As the ongoing debate over guns in America continues to polarize and rage, one thing is becoming eminently clear. Despite their best efforts to defend assault-type weapons and hi-capacity magazines, the defenders of unfettered gun-rights have not and cannot make a case for their utility among the citizen population of America.
I have asked, in a recent series of hotly contested gun-control articles (http://woodbury-middlebury.patch.com/search?keywords=a+note+to+you+%28the+gun+owner%29), for supporters of gun-rights to cite incidents where assault weapons with hi-capacity magazines have been used in home or self-defense. Their response has not been compelling or convincing. An episode at home from 2010 (less than 10 shots fired), an on-duty security guard (not civilian use) from 2007, an unfired/unloaded AR-15 used to frighten away intruders - in other words, nothing of consequence. This should come as no surprise since not even the NRA’s star “mommy defender” Gayle Trotter who testified before a Senate hearing on January 30th could come up with a single, real-world example of a hi-capacity assault weapon used by a mother for self-defense.
Instead, what we hear are hypotheticals from theatrical Republican Senators like Lyndsey Graham about victims cowering in closets, and how “Fifteen rounds in the hands of a mother trying to protect her children may not be enough.” Unfortunately, there is nothing hypothetical about the actual, real-world lethality of assault weapons as the victims of Aurora and Newtown can attest. Unfortunately, it is always possible to posit a hypothetical scenario where one more gun or one more bullet can be justified in self-defense. As a society we witnessed similar arguments in support of ever-expanding nuclear arsenals, but somehow we also understood the madness associated with that logic, and took great pains, and great expense to limit the number and accessibility of such weapons. It was equally true that “nukes don’t kill people, people kill people,” and that is precisely why we sought to remove those weapons from the hands of people.
There is also, in our largely cultural clash over guns, a heavy cost that is never tallied. And that is because it is so hard to calculate. Immediately after the Aurora shootings I noted this:
“Two days later (post Aurora) my community’s Sunday music concert, played on cool grass under great oaks, had the marked presence of extra police. The Colorado shooting was cited as the reason for this show of force. In the aftermath of that shooting, how many parents in my town feel the same way about letting their children go to a “late-show” or take in a peaceful summer concert? This week in Oak Creek, Wisconsin how many families feel comfortable praying in church? This, besides the tragedy and mayhem of the actual killings, is the price we, as a nation, pay for our love affair with guns - the pursuit of happiness impinged by a society that shows no inclination towards limiting the distribution and presence of guns.”
And now, with Newtown we can add one more incalculable but undeniably real cost - the absence of easy breathing and smiles as we say goodbye to our young children on their way to learn at school. That too has been taken from us. Not just by some random madman, but by our enabling culture of guns.
Get with the program Herbert. The NBC "report" was issued as events were unfolding and details were sketchy. Somehow you missed this from Connecticut State Police: "All 26 of Lanza's victims were shot with the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle, said Vance, who bristled at claims to the contrary during an interview with Hearst Connecticut Newspapers. "It's all these conspiracy theorists that are trying to mucky up the waters," said Vance, the longtime state police spokesman. http://www.ctpost.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4222299.php#ixzz2MneKsyQF No one can cite stats about assault weapons/hi-cap mags used in self defense because such stats do not (or barely) exist. They have NO DEMONSTRABLE UTILITY.
Where in the 1st amendment does it say you can't shout fire in a theater? Are you getting the drift of how these articles/amendments work? They are not absolute provisions. Why do you think it is illegal to own a machine gun? Does the 2nd amendment explicitly prohibit it?
I accept limits on free speech. If some aspect of my right to free speech was associated with grievous harm to others, I would certainly be open to editing or limiting that aspect of speech.
Are you also in favor of banning illegal drugs ? In the news today, a pedestrian was killed by a motorist driving a car while high on marijuana. Where is the outrage ? I think we all have a much larger probability of being killed or injured in this manner rather than being shot by a firearm. Firearms are nothing more than tools. They are highly regulated already, in the state of California. You should be calling for a reduction in the glorification of weapons and violence in the media. You should be calling for the state to fund mental health institutions to handle the cases such as the Lanza family in Newtown. It was absolutely morally wrong to leave that woman alone with that young man. She did not have the training to handle the situation yet our society turned our backs on them while she dealt with the situation the only way she knew. What about the Dad ? He turned his back on their situation and bought his way out of the responsibility. What other situations are lurking out there while we continue to argue about gun control? Trying to stop loss of life by getting rid of guns is the same as trying to prevent fires by eliminating oxygen. It is impossible.
Yet she was able to legally purchase an assault weapon with hi-cap magazine - for what utilitarian purpose? I think even you will concede that oxygen has utility. GREG -"Trying to stop loss of life by getting rid of guns" Australia had 13 incidents of mass murder by gun, got rid of assault weapons + other gun control measures, and has not experienced 1 mass murder by gun since. Coincidence? The lethality of America's gun arsenal must be reduced. As I stated in a previous essay - "...our society is peopled by many who are hostile, irresponsible, uncontrollable, ill-trained, and imbalanced. Efforts to control or monitor those members of society have and will always fall unacceptably short. That leaves guns as the controllable variable in the American equation of death by guns."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/homeland-security-seeking-7000-assault-weapons-per/ Your last sentence was "our enabling culture of guns". Yeah, I'll say. Homeland security orders 2,700 tanks and 1,600,000,000. Wow! What is the governments culture? http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/obama-dhs-purchases-2700-light-armored-tanks-to-go-with-their-1-6-billion-bullet-stockpile/
What is your position of the drones. I think that in any situation that is not war, or urgent danger similar to the police rules, there is no constitutional right to kill. Over the next ten years public and private drones will be an issue for everyone. Can one put a drone over their house? Walking in public? they are available now. Perhaps when I am trail running, to play music, record my runs, and protect me from danger of any sort. And I just thought up a new one. besides sending pictures if you are lost or injured, it could fly to help, and direct the rescue. Sorry, of topic, but was brainstorming.
Weather or not to ban assault weapons, I am not sure either way. But the goal is to eliminate mass murder, and of course to lower the murder rate as much as possible. But to look at "assault weapons" as you state "That leaves guns as the controllable variable", will fall sadly short of any goal. You have left the issue of mental disorder as a non starter. Weather it has anything to do with Reagan, and the hospitals, or the ACLU and the right to live freely insane, many mental people are running loose. I think you will find that every single one of these killers is either mental, or has been slipping into the state for a while. The method to carry out the deed is probably one of familiarity, and yes availability. But if you drop the availability of one route, another will be found. Their are many ways to commit mass murder. If you sit back for a moment, and try to put yourself in the position of the killer, your thoughts are, what will my method be. It is not....oh gee, no assault weapons, so I will go home, and make cookies. Your mind will come up with fire, bombs, poisen....etc. I am with you 100% of finding a solution. But when our energies are directed in the wrong place, it robs our goal, instead of helping it So I conclude: As for assault weapons...I do not have an opinion. But better time would be spend working on the mentals among us. And as for most issues, this one falls down party lines, everyone fights over the wrong thing, and nothing works.
No. It too should be part of a comprehensive approach, but it is virtually impossible to screen and prevent mentally unstable people from having access to guns. Was Officer Dorner "crazy" 2 weeks before his incident? Everyday in America a relationship ends badly, someone is fired, a slow-burn of vengeance/madness is brewing in someone - none of them will be detected by a mental health screening. When they "snap" what arsenal will be available to them? That is why I think it important to limit the availability and access to guns with unusual (the Heller language) killing power. Those opposed to limiting such access do not even think that guns should be part of the equation at all. They look at countries like Japan, Australia, Great Britain, most of Europe and deny any linkage at all between their extraordinarily low murder/death rate by guns and the presence of guns (and strict gun laws) in those societies. Denying such a linkage is delusional IMO.
http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/18/great-gun-control-fallacy-thomas-sowell Also, I would like to zoom out and look at the one thing that runs through the vast majority of people. People's opinions on issues seem to run down party lines without a moment of thought, and reflection. I am not immune to this. Almost no one changes their mind in the face of any facts, or logic. So, main block to influencing someone is usually emotional and ego based predjudice. What is your opinion on this?
Lets say you magically make assault weapons vanish. A small percentage of people would use a single or some other weapon rather than multiple weapons or other devices. If you want to stop murders, and waste all the time and money on nothing, go ahead. The greastest decline in murders has happenned in the last 20 years. When counted for the rise in pop, it is down 65% How about the murder rate in detroit? Every years there is enough to claim a dozen sandy hooks.............but no one cares. Yuppy white guys, and liberals feeling good about themselves, going after a false boogyman because it is in style, and thew can feel good about their humanity, as they drive home in ethanal cars that uses more energy and carbon to create than is saved, while millions starve to death that could have used the wheat.
Two things you can count on .. 1) They can't answer....they vanish, or call you names. 2) mention thousands dying every single day of the year from starvation, and it is returned with nothing. It does not fit the model of what they want to hear to feel good about their humanity. They would rather fight an ill percieved boogy man, than actually do good for humanity.
Robert Defulgentiis: "No. It too should be part of a comprehensive approach, but it is virtually impossible to screen and prevent mentally unstable people from having access to guns. Was Officer Dorner "crazy" 2 weeks before his incident? Everyday in America a relationship ends badly, someone is fired, a slow-burn of vengeance/madness is brewing in someone - none of them will be detected by a mental health screening. When they "snap" what arsenal will be available to them? That is why I think it important to limit the availability and access to guns with unusual (the Heller language) killing power. "
Pick who is evil, and make it known---go after it. Those being declared evil fight back. All of the energy to really solve the problem goes down the drain, and the left, and right are wedged apart more.....and more.... The amount of death by assault rifles is very small of the total. Why is THAT the main focus? And of course those evil doers on the right. And those even more evil-evil-dooers tea party (who does not want to burden your grandchildren with forever debt) must be behind this!!
My owning an assault does not in any way cause any grievous harm to anybody. It is only the act of shooting people with a gun that is dangerous and that is already made illegal.
Your INSISTANCE on owning assault weapons with hi-cap magazines NECESSARILY enables others, much less stable and responsible than you, access to the same (Adam Lanza) arsenal of weapons. And remember - assault-type weapons with hi-cap magazines have virtually NO demonstrated utility as a weapon of home or self-defense.
Furthermore, you are putting the cart before the horse. As an enumerated right, it is not my burden to demonstrate that "- assault-type weapons with hi-cap magazines" have some demonstrated utility. It would be the government's burden (your burden) to demonstrate that they are somehow unreasonably dangerous or present a greater risk/threat of harm. Given the very small number of crimes committed with such weapons I don't see how you can make that argument with a straight face, unless your plan is to incrementally illegalize the guns you find most obnoxious until we are reduced to single shot bolt action rifles of .22 rimfire caliber. Do you know of any studies that demonstrate that "- assault-type weapons with hi-cap magazines" are predominantly used in crime or have proven to be more dangerous when used for criminal purposes than other weapons. Compare the results of the Va.Tech shooting (committed with pistols and multiple magazines) to the results of the Newtown shooting.
. "And remember - assault-type weapons with hi-cap magazines have virtually NO demonstrated utility as a weapon of home or self-defense". ...HOMELAND SECURITY QUOTE: AR-15s and matching 30-round clips “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”......AND THEY ORDERED 7,OOO FOR PERSONAL USE. Personally I really don't know enough about them to opinion one way or the other. So I simply ask, do you think they are wrong? I am not here to jump on you or argue one way or the other. As I state, my thoughts are we should put our energies for this issue in a different spot. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/homeland-security-seeking-7000-assault-weapons-per/
Homeland Security does not purchase weapons for personal CIVILIAN home or self-defense - they are a government security agency (apples/oranges).
You can argue all you want about how AR15s are hardly used in crime, but it only takes a stupid, idiot, crazy person to destroy in a matter of seconds.
Yes, because of the nature of the arsenal we make available to civilians. The pheasant hunters and "plinkers" doth protest, however...their hobby makes it all worthwhile.
"And remember - assault-type weapons with hi-cap magazines have virtually NO demonstrated utility as a weapon of home or self-defense". ...The government said that ..."assault weapans are suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” So the gov. said the words "personal defense". I am not arguing over who should, or should not have them. But if you say they have "NO demonstrated utility as a weapon of home or self-defense".and the gov says: "suitable for personal defense use in close quarters, well they oughta know.....apples and apples. This is the third or fourth attempt to get s simple response from you. Don't run and hid again. this has been going on since what,March second i believe.
I will investigate that quote for context. Nevertheless, I stand 100% behind this statement: "assault-type weapons with hi-cap magazines have virtually NO demonstrated utility as a weapon of home or self-defense". My essay elicited over 1,000 comments in Connecticut. I asked my critics there to give me examples of assault weapons with hi-caps used in self defense....they were VERY MOTIVATED to find such incidents. They came up with 3 since 2007 + in one cease the AR-15 wasn't even loaded!) They have no civilian utility other than to mass killers.
I will tell you something that is new however. And yes this is the part where you might think one is off a bit. For the first time in my life I do see the possibility of needing guns. The economic system will fail. I have been following this for 14 years, and went into gold in 1999, just before the nasdaq crashed. All FIAT currencies in history have eventually failed. I believe most in positions to know, do know. And it is possible Obama in the Presidency at collapse time will doom our country. Everything changes once in a while throughout all of history. This has happened before. And hey, Robert, I used to be a Democrat. And as a republican I even voted for Clinton both times.
Is there something that you do not understand about the word SHALL? Had it said "should" your argument may have merit. Our framers of the constitution used the strongest language possible to ensure at some point in the future there would be no misunderstanding of their intent. There are other gun free countries that, I am sure, would allow you to take up residence there. If you don't like the constitution I suggest you move. I took an oath to defend that document and I will, with every means possible.