Arizona Blue Dog Dem shot at public event

[Weird Harold]

Most of these licences involve background checks... but buy a Glock with an extended magasine the only purpose of which gun is to kill people ???

Other than looking after children, which of those licenses require background checks? Care to provide links to the requirements?

Most of those licenses are more concerned with demonstrating proficiency or education -- much as most states will not issue hunting licenses to anyone born after a specified date who haven't attended a hunter safety/firearms safety course or held a previous hunting license. (in Oregon, Washington and Nevada, the specified date is Jan 1, 1961 -- which ticks my brother off because he was born in June '61 and is the only one of my siblings the law applies to. )

I don't have a problem with some sort of qualification/knowledge/safety training requirement to possess a gun -- that is "to have control over firearm outside of your home." I would worry about the potential for a "Literacy Test for Voters" scenario where a proficiency requirement is applied unequally and/or made unrealistically difficult, but in principle a requirement for minimum level of competence isn't onerous or unreasonable.


I'm reasonably certain that the NRA wouldn't be too vehement in opposition to a "safety training certification" requirement, since they were the ones to draft the original hunter safety requirement and they run most of the qualifying hunter safety classes.

I would object to such a requirement for owning a gun; If such a requirement for owning guns were mandated, my daughters could become criminals as soon as my heart stops beating because they would become joint owners of four guns they want nothing to do with.


Still, the crux of the matter is whether such a "licensing requirement" would have had any effect on events in Tucson. I can't see where it would have since the shooter somehow avoided or passed the background check required by Federal Law -- presumably he would be able to avoid or pass the license requirements just as easily.

 

[DeeZire]

....You know, the Sarah Brady that is the leading spokesperson for the organized anti-gun organization that you claim doesn't exist. Even she couldn't justify extending the Assault Weapons (and extended magazine) Ban

WH - Sarah Brady just put out a video addressing the Tucson shooting. In it, she decries the availability of high capacity magazines. I'm confused about the point you're trying to make, inferring that she's okay with high capacity magazines.

Apparently, Congress will have the opportunity to vote on a new ban when the bill is introduced on Tuesday. It will be interesting to see how the R's squirm their way out of voting for it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...-high-capacity-magazines-rep-carolyn-mccarthy

To quote Nikolas Kristoff, from an opinion piece, published Jan 12 in the NYT:

To protect the public, we regulate cars and toys, medicines and mutual funds. So, simply as a public health matter, shouldn’t we take steps to reduce the toll from our domestic arms industry?

I suspect the parents of nine year-old Christina-Taylor Green would agree. BTW, her organs were donated, and already one child's life has been saved. I wonder if all gun owners sign the organ donation card? Perhaps they could add that to the high capacity magazine legislation.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...arizona-shootings-christina-green-organs.html

 

[JackLuis]

How about regulation of CRAZY!

I mean this guy was identified by Pima County as bat shit nuts and they suspended him from school, and the County didn't look into it?

He had a trail of Crazy following him from High School!

Face it our society isn't set up to regulate crazy, because there is too much crazy running around.

Left-Right, what ever way you slice it, we can not build the perfect society without having some limit on mentally instability.

The Sheriff said that the "Family was Dysfunctional", after he had read the files.

And now, this poor bastard is going to die for it too, after a trial and all, but he's going to pay the price for being left out of a nurturing society and we are out a Congress Woman and a Federal Judge, as well as the other victims.

Mental health is more than an objective to strive for it has a Darwinian limit.

And where did the $500 for the gun come from? He couldn't hold a job?

 

[Weird Harold]

WH - Sarah Brady just put out a video addressing the Tucson shooting. In it, she decries the availability of high capacity magazines. I'm confused about the point you're trying to make, inferring that she's okay with high capacity magazines.

Oh Sarah Brady is not and never has been in favor of anything this a gun, is used with a gun, -- or has ever been int he same room as a gun as far as I can tell -- but she was the leading proponent of the Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004 under its sunset provision.

One of the features of The Assault Weapons Ban was a limitation on magazine capacity for any firearms. That provision was not serious opposed by anyone and was one of the few provisions of that law that made sense.

When the Assault Weapons Ban came up for review under its sunset provision, nobody could demonstrate that it had accomplished anything -- except ban extended magazines -- and there was very little argument for renewing the law. Even Sarah Brady conceded that the law did nothing except waste tax dollars. The one provision that wasn't completely useless and wasteful fell along with the rest of a law that was indefensible.

So, the reason extended magazines aren't currently banned is because the anti-gun lobby couldn't write a law that was even remotely effective in it's stated goals and weren't willing to expend political influence to keep the one part that they didn't screw up.

You could say that while Sarah Brady doesn't like extended magazines, she was more interested in eliminating bayonet lugs and other cosmetic details that made guns look scary. For all I know, she considered extended magazines just an incidental characteristic of her mythical
Assault Weapons."

<shrugs>

For whatever reason, neither Sarah Brady nor any other gun-control advocate tried very hard to keep extended magazines banned once they got them banned.

 

[Weird Harold]

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...-high-capacity-magazines-rep-carolyn-mccarthy

That press release make Ms McCarthy look like an opportunist, but perhaps she is a freshman and hasn't had a chance to introduce her bill in the last six years.

If her explanation of what she is going to propose -- no new magazines and no transfer of existing magazines -- is the full extent of the proposal, it is probably going to fail. As one commenter put it "I can't support a bill with no demonstrable benefit"

Her bill would eventually eliminate high-capacity magazines by attrition, but magazines don't wear out very fast; it might take thirty or forty years to see a decline in extended magazine ownership -- maybe long enough that the heirs of the current owners can be arrested for recieving an illegal transfer of a banned item.

We'll have to wait and see how the actual bill is worded and find out which bill it gets attached to before we can find out if this is effective legislation or just eyewash and headline grabbing.

 

[DeeZire]

...Face it our society isn't set up to regulate crazy, because there is too much crazy running around....

Gov Jan Brewer cut $65 million from mental health services about a year ago. Social services are the first to go when the belt tightening begins. We've also got our local law enforcement agencies complaining about being underfunded, understaffed and overworked. If they're busy, and it's a low priority problem, like a car break-in, they'll have the victim mail in a form. In this work environment, chasing down crazy people is rather low on their priority list - or at least it was until a week ago.

Welcome to Third World Arizona.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Gov Jan Brewer cut $65 million from mental health services about a year ago. Social services are the first to go when the belt tightening begins. We've also got our local law enforcement agencies complaining about being underfunded, understaffed and overworked. If they're busy, and it's a low priority problem, like a car break-in, they'll have the victim mail in a form. In this work environment, chasing down crazy people is rather low on their priority list - or at least it was until a week ago.

Welcome to Third World Arizona.

Human services is a money pit that costs alot and does little.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Gov Jan Brewer cut $65 million from mental health services about a year ago. Social services are the first to go when the belt tightening begins. We've also got our local law enforcement agencies complaining about being underfunded, understaffed and overworked. If they're busy, and it's a low priority problem, like a car break-in, they'll have the victim mail in a form. In this work environment, chasing down crazy people is rather low on their priority list - or at least it was until a week ago.

Welcome to Third World Arizona.

The Governor has a son with mental health issues.

Hairspray seems to have rendered her a harpy.

 

[ishtat]

If such a requirement for owning guns were mandated, my daughters could become criminals as soon as my heart stops beating because they would become joint owners of four guns they want nothing to do with.

No, they wouldn't become criminals because your estate not your daughters would own them until probate was determined, so rest easy Harold.

 

[amicus]

You know, I think many of you are living in a theoretical reality that doesn't exist, anywhere, and never has.

Thaousands and thousands of pounds , not ounces, of Cocaine come across our borders every year and the laws, lots of them, are in place to prevent it from happening; yet it does, year after year.

America has a 'war on drugs' that is almost a half a century old, cost billions of dollars in enforcement and still...it goes on to this day.

You really think you can ban firearms or alcohol or hard drugs? Yuu can't. Even in the most harsh and brutal dictatorships in human history, those in power still had anything they wanted and those willing to prostitute themselves shared in it.

There is only one true, real, and rational solution: FREEDOM, let people do what they want to do. Punish them if they violate the rights of another individual, but FUCK your social more's that attempt to control and regulate. It has never succeeded; it never will.

All it does is make life harder for the rest of us.

Think on that.

Amicus

 

[cloudy]

Far too many crimes are commited by people who have been arrested and then released after plea bargaining felony charges down to a misdeameanor; if they had been prosecuted and incarcerated for the original felony charge, they would have at least wait a few years before commiting another crime.

Oh, absolutely.

After all, we already have the highest incarceration rate among industrial nations (1 in 10), let's make it even higher!

I know! Let's spend billions of dollars to build more prisons so we can lock up more people, and not worry about the billions of people who are dying for lack of healthcare. If they can't afford healthcare or insurance, that's their problem.

 

[sr71plt]

I haven't aligned you with the Prohibitonists, YOU have.

Ummm, no. You did. Nice doubletalking.

 

[Weird Harold]

I know! Let's spend billions of dollars to build more prisons so we can lock up more people,

I have a better idea, lets repeal some of the victimless, non-violent felonies and clear out those non-violent offenders sentenced to life in prison for possessing 1.1 ounces of marijuana or some other stupid moralisitic attempt at prohibition.

That should free up plenty of room for the violent felons, and repeat offenders and some more money for healthcare.

 

[cloudy]

I have a better idea, lets repeal some of the victimless, non-violent felonies and clear out those non-violent offenders sentenced to life in prison for possessing 1.1 ounces of marijuana or some other stupid moralisitic attempt at prohibition.

That should free up plenty of room for the violent felons, and repeat offenders and some more money for healthcare.

I agree, but I have a non-controllable kneejerk reaction to statements like "if they had been prosecuted and incarcerated for the original felony charge" when felonies include things like possessing 1.1 ounces of pot.

 

[rgraham666]

My thought on reading this thread, "Only in America," followed by .

I've spent much of my life studying violence. I can handle all types of weapons from knifes to Dragon ATGW. It's an interesting subject and an important one. But only in America have weapons, their possession and their use become intertwined with the idea of political liberty.

This is understandable. Americans did have to fight for their freedom. Unfortunately they've forgotten, or never knew, that weapons are ethically neutral. They can be used to take away freedom as well.

But the idea that unrestricted possession of firearms is a necessary condition of freedom, and that restriction of firearms is the first step on an inevitable road to an authoritarian government is a uniquely American one. And not one of America's better ideas in my opinion.

 

[Weird Harold]

Unfortunately they've forgotten, or never knew, that weapons are ethically neutral.

I'm not sure where you get that blanket statement from.

One side of the gun control debate anywhere in the world is well aware that the problem is the actions of people, not the inanimated and ethically neutral objects used.

One side of the debate has indeed forgotten that weapons are ethically neutral, but they are NOT uniquely american -- witness the rabid participation of English and Canadian posters on the anti-gun side of the debate. Almost every guncontrol advocacy group is either wholly international or affiliated with gun control advocacy groups in other countries.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I'm not sure where you get that blanket statement from.

One side of the gun control debate anywhere in the world is well aware that the problem is the actions of people, not the inanimated and ethically neutral objects used.

One side of the debate has indeed forgotten that weapons are ethically neutral, but they are NOT uniquely american -- witness the rabid participation of English and Canadian posters on the anti-gun side of the debate. Almost every guncontrol advocacy group is either wholly international or affiliated with gun control advocacy groups in other countries.

Rabid? Interesting choice of words in a paragraph that goes on to implicate the international nature of groups as if that is a prima facie argument against whatever they stand for. If you're trying to refute what Rob said about the conflation of guns with political liberty, it doesn't help when your post becomes Exhibit A for xenophobic paranoia.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Heh, "rabid." I was just thinking, Harold, that you sound pretty "rabid" in this thread.

 

[oggbashan]

I'm not sure that I would consider myself as 'rabid' but along with other non-US residents I fail to understand the US's attachment to freely-available personal weapons, nor the massive percentage of its citizens that are in jail.

The percentage of citizens killed by guns in the US would be regarded as wholly unacceptable in most European countries. Whether gun control could or would work in the US? That's for the US's politicians to sort out.

The percentage of US citizens in jail is comparable only to the sort of regimes that the US condemns for breaches of human rights. Again - that's for the US's politicians to sort out.

I would have thought that the politicians would at least look at how other countries face those problems.

Og

 

[Stella_Omega]

I would have thought that the politicians would at least look at how other countries face those problems.

Og

That would be considered unAmerican by their constituents.

 

[Weird Harold]

Heh, "rabid." I was just thinking, Harold, that you sound pretty "rabid" in this thread.

As rabid as this:

Jan 13, 2011
Sarah Brady urges stricter gun laws after Tucson tragedy
That's the headline from a USA Today article

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainyquotes.com
I don't believe gun owners have rights.
Sarah Brady

Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.
Sarah Brady

How about international gun control advocacy:

In one interview on Sydney radio station 2GB he said "we will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns... ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia".[54] John Howard had earlier expressed a desire to introduce restrictive gun laws when he was Opposition Leader during a 1995 interview with Australian political journalist Laurie Oakes ([4]). In a television interview shortly before the tenth anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre, he reaffirmed his stance: "I did not want Australia to go down the American path. There are some things about America I admire and there are some things I don't. And one of the things I don't admire about America is their... slavish love of guns. They're evil".[55] During the same television interview, Prime Minister Howard also stated that he saw the outpouring of grief in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre as "an opportunity to grab the moment and think about a fundamental change to gun laws in this country".

I think a fervent opposition to such rabid statements is not only appropriate, but absolutely necessary.

Sarah Brady and John Howard are only two of the most high-profile anti-gun advocates and their quotes are easier to find but their sentiments are shared by more than few of the posters on this thread -- especially "... massacre as "an opportunity to grab the moment ..." reactions to the shootings in Tucson.

There are some, foreign commentors, like Og, who are civil and seem to be genuinely puzzled, but then there are others who are more concerned about casting aspersions on the size of my penis than participating in any real discussion.

 

[michchick98]

Whether gun control could or would work in the US? That's for the US's politicians to sort out.

We were just having this discussion at work today. No matter how strict they make the gun control laws, if someone wants to get a gun to shoot people, they'll get it. How do you stop that?

 

[Huckleman2000]

We were just having this discussion at work today. No matter how strict they make the gun control laws, if someone wants to get a gun to shoot people, they'll get it. How do you stop that?

Maybe you can't. But you can limit the availability of high-capacity clips, so as to lessen the potential carnage. You can improve information exchange so that mentally unstable people don't have easy access to weapons. You can regulate gun show arms sales.

Or you can just throw up your arms and say that America just needs to get used to a few mass-shootings every year or so. Because guns are special liberty-totems or something.

 

[michchick98]

Maybe you can't. But you can limit the availability of high-capacity clips, so as to lessen the potential carnage. You can improve information exchange so that mentally unstable people don't have easy access to weapons. You can regulate gun show arms sales.

Or you can just throw up your arms and say that America just needs to get used to a few mass-shootings every year or so. Because guns are special liberty-totems or something.

I never said we should get used to it, I merely said that no matter how strict the gun control laws are, guns will still get into the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

All this discussion for and against is great, but as I said in a previous post, what will 'talking about it' get you? Unless you have some major influence over the lawmakers in this country, talking is just that...talking.

Talk until you're blue in the face. Speak out for or against gun control, I personally don't care. Unless you can change the laws yourself and ENFORCE them, the talking does nothing. And even then, you changing the laws and enforcing them won't keep the guns out of the hands of the crazies.

Are you personally, or anyone on this thread for that matter, going to go from city to city and take away every single illegal gun on the streets? Will the lawmakers in Washington do that? I think not. Democrat or Republican doesn't matter to me, I've said that before. Until guns can be completely controlled, and I mean illegal guns on the streets as well, there will always be incidents like the one in Tuscon last weekend.

If someone wants a gun, they'll get it. Can you stop them? Sure, take away their ammunition or make it less accessible, but that won't stop them. It only takes one bullet to kill someone. Sure, it might 'lessen the potential canrage' but is one murdered person by the hands of a crazy is better than six?

Just some food for thought.

 

[oggbashan]

We were just having this discussion at work today. No matter how strict they make the gun control laws, if someone wants to get a gun to shoot people, they'll get it. How do you stop that?

Our gun control laws haven't stopped a few individuals doing that, but it is far more difficult for someone to kill numbers of people when getting hold of a gun requires planning and premeditation.

The difference in statistics on gun crime between the US and the UK are startling - or they should be.

The figures are dated and do need to be used with caution because of the way different countries record deaths by gunfire.

Og