Because it's offensive to remind people that liberty doesn't trump life or the pursuit of happiness

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I realize that this isn't going to gain much traction with people who think the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives them the right to bear any and all weapons but I'd like to hope the more reasonable segments of society would at least be willing to consider that the Founding Fathers weren't intending to enable spree killers or murderers in general. Maintaining State militias and the responsiblity to be armed to repel invasions by foreign powers has little to nothing to do with the insistance that all weapons must be allowed to the populace.

Robert Wright wrote the following for the Atlantic:

Is there a single legitimate use of firearms that requires more than six rounds of continuous fire? Certainly not hunting. And not any sort of self-defense that's realistically imaginable, unless you've recently antagonized a Mexican drug cartel.

As the gun lobby gears up to battle proposals such as this one, you'll hear a lot about the fact that mass killings are actually a drop in the bucket of total homicides. True. But mass killings take a disproportionate toll on the nation psychologically and spiritually. Thirty individual people dying in isolated assaults in various cities is a horrible thing, but it doesn't terrify our children, and it doesn't turn our schools into bunkers.

A modern society puts all sorts of limitations on its citizens without turning into tyranny. The Commonwealth countries all have significant restrictions on firearms and yet Australia and New Zealand and Canada haven't become repressive police states where their citizens are helpless prey to marauding criminals. Hunters can still hunt, marksmen can still use precision weapons at ranges, etc. etc.

America isn't going to solve its mental health issues overnight. As a lifelong hunter used to reasonable restrictions, I don't have a problem making it inconvenient for mass murderers to do so. To me, it beats 11 year olds putting guns to the heads of fellow students or asking teachers in Texas to become Dirty Harry.

Edit: Mother Jones conducted a two-month investigation into 62 U.S. mass shootings over the last 30 years — begun in response to Aurora, updated after Newtown. They found that while deaths from gun-related violence has been decreasing since the early 1990s (along with crime in general) in the U.S., mass shootings have skyrocketed. They have done so concurrently with millions of new firearms flooding the market along with laws making them easier than every to carry publicly. "And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed."

Comments

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM??!?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Cost-benefit analysis, mostly.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I wonder if people out there really believe that the 2nd Amendment is all about making sure the mass murderer's out there have the freedom to mass murder.

Like, why should we step on their freedom to kill people? And besides, public shootings are always great publicity for people that sell guns. Just look at how easy it is! Spend a little cash and you too would be able to make a statement by mowing down the innocents. It's just the free market culling out the weak.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Poe's law applies here...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If the US government turned totalitarian any revolt might last a long time, it might be large in scale, but it will be put down with all the savagery US firepower can muster and the failure will be a catastrophe for everyone caught in the cross-fire. Totalitarianism cannot be suborned by force, it thrives on that. The only way to undermine it is through non-violent means. The idea of the Founders encouraging revolt against the USA died when George Washington personally led an army against a tax revolt, and every single time the US government, with their assent, cracked down on slave revolts. If anyone had the right to slaughter their way to freedom in the Old America, surely it was the slaves. And in no case did any of the Founders approve of the likes of Gabriel Prosser or Nat Turner.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Just like in Vietnam and Afghanistan, amirite?

[pepsquad.livejournal.com]

libya springs to mind.

[flcadam.livejournal.com]

So let's say that you're in Nanking before the Japanese Imperial army is about to circle your city and brutally rape and kill everyone. Would you prefer to have your own weapon so that you can at least put up a fight before your family is savagely raped and dismembered or would you prefer to rely on the good-for-nothing military to save the day? I definitely wish that every single person in Nanking was armed to the teeth to prevent that terrible atrocity from reaching the scale that it did.

As for George Washington, wasn't he kind of an elitist snob anyways? It took Jefferson's presidency for the ideals of the Revolution to actually be put into action.

Edit: One note on slavery. The Founding Fathers considered the slaves property and not citizens, so of course their rights weren't recognized. But I admire Nat Turner and think that his rebellion is a primary example of the good you can do with guns. Those slave rebellions did shake up the status quo. If I were born a slave, I would want to take up arms to retaliate against my "master" too. Liberty or death.

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

I'm not willing to sacrifice my 2nd Amendment rights for the irresponsible & crazy people. Society is going to have to make tough decisions in restricting the freedoms of those types of people if they want to make headway over mass killings.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Nobody's advocating to ban all guns who's actually in a position to make a law about such a ban.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

What you're telling me is you want me to die when my home gets invaded by Stringer Bell's crew and I don't have my machine gun with a 100-bullet clip.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Don't say clip, they'll get mad wif you!

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Indeed.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Hey now, don't be hatin' on Stringer!

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Is there a single legitimate use of firearms that requires more than six rounds of continuous fire?



Why not make that argument to the police, and their multi-round clips? They seem to think so. Or are we carving out even more exceptions for LE than already exist?

Seems to me the issue is more about how much ammo can be 'legitimately' owned, not the number and fire frequency of the weapon.

And intent, etc.

As a taxpayer, I pay for a *personal weapon for a soldier to use. Therefore I should be able to own one myself. *personal weapons are not RPG's or that level of firepower in this case. I am talking specifically about gunpowder powered center pin ammo, discharged through a rifled barrel.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

The purpose of police's firearms are to kill people.

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

Your only valid point is that we have already lost so much ground over this. It is
somewhat ironic that you point to U.S. as well as Commonwealth countries
(Western industrial capitalist) as largely free societies even as
tyranny is all around us and seems to get worse every month. Go to Youtube and watch a video called
"The Story of Your Enslavement" as one illustration.

I will say again I do not think a world where only police and military (who
are always exempted from gun control laws) have access to effective weaponry,
when their job is to protect the ruling class interests, suppress popular revolt and act as pieces in the geopolitical wargames of the elite, is a safe world. The question is what gives
anyone the right to try to control someone else's ability to choose to have what they feel is necessary
to defend themselves from armed assault.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I come from the Net - through systems, peoples, and cities - to this place: MAINFRAME. My format: Guardian. To mend and defend - to defend my new found friends, their hopes and dreams, and to defend them from their enemies.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

be willing to consider that the Founding Fathers weren't intending to enable spree killers or murderers in general.

I doubt that was a consideration one way or the other, actually.

A modern society puts all sorts of limitations on its citizens without turning into tyranny.

Sure, not right away.

I don't have a problem making it inconvenient for mass murderers to do so.

There isn't any way to accomplish that goal though.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Like I said before, adding laws and changing laws will help control people who follow laws, and they aren't the problem. People who go on killing sprees aren't worried about following laws.

I certainly don't support rounding up all the guns, but anything short of that will do nothing to keep something like this from happening again.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

So, um, no reason for any laws against murder or larceny. Or are those just for law-abiding people who kill and steal?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, they are screaming, "Arm the teachers (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/18/virginia-governor-open-to-discussion-about-arming-school-employees/?iref=allsearch)!"

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Or, in this community, "Shoot the shrinks!"

[paft.livejournal.com]

What I'm seeing in the current debate about guns is the rise of type of right wing libertarianism that, back in the '80s, was confined to a subset of SF/Fantasy fans. The ideal society some of these folks envision is a sort of militarized anarchy, with a few strong-men peppered across the country offering feudal protection to those powerless masses they feel like shielding. Others seem to feel that the best way to defend "freedom" is to put our society in a state of permanent paramilitary lockdown. Our already exhausted and underpaid teachers must now become proficient in firearms. Two right wing commentators in prominent publications have suggested that our young people must be trained to:

"gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once." (Megan McArdle in The Daily Beast)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html

Another insane suggestion comes from the National Review's Charlotte Allen, who, along with erroneously blaming the "fact' that no adult males were on the premises (there were) and describing the school as K-6 (It as K-4) opines:

"Think of what Sandy Hook might have been like if a couple of male teachers who had played high-school football, or even some of the huskier 12-year-old boys, had converged on Lanza."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335996/newtown-answers-nro-symposium#

Utter insanity.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Like Abraham Lincoln said about those who advocate slavery, anyone that recommends a mass rush on a well-armed perpetrator should be encouraged to try it themselves. I mean good God, that's Leeroy Jenkinsism at its 'finest.'

[tniassaint.livejournal.com]

Here's a thought...

We require licenses for cars. We are required to demonstrate education, safety, legal basics and capability with regards to operating a car, which is a tool with significantly dangerous potential; but one that has been designed for safety, and for legitimate non-violent use. We imply that we will keep them securely and limit access to the use of the vehicles by those that should not be using them. We do not hold owners responsible for their misuse when stolen aside from cases of grossly neglectful behavior. Those who demonstrate poor judgment, poor safety, etc. see their rates increase and even have their use curtailed.

Guns serve one purpose. They destroy. Cars have perfectly non-destructive purposes, but somehow require MORE of the potential owner or operator than gun ownership.

I see absolutely NO reason we, as a people, cannot maintain the responsible rights of ownership of firearms to those that are willing and able to demonstrate a minimum of education regarding safety, security, handling, law (basics) and potential liability of their weapon. These weapon owners should be required to license their weapons, and insure them and any damage that might come of their misuse. Protection can be placed in the law in cases of theft, loss or legitimate accidents. Owners should be responsibility for the security and safety of their weapons - and no one needs a high capacity magazine for hunting or personal defense.

Loopholes allowing people to purchase weapons through non-commercial means that bypass the system of background checks need to be eliminated. Maybe we could require anyone transferring the ownership of a weapon go through a licensed dealer or broker - or given the insurance option, it could be included in that process. There can also, always, be exceptions and variations based on individual circumstances - people in high risk work, collectors, etc.

I see no rational reason we cannot require, at the very least. equal requirements to gun ownership that we would require of automobiles. The insurance option would limit the number of weapons a person might want to own due to the cost of ownership. It would inspire owners to provide a reasonably secure storage for their weapons and would not limit anyone's ability or right to own a weapon , assuming they are not convicted felons or found to be mentally unqualified - both groups we would already restrict. Criminal penalties for those committing gun crimes should be stiffened.

I hope this would be something that you will consider. I see no logical reason this would be objectionable to anyone.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this thoughtful comment.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I think that the increase probably has something to do with media coverage. There's a reason you don't report suicides.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Before I read the rest of the comments, I must cry SHAME ON YOU!

You're listening to Ke$ha?!?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Sweet buttery Jesus, no. But apparently radio stations have been pulling that song off the air, proving that at least some good can come from tragedy.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

"And not any sort of self-defense that's realistically imaginable, unless you've recently antagonized a Mexican drug cartel."

This is why police officers still carry six-shot revolvers.