
and futile "War on Guns."
To solve the real problem (keeping guns out of the wrong hands-without
restricting other people) we must use an idea that has worked to limit
losses from many other hazards: insurance. That's right, insurance, the
system of risk-management contracts that lets people take responsibility
for choices they make that impose risks on others.
Insurance is what lets society accommodate technology. Without it, we
would have few autos, airplanes, trains, steamships, microwaves, elevators,
skyscrapers, and little electricity, because only the wealthiest could
accept the liability involved. When people are accountable for risks
imposed on others, they act more responsibly. Insurance is what enables
this accountability.
Rather than trying to limit access to or take guns away from law-abiding
adults, we must instead insist that the adult responsible for a gun at any
instant (maker, seller, or buyer) have enough liability insurance to cover
the harm that could result if that adult misuses it or lets it reach the
wrong hands.
Who gets the insurance proceeds, and for what? The state crime victims'
compensation fund, whenever a crime involving guns is committed or a gun
mishap occurs. The more victims, the bigger the payout. The greater the
damage (from intimidation to multiple murders and permanent crippling), the
greater the payout. The insurers will also pay the fund for other claims,
such as when a minor commits suicide by gun or accidentally kills a
playmate with Daddy's pistol. This will reduce such mishaps. Insurance is
very effective in getting people to adopt safe practices in return for
lower premiums.
When a crime involving a gun occurs, the firm who insured it pays the
claim. If the gun is not found or is uninsured (and there will still be
many of these at first) then every fund will pay a pro-rated share of the
damages, based on the number of guns they insure. This will motivate
insurance firms--and legitimate gun owners--to treat uninsured guns as
poison, instead of as an unavoidable byproduct of the Second Amendment.
Thus, insurance will unite the interests of all law-abiding citizens, gun
owners and others, against the real problem with guns: guns in the hands of
criminals, the reckless, the untrained, and juveniles.
Like other insurance, firearm insurance will be from a private firm or
association, not the government. Owners, makers, and dealers will likely
self-insure, forming large associations just as the early "automobilists"
did. Any financially-sound group, such as the NRA, can follow state
insurance commission rules and create a firearms insurance firm.
That's it. No mass or government registrations. Except for defining the
rules, no government involvement at all. Each owner selects his or her
insurance firm. By reaffirming the right to responsible gun ownership and
driving uninsured guns out of the system, we use a proven,
non-prohibitionist strategy for improving public safety.
Each insurance firm will devise a strategy for earning more revenue with
fewer claims. Thus gun owners -- informed by the actuaries -- will choose
for ourselves the controls we will tolerate, and the corresponding
premiums. (Rates will vary according to the gun we want to insure, our
expertise, and claims history.)
Some will want a cheaper policy that requires trigger locks whenever the
gun is not in use; others will not. Hobbyists will find cheaper insurance
by keeping their firearms in a safe at the range. Newer, younger shooters
and those who choose weapons that cause more claims will pay higher
premiums. That way, other owners, with more training and claims-free
history, will pay less. (Insurance companies are expert at evaluating
combined risks and dividing them up-in the form of premiums-with exquisite
precision.)
Soon, the firms will emphasize cutting claims. That means promoting gun
safety and fighting black market gun dealers, which is where many criminals
get guns. And every legitimate gun owner will have a persuasive reason --
lower premiums -- to help in the fight.
We need to start discussing this now, because it will take several years
to enact. Gun-control advocates will hate this because it forsakes the
failed prohibitionist approach. But the evidence is clear: there is
virtually no chance that prohibiting guns can work without destroying our
civil liberties, and probably not even then.
And the organized gun lobby will hate it too, because most of their power
comes from having the threat of gun prohibition to point to. But again the
evidence is clear: we have the current gun laws -- ineffective as they are
-- because we have neglected a right even more important to Americans than
the right to bear arms: the right to be safely unarmed.
Naturally, many gun owners will resent paying premiums, because they
resent assuming responsibility for risks that, so far, we've dumped on
everyone else. So be it. It is only by assuming our responsibilities that
we preserve our rights. Some will note that the Second Amendment doesn't
include "well-insured." But, just as the press needs insurance against
libel suits to exercise the First Amendment, we must assume responsibility
for the risks that firearms present to society.
The problem is real, even such prohibitionist strategies are doomed to fail,
even if passed. Sadly, some pro-gun groups have already revved up their own
mindless propaganda, blaming Springfield on liberals, TV, Dr. Spock, "bad seeds,"
you name it -- anything but the easy access to guns that made massacres
like Springfield so quick, so easy, and so likely.
This won't work instantly -- but it will work, because it breaks the
deadlock about guns and how to keep them away from people who shouldn't
have them, without stomping on the rights of the rest of us. Thus it
changes the dynamics of this issue and ends the lethal deadlock over guns.
It's time for everyone, people seeking safety from guns and law-abiding
gun owners alike, to work together to fight firearms in the wrong hands,
and it's time to fight with FIRE: Firearm Insurance, Required Everywhere.
Posted by: Michael Wilson | Apr 19, 2007 4:42:11 AM
Before we jump on the gun issue it might be wise to find out what drugs this guy was on afterall some of the mind altering ones prescribed by docs have some strange impacts, like rage and suicide.
MW
Posted by: Matt Picio | Apr 19, 2007 7:30:47 AM
Two comments: First off, regarding Virginia Tech - this guy had a history of mental health issues, and shouldn't have been able to buy a gun in the first place. Let's not propose new legislation until we actually *enforce* the legislation we already have. Second, guns are only a peripheral issue. The real issue is the culture of "individualism at all costs" that we cultivate in the US. We've lost the concept of responsibility to community, and destroyed our family, neighborhood, and organizational ties. That, and our veneration of aggression is why cars kill 40,000 people a year, why homicide is as big of a problem as it is, and why we feel more connected to the people on the other side of the TV screen than we do to the people on the other side of our backyard fence.
Posted by: pat malach | Apr 19, 2007 7:34:17 AM
I've owned guns, I've fired guns, I've killed things with guns and I've eaten meat that was "harvested" with guns.
One thing I've never felt I needed a gun for is "protection."
I'm sorry, JK, but the idea that "more guns would equal less gun violence" is mind numbingly delusional.
Posted by: doretta | Apr 19, 2007 8:23:59 AM
Both sides in the gun debate are strongly committed to their current version of what makes them feel in control, however illusional that control may be, and that's a huge barrier to making it fly politically on both sides, but the insurance proposal is interesting. I'd not expect it to be a panacea--auto insurance hasn't exactly fixed the drunk driving problem, for example, but even something moderately effective has the potential to save several orders of magnitude more lives every year than were lost at VT. That would be worth doing.
My take on Seung Cho is that those who are focused on the person rather than the weapon are right. A bright, motivated engineering student will always be able to figure out ways to kill a few dozen people if he's focused on doing so--even in the complete absence of guns. Seung Cho did not act in a momentary fit of rage, he made careful plans. The fact that the kid was mentally ill and no one knew how to help him is what's at the heart of this particular tragedy, not the tools he chose to use to act out his illness.
Posted by: THartill | Apr 19, 2007 8:30:22 AM
Um....Sorry not a good idea. You almost sound as if you are a Republican troll. If legislation was pushed by Oregon Dems, that made it "100 times harder to buy a gun", there would be an immediate backlash.
Posted by: wharf rat | Apr 19, 2007 8:45:01 AM
Hi Folks...
In the interests of full disclosure I am a former gun owner, hunter, carnivore, and way back in the woods rural resident. I sold the guns when I moved to town and had the grandkids around all the time. I no longer hunt because, quite honestly, hunting has become a beer and shoot at stuff contest for idiots.
I'm a strong believer in all of the Constitution including the 2nd but we all recognize limits. Even my NRA friends are willing to concede some limits on gun ownership just like my ACLU friends recognize limits on speech.
The idea of mandatory insurance is intriguing. If you have a swimming pool at your home your insurance company will require some kind of rider to include that risk. Could the company require the same if guns were on or brought onto the premises ? Renters ? The underlying structure is usually covered by the owner who could allow or prohibit guns under the terms of the rental agreement.
Regards
Posted by: Phil Jones | Apr 19, 2007 8:50:23 AM
One thing I've never felt I needed a gun for is "protection."
Obviously the author of this statement has never been shot at by a crazed maniac. If only we could ask the 32 people killed at V Tech for their opinions on concealed weapons for self defense, but I'm afraid it's a little too late for that. It would certainly be interesting to obtain the views of those who were wounded and suvived, however. Something tells me they would have preferred someone to have had a gun who could have come to their defense.
Posted by: spicey | Apr 19, 2007 9:14:01 AM
I think my favorite comment thus far is this one:
-- because we have neglected a right even more important to Americans than the right to bear arms: the right to be safely unarmed.
The "Fighting Fire with FIRE - Firearms Insurance Required Everywhere" makes sense to me. Could it be started in Oregon?
Posted by: Phil Jones | Apr 19, 2007 9:31:13 AM
Firearms Insurance? Ridiculous. No insurance company would EVER insure the criminal actions of a gun owner. There are even clauses in your automobile insurance policy that relieve the insurer of liability if you use your vehicle in a criminal manner.
No matter what type of gun laws are passed, there will always be a large number of unregistered guns illegally in the possession of criminals. Adequate gun laws already exist to cover any illegal use of guns. Most states have mandatory minimums and give felony status to any use of a gun in the commission of a crime.
As a stalker and a mental patient, Mr. Cho should not have been allowed to legally purchase the guns he used in his crime. But, he fell through the cracks.
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Apr 19, 2007 9:33:29 AM
"PS: Did you notice that guns are a right, just like free speech, the press etc. I hope you are willing to see George II regulate your speech like you want to regulate other’s guns."-Jim
-Jim,
I strongly suggest that you actually READ the 2nd ammendment. Gun ownership is NOT a right, it is a PREVILEGE. This is why so many states and municipalities are able to control gun ownership. Please READ the entire 2nd Amendment and don't cut and paste, like Pat Robertson does with the Bible. Also, take pay keen attention to what the Supreme Court has said in this issue.
I get really tired of uneducated idiots making comments when they have scarcely picked up a history book.
Posted by: JMG | Apr 19, 2007 9:38:51 AM
Yes, I think Oregon would be the perfect place to try dealing with guns realistically--we're a state with a tradition of being willing to think differently and to try better approaches, and we've got a whole lot of guns.
Any legislators here (peering into the monitor)?
Posted by: JMG | Apr 19, 2007 10:00:24 AM
Phil wrote "No matter what type of gun laws are passed, there will always be a large number of unregistered guns illegally in the possession of criminals. Adequate gun laws already exist to cover any illegal use of guns. Most states have mandatory minimums and give felony status to any use of a gun in the commission of a crime."
On the first, yes, the point of my proposal is that people on both sides of the gun control debate should recognize that all attempts to prohibit guns are doomed to fail and are nothing but a waste of time.
However, your next point: "Adequate gun laws already exist to cover any illegal use of guns."
is where we disagree.
Plenty of laws make various forms of possession and use illegal, but they do NOT create any civil liability or provide for funds to compensate gun crime victims. What we need is a form of extended producer responsibility that ensures that, from the moment of importation, there is a responsible party financially responsible for misuse of that weapon.
Criminal law is about punishing after harm has occurred.
Using insurance is about reducing harm. I know that the families of people killed and the people who are maimed by guns are not particularly helped by the criminal laws against gun crimes, because there is no restorative justice there--only retribution.
What we need is to supplement the criminal law (retributive) with restorative law that provides for the victims of actual and threatened gun violence, whether we catch a shooter or not.
So what we need in practical terms is a way to pay for restorative justice so that victims of gun crimes can be helped with physical and emotional therapy, rehabilitation, adequate (rather than miserly) disability compensation, and financial compensation for the losses of loved ones.
Now we could simply tax everyone in the state to provide for the funds used to provide these things to gun victims, but it makes a lot more sense and would actually do a lot more to reduce gun misuse if we made the firearm industry and customers pay for it through insurance.
As doretta noted, FIRE is not a panacea--but it would be well worth trying. Every time gun owners look at things like Virginia Tech and say "Well, there's nothing you can do about," the more it helps prohibitionists. Get a couple/three vets back from Iraq with PTSD shooting up schools and you'll see a serious move to amend the Constitution to remove the 2d Amendment entirely.
Posted by: Phil Jones | Apr 19, 2007 10:09:36 AM
The remedy for compensating victims of gun crimes, or any crime for that matter, lies in the courts. Victims have successfully sued and won huge judgements against those who criminally injured them with a gun.
I recall a case where a homeowner in West Linn about 15 years ago shot and seriously wounded a young man at Timothy Lake who he claimed was partying too loudly at night. That middle aged man lost his home and everything else he owned to the resultant civil lawsuit the victim filed. I believe he also served a short prison sentence of a few months.
It is not the job of insurance companyies to compensate crime victims, that burden falls upon the courts and rightfully so.
Posted by: Curt | Apr 19, 2007 10:14:16 AM
Don't we already have gun control laws here? You have to show your ID and get checked to buy a gun (I just bought a shotgun last month, and even for a shotgun I had to!), you have to have a license to carry a gun around with you, you can be arrested for bringing a gun some places, there are all sorts of restrictions on where you can shoot.. what's to regulate?
Disclosure -- I'm a shooter, I've hunted but not recently, and I do own a "self defense" gun. I strongly support the current gun control laws here in Oregon and would support any further gun control laws that I was convinced would reduce gun crime.
Curt
Posted by: VR | Apr 19, 2007 11:06:29 AM
How about we start by ending the war in Iraq?
How many "gun deaths" are there there? What are they costing us? How many "gun injuries" are there there? What are they costing us?
Here is a good post about putting the Virginia Tech massacre in an international perspective:
VA Tech shootings: world perspective
This article really brings down the quality of Blue Oregon.
Posted by: R.U. Nuts | Apr 19, 2007 11:21:28 AM
Liberalincarnate said: I strongly suggest that you actually READ the 2nd ammendment. Gun ownership is NOT a right, it is a PREVILEGE.
Below you will find the text of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. Interestingly, it came from the "Bill of Rights" not the "Bill of Previleges(sic)."
“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.”
We can argue about what "well regulated Militia" means but the second part of the amendment is pretty clear. Sure, some gun laws are fine and I would argue they are part of a well regulated militia. However, especially after a tragedy there is a tendency to react. We simply cannot do that.
I agree with the comments above that if we make guns too hard to get we give criminals the security of knowing when they break into a home, the will not see the business end of a firearm.
For those that have never had to defend themselves with a gun; you are lucky and I hope that I will never need mine to defend myself or my family. However, hope is not enough for me. I want the security of knowing I am protecting my family to the best of my ability.
Am I for responsible gun laws, you bet. I am for over-reacting after a tragedy, no way.
Posted by: Phil Jones | Apr 19, 2007 12:02:41 PM
As I type this, Sacramento California has an alert out for a 28 year old suicidal man with a gun who said he intended to make V Tech look like a minor event and claimed he wanted to "die by cop". Do you think anyone in the Gun Free Zones is nervous? I would be. Calling 911 won't protect you as well as someone with a legal gun.
Posted by: Urban Planning Overlord | Apr 19, 2007 12:12:52 PM
Mandatory gun registration. And mandatory gun safety and training class. Just like we do with dirvers licenses.
And, to placate the fears of gun rights advocates, a state constitutional amendment explicitly guaranteeing the personal right to bear arms.
Posted by: Old Dog | Apr 19, 2007 3:35:22 PM
As soon as there is an infallable plan to disarm the
criminals and the lunatics, then the government, state
and federal can start on the law abiding citizens.Until
that is accomplished, I believe I will continue to
carry my .45 automatic.
Posted by: jim karlock | Apr 19, 2007 5:14:40 PM
As soon as there is an infallable plan to disarm the criminals and the lunatics, then the government, state and federal can start on the law abiding citizens.Until that is accomplished, I believe I will continue to carry my .45 automatic.
JK: You left out of the "disarm" list the biggest killer of innicents in modern hitory:
Governments. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and many more. That is the real reason for the 2nd amendment - to maintain a balance of power against the government. We are seeing an example of what a few armed populace can do in Iraq.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: zman | Apr 19, 2007 5:23:45 PM
UPO said, "to placate the fears of gun rights advocates, a state constitutional amendment explicitly guaranteeing the personal right to bear arms."
We already have one:
From the Oregon Constitution:
Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]
Posted by: zman | Apr 19, 2007 5:51:42 PM
I would like to know if anyone out there thinks that we should actually amend the Oregon Constitution to take away the personal, individual "right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state," and in the process make it constitutional for the state legislature to pass laws regulating the ability of people to buy and own guns.
Posted by: Joe12Pack | Apr 19, 2007 5:54:29 PM
I'm not crazy about handguns, though I was qualified to carry one while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. Never felt the need to purchase one for myself or obtain a concealed carry permit, but I think I will now. Only a matter of time until the mighty blue wave erodes my ability to do so.
At present, I own two guns. One Remington 870 Express Magnum, ideal for home security, camping trips and recreational clay shooting. The other is an ancient Winchester 1894 .30-30 rifle, beautifully restored and recently passed down to me from my deceased father. That item is stored in a trusted friends gun safe, as it's too pretty to shoot, too dangerous to be used for self defense in a suburban setting and too valuable (to me, anyway) not to keep locked up in a safe. Looks like I'll be adding one more firearm to the brood in the form of a .45 ACP semi-automatic pistol followed by submitting an concealed carry application to the Washington County Sheriff's department. I realize that guy's like Albert Kaufman and the good Reverend Chuck Currie don't speak for all modern ("progressive") Democrats, but forgive me if I'm a bit troubled by a party led by the likes of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, etc. Downplay the gun issue all you want in your party talking points, but I remain unconvinced. Guys like Chuck Butcher represent a small minority in your Blue Man Group, and god bless him for sticking with his party and not selling out his other strongly held beliefs just for the sake of the gun rights issue. However, this independent Oregonian aint down with your overall party agenda any more than he's digging the rule of the Bush regime. I was once registered as a Democrat. I have voted for many a Democratic candidate until recent years. Tell me that I have changed, which is true, but understand that your party- especially the "progressive" wing- appears to be the greater of two evils at the moment. As much as you feel that visceral, knee-jerk hatred toward all things Republican, at least a few of us moderate types view you in the same way.
As disinclined as I am to agree with the writings of T.A. Barnhart, I think I concur with where he's coming from. We do live in a sick society, guns represent one of several symptoms, but I stop agreeing there. Guns are NOT the problem. Short of going on ad nauseum with a 20 page essay (I have better things to do and places to go), I'm fairly confident that Chuck, T.A. and I could spend an afternoon together most anywhere, engage in spirited debate, have an enjoyable time and leave as friends. We'd have our differences, but would be able to respect one another's views in disputed areas while accepting the others rights and personal beliefs. Though our opinions may differ on some issues, our common beliefs would unite us.
Perhaps this is little more than a Cab-induced rant, but I don't think so. Just reflecting the vibe I get from many of you hardcore partisans on the left. Seems to me our differences are much smaller than our similarities, but some of you appear to be so militant in your views that it's hard to have meaningful discourse. Then again, maybe it's just the liquor talkin'.
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 19, 2007 6:25:55 PM
"I strongly suggest that you actually READ the 2nd ammendment. Gun ownership is NOT a right, it is a PREVILEGE. This is why so many states and municipalities are able to control gun ownership. Please READ the entire 2nd Amendment and don't cut and paste, like Pat Robertson does with the Bible. Also, take pay keen attention to what the Supreme Court has said in this issue."
I have read it, and our state's version as well.
I am not sure where the H&%$ you got the idea that something in the Bill of RIGHTS is, upon further examination, a "privelege."
I don't often call someone to the carpet, but i have no choice in your case:
You, Sir (or Madam) are officially a goofus.
Now...YOU go back and re-read the Constitution...the ENTIRE Constitution. Then sit down and read the Federalist papers, then sit down and read Miller v. US, and THEN come back to us and explain to us how a document that says NOTHING about how the population should conduct themselves suddenly talks about granting priveleges in one spot, and one spot only. hint: the Constitution doesn't do anything except dictate how the government is supposed to work.
"I get really tired of uneducated idiots making comments when they have scarcely picked up a history book."
You must be a troll. This cannot be happening. How could we have raised *subjects*, not citizens?
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 19, 2007 6:30:39 PM
"I'm fairly confident that Chuck, T.A. and I could spend an afternoon together most anywhere, engage in spirited debate, have an enjoyable time and leave as friends."
I haven't had the pleasure of making Chuck's acquaintance...I have been a friend of T.A.'s for several years now, and we have this very spirited debate, and always walked away better friends afterwards. He is a good egg.
I would love to say that a partyline vote is desireable, but it isn't. We need rational voting, sadly. Most of the time it is a Dem, but even the most dogmatic among us can point to the occasional Rep that is better than their opposition.
Posted by: VR | Apr 19, 2007 8:14:55 PM
I honestly have never understood how many Liberals who I consider very smart on so many issues - who I find *grasp* simple concepts on most of the things I find important - simply become so single minded and closed minded and irrational when gun control is the topic.
I think gun control is to Liberals what abortion is to Neocons. Outlawing guns makes no more sense than outlawing abortion, yet either side clings to these single issues so tightly - especially when there are such larger fish to fry.
Why not make sure EVERY child has health care? Why not guarantee EVERY American has the tools and resources to find gainful employment and allow said employment to be steady and pay well? Why not assure every American that we can have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink? Why not make sure that regular people - blue or red - are not being raped by corporations? And why waste trillions of dollars killing our own troops in useless wars?
Take care of THOSE first and THEN start tackling the - by comparison - TINY issues of gun control and abortion.
And I bet we would find something really strange. If everyone has good employment, good health care, good retirement packages, good homes, good schools, and clean environments - I bet that there would be little need to seriously look at things like gun control or abortion laws. Crime and abortion rates drop as people have more stable more prosperous and rewarding lives.
I agree with Liberals on so many points until their brains shut down when you mention you own a gun...
Posted by: JMG | Apr 19, 2007 9:29:43 PM
Nice summary of why prohibitionist gun control strategies will never work (by Sam Smith, author/editor of The Progressive Review and books like "The Great American Repair Manual"):
WHY MORE GUN CONTROL WON'T HELP
- Gun prohibition has much the same effect as drug or alcohol prohibition. It would increase the price but not limit the availability of guns for those who really want them. One of the effects, for example, of banning cigarettes in prisons is to create a booming trade in contraband tobacco.
- Within a few years of DC passing a gun control law so stringent that it was recently ruled in violation of the Second Amendment, the war on drugs was launched by Ronald Reagan. In the years that immediately followed the murder rate doubled despite the gun law.
- The killer was mentally deranged and driven enough to have easily obtained a gun even if there were gun prohibition.
- Since 1993 the U.S. handgun murder rate has decreased 48 percent while the number of privately owned handguns in America has increased by more than 20 million
- Culture is a far more important factor in violence that gun ownership. There are more guns per-capita in Maine than in any other state save possibly Alaska. About 50,000 Mainers have permits to carry concealed weapons. Yet Maine has a crime rate one-third below the national average. Maine has one or two fatal gun accidents a year, lower than the death rate for snowmobiling or boating. These figures -- which reflect those of certain high gun-ownership countries such as Sweden, Norway and Switzerland -- suggest that the culture of a society affects the problems caused by guns more than the guns themselves. Introduce guns to an inherently violent community and you'll get more violence. Introduce guns to an inherently lawful society and the crime rate drops. In 2004 the South, on the other hand, had a murder rate 57% higher than the Northeast.
- Forty-six percent of all those dying of gunshots in 1997 were between the ages of 15 and 34. Presumably guns work mechanically the same way for this age group as they do for others, thus something other that safety would appear to be involved.
- Treating gun laws as a national issue exacerbates cultural conflict, such as those between rural and urban, east and west, wealthy and not so well off. Telling rural Westerners to get rid of their guns is like telling urban blacks to stop reading African-American books.
- John R. Lott has pointed out that "less than one out every thousand times people use guns defensively is the attacker killed. Ninety-eight percent of the time, simply being able to brandish a gun is sufficient to cause a criminal to break off an attack and the two percent of the time when guns are fired, the vast majority of those are warning shots. It's something like less than one-half-of-one percent of the time is the gun fired in the direction of the attacker. Even when they do hit, woundings are much more frequent than times when the attacker is killed."
- A Justice Department stud, conducted from 1993-1995 tracked 4,000 boys and girls aged 6 to 15 in Denver, Pittsburgh, and Rochester, NY. According to the study:
Children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes (0%), while children who get illegal guns are very likely to do so (21%).
Children who get guns from parents are less likely to commit any kind of street crime (14%) than children who have no gun in the house (24%) and are dramatically less likely to do so than children who acquire an illegal gun (74%).
Children who get guns from parents are less likely to use drugs (13%) than children who get illegal guns (41%).
"Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use [than boys who get illegal guns] and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns," the study reported.
- The Columbine killers violated at least 17 existing state and federal weapons control laws.
- In 1997 it was reported that Americans use guns defensively around 2 million times each year, five times more frequently than the 430,000 times guns were used to commit crimes that same year. And 98 percent of the time, simply brandishing the weapon is sufficient to stop an attack.
MORE ON GUNS
http://prorev.com./guns.htm
Posted by: doretta | Apr 19, 2007 9:44:07 PM
In 1997 it was reported that Americans use guns defensively around 2 million times each year, five times more frequently than the 430,000 times guns were used to commit crimes that same year. And 98 percent of the time, simply brandishing the weapon is sufficient to stop an attack.
Reported by whom? That strikes me as a perfect example of what Stephen Colbert calls "factesque".
Posted by: Susan Abe | Apr 20, 2007 4:51:15 AM
Matt Picio:
this guy had a history of mental health issues, and shouldn't have been able to buy a gun in the first place. Let's not propose new legislation until we actually *enforce* the legislation we already have.
My understanding is that Virginia law requires only a quick computer check to verify that a gun purchaser is not a felon, and that Virginia law was followed. When you say "shouldn't have been able," do you mean you think Virginia should change its laws to require a mental-health checkup before a gun purchase?
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 20, 2007 6:16:58 AM
Here are some facts on gun control--these are some of the few unbiased ones I have found out there.
It includes the 2 million figure.
Oh, and Susan:
There is a standard form 4473 that everyone buying a gun fills out and it is from that form that the NICS (Brady) instant background check gets called in. On that form is a space to denote if you have been committed for mental illness, along with a spot for thumbprint and all sorts of other fun things. Lying on this form is a felony.
Of course this begs the issue of how this feller filled out the form and whether or not he lied about his mental state. Since the news reports indicated an involuntary detention for mental illness, it would seem so.
A search on "form 4473" or "NICS Brady" will give you tons of info on the process. This process is required whenever someone with an FFL -Federal Firearms License sells a firearm: at a gun store, a gun show, a pawn shop, or at a shadetree FFL dealer's home. This included Curio and Relic (Called CruffleR in the parlance) license holders as well--they deal in antiquities ONLY.
Hope this helps inject sanity into the deal.
Posted by: doretta | Apr 20, 2007 6:31:08 AM
JJ,
He was referred by a judge for a mental health evaluation but apparently not committed because he did not meet the standard for being an imminent danger to himself or others. Hard to quibble with that determination since that was roughly a year-and-a-half before he erupted.
Given what I think we know now, I don't believe he had to lie on the application.
Posted by: spicey | Apr 20, 2007 9:00:32 AM
Well, so far the best idea has been FIRE, I'm really appreciative of all the comments on this issue. I think what we're all wanting is to live in a safe place, and feel protected. My sense is that our society is not like that right now (see Bowling for Columbine). The gun insurance idea sure seems like a good one to me. I'd love to see Republicans take the lead on this issue - could be an agenda they could get through the OR legislature. Don't R's want to be safe, too? Is it more important to have the freedom to bear arms than it is to live in a safe society?
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Apr 20, 2007 12:00:21 PM
Gosh, I thought y'all said that all we needed to
do was pass the gun show "loophole" and we'd have
all we need. Was that a lie, i.e. did y'all fail to
tell us that there was more to follow?
Well, there are right wing authoritarians and there
are left wing authoritarians. I see very few real
liberals here.
Bob Tiernan
Posted by: Mick | Apr 20, 2007 5:10:05 PM
This is my favorite quote ever:
"there's nothing knee-jerk in what i believe about guns; it's what i've always believed."
-Mick
Posted by: jim karlock | Apr 20, 2007 11:47:25 PM
LiberalIncarnate I strongly suggest that you actually READ the 2nd ammendment.
JK: I have. You should too.
LiberalIncarnate Gun ownership is NOT a right, it is a PREVILEGE.
JK: Apparently you missed a few details:
A well regulated
regulated b.+Of troops: Properly disciplined; obs. Rare -1 + = obsolete word
Discipline" b. spec. To train in military exercises and prompt action in obedience to command; to drill.
(The Compact Edition of Oxford English Dictionary, Twenty-Third Printing in the U.S., January 1984)
Militia
militia 3.a. . . . . to denote a 'citizen army' as distinguished from a body of mercenaries or professional soldiers.
1776 Adam Smith W.N.v.i. (1869) II. 281 it [the state] may . . oblige either all the citizens of the military age, or a certain number of them to join in some measure the trade of a soldier to whatever other trade or profession they may happen to carry on. ( Oxford English Dictionary, (1989), page 768)
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people Comment: are you going to claim that phrase means you and I in the 1st, 4th, 9th and the 10th amendments, but means only national guard members in the 2nd. Laughable!
to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
LiberalIncarnate This is why so many states and municipalities are able to control gun ownership.
JK: They used to control racial minorities too.
LiberalIncarnate Also, take pay keen attention to what the Supreme Court has said in this issue.
JK: They just overturned DC’s gun ban if that has any meaning to you.
LiberalIncarnate I get really tired of uneducated idiots making comments when they have scarcely picked up a history book.
JK: Me too (you need to look in the mirror.)
PS: You are not a liberal, you are a statist. A liberal believes in empowering people, not taking away people’s rights to suit the popular delusions of the day.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Apr 21, 2007 12:36:07 AM
Just to make sure some things are clear:
TA & I are friends, mostly long distance, but enjoy the time we do get to spend together.
I am not a liberal, I am a lefty, and as such very committed to personal liberty and freedom
I am a member of the Democratic Party and a DPO delegate, just re-elected by Baker County Democrats
I own a bunch of guns - all shooters - of varying types and capabilities
I do not have a favorite Amendment, I don't worry much about housing troops or Prohibition (as a non-drinker)
One thing I'm very sure of:
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is forever (see GWB)
Posted by: pat malach | Apr 21, 2007 10:29:37 AM
It would certainly be interesting to obtain the views of those who were wounded and suvived, however. Something tells me they would have preferred someone to have had a gun who could have come to their defense.
Something tells me they'd have preferred to be able to sit in their classrooms knowing that one of their fellow students, a person deemed mentally defective by a court, wasn't able to so easily purchase two killing machines.
Once again, "delusions" aren't just a chain of islands off the coast of Alaska.
Anyone with a lick of common sense, an ounce of gray matter and a passing nod to honesty knows more guns equals more gun violence.
If you weren't nuts yourself, you wouldn't fear attempts to keep guns out of the hands of nuts. Right?
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: lestatdelc | Apr 18, 2007 9:02:30 PM
No thanks.