It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

[Dreadsox]

Why else have a loaded gun within reach at night, like this man did? The only reason is fear. And if you're that fearful, you are fucking paranoid.

If the gun isn't loaded, then why have it? It can't "save your life" if you can't shoot it at will.

The gun owners I know to my knowledge are not sitting around with loaded weapons within arms reach. I know plenty who do not own handguns, and hunt, use it for protection out at night on their farms, and take care of coyotes which happen to be a problem in the area I live.

So I guess I have a different view of gun owners. I unterpreted your statement to be a blanket statement about gun owners. If it was directed at the specific case I misunderstood.

 

[Dreadsox]

Yes it will. People are killed in gun accidents in their homes all the time. And by people, I mean children.

People are killed by accidents other ways as well.

The people who are killed in "accidents" in their homes argument would lead me to believe that they are not taking care of their weapons in the manner they should. If that is the case, then lets legislate against stupidity, because stupid people are likely to kill again, by doing something stupid.

 

[martha]

I know plenty who do not own handguns, and hunt, use it for protection out at night on their farms, and take care of coyotes which happen to be a problem in the area I live.

Completely different situations.

 

[yolland]

No...lets get rid of booze and cars. Then there would be no problem. See drunk driving laws and speed limits, do not regulate. That is the point of this thread, no? That gun control laws do not work, so we must prevent people from owning them. Therefore, the same thing should apply to cars, since prohibition failed once already, lets ban cars, get the horse and carriage and ride. Personally I like reverse cowgirl.

Actually that's not a bad point...there is something a little absurd about defending the right of car owners to buy alcohol while arguing for a blanket ban on buying guns for self-defense. 17,000 drunk driving fatalities a year--OK; 10,000 gun homicides a year--not OK. Although, the number of car owners who also drink is probably higher than the total number of gun owners.

 

[Irvine511]

The people who are killed in "accidents" in their homes argument would lead me to believe that they are not taking care of their weapons in the manner they should. If that is the case, then lets legislate against stupidity, because stupid people are likely to kill again, by doing something stupid.

but if we are taking care f the weapons in the manner that they should, then we are defenseless against the intruders who are breaking into our houses to rape our wives.

it's kind of a Catch-22 here.

it is a conundrum. i agree that the sudden banning of handguns isn't remotely practical, and i understand the ideology behind the 2nd amendment, and am more sympathetic to that than your typical gun control advocate.

but i think it's quite clear that widespread gun ownership causes far, far more deaths than they prevent.

 

[anitram]

Actually that's not a bad point...there is something a little absurd about defending the right of car owners to buy alcohol while arguing for a blanket ban on buying guns for self-defense. 17,000 drunk driving fatalities a year--OK; 10,000 gun homicides a year--not OK.

I really can't disagree with you more here.

Especially given that this is area of law I am actually working in for the summer (MADD). It isn't acceptable, not socially or otherwise and laws in the area are rapidly changing. Maybe you aren't necessarily aware of them, but I don't believe that you can actually reasonably say that anyone thinks drunk driving fatalities are okay.

ETA: I think maybe this impression exists because VT is huge and shocking and all over the TV now. But individual shootings or individual drunk driving accidents are never publicized to the same extent. That does not mean that they are not dealt with or don't exist. But generally, a drunk driver will take out another drunk driver or most tragically a family, but a drunk driver won't take out 33 20 year old students and will never get the TV coverage or the level of political discourse regarding drunk driving. And that is the only difference.

 

[yolland]

I was being sarcastic, but Dread is correct that drunk driving laws don't prevent drivers from buying alcohol, so the amount of actual "regulation" they achieve (as opposed to after-the-fact-penalty deterrents) is minimal at best. Why allow anyone who drives to purchase alcohol at all? Does drinking have benefits which justify those kinds of incidentals? If we're concerned enough about preventing law-abiding citizens from ending their lives or someone else's in a moment of stupidity with guns to advocate banning them altogether (at least for self-defense, which is not in itself a criminal act), then why not with alcohol for drivers?

I'm not seriously advocating a ban on alcohol sales to drivers. But if I were arguing for a total ban on gun ownership as opposed to much tighter restrictions, I'd find the discrepancy uncomfortable.

 

[maycocksean]

Because for every story like this, we all know stories of children who got hold of a gun their parents kept for "safety" and accidentally shot themselves or another child.

Which raises the question of which story is "more powerful"--Indra's friend or the kid who shoots his friend accidentally.

Both stories are equally valid, but for both a person can take the approach "yeah, well that won't happen to me" to justify their stand on gun control.

 

[maycocksean]

My Minority Report comment was about the direction the thread was taking. Everyone who owns a gun has become a potential killer ect.

Not quite. In Minority Report, intent was established. No one is arguing that everyone who purchases a gun has an intent to kill someone and thus should be punished just for ownership.

My belief is that anyone "can" be a potential killer regardless of gun ownership. Owning a gun just makes the killing easier should the potential killer change to active killer.

It seems a lot of of your argument is based on these clear cut difference between the evil bad-guy criminials and the law-abiding citizens. I don't think that difference is always so clear-cut. As I've said before my concerns with gun ownership have less to do with the career criminals and more to do with those who were law abiding citizens until the moment they pulled the trigger in anger.

Everyone who drives a car after a beer is a potential killer too, yet somehow people get home from cookouts, and barbacues, and Christmas parties after a few glasses of beer and wine.

And yet they shouldn't be "somehow getting home." Driving under the influence is absolutely unacceptable whether you get lucky and make it home or not.

Are there statistics that would indicate that the anti-drunk driving laws have had no impact whatsoever on drunk driving fatalities and that speed limits have no impact whatsoever on highway deaths. Somehow I doubt it.

 

[maycocksean]

But it's kind of a contradicting point that gun owners have. They all try and convince you they need this gun for protection, therefore it has to be in a place that's easy and fast to get to when they are awakened in the night by the bad guy. Yet they all try and convince you they are responsible enough to lock them up and keep them out of reach of their children...

Yes, AEON or Dread could you please explain this. . .

 

[maycocksean]

No different than speeding laws prevent speeding.
No different than drinking and driving laws do not prevent drinking and driving.

To me, it is the same thing.

But it so totally is not. This is such a terrible analogy. Or then again maybe it's not. . .but I bet it's not the anaolgoy you're meaning to draw.

Is there such a thing is "responsible" speeding? We shouldn't have speed limits because those of us who "know how to speed responsibly" shouldn't be prevented from doing so?

Is there such a thing as "responsible" drunk driving? We shouldn't have drunk driving laws because some of us can handle our liquour just fine behind the wheel?

Is there such a thing as "responsible" gun ownership? I would actually argue that there is--and additonal legislation would create MORE genuinely responsible gun owners, but your analogy is implying that there isn't.

I'll tell you that the appeal of all three of the above is a kind of macho "I don't need no government telling me what I can and can't handle" which is usually a sign of exactly the kind of immaturity that indicates some sort of government intervention might be necessary.

And of the three, I'll admitt that I speed. . .but at least I'm not disingenuous or cocky enough to pretend that I'm not taking a risk when I do.

Likewise someone like Aeon needs to be willing to admitt that he's damning the statistics and going with his gut to gamble that his kids are as responsible as he's taught them to be so that he can be sure he has a gun in case the torturer/rapist bursts into his home.

 

[maycocksean]

I cannot believe what my mom told me today. Actually, knowing the person, I can, but still...my friend got pregnant and ended up marrying her boyfriend. He's pretty much a lazy ass dumbass who does NOTHING all day but spend money they don't have while she works and takes care of their kids. I won't get into that....So my mom told me he went out and illegally bought a handgun. He bought it from a friend, so he has no license to own or purchase such a gun. Then my mom said that he was letting his three year old daughter play with it and fire it!!!!!!!!! He has done some of the dumbest things you could think of, but good God this one takes the cake! If I knew more details, I'd seriously report him to the police.

Guns aren't inherently dangerous, yeah, right..... You see why we need tighter restrictions? Because dumbasses like this can just decide out of the blue to buy and carry a handgun that a three year old now has access to.

But the guy is "law-abiding" as far as we know, right? In other words there is no reason this fool wouldn't have been prevented from purchasing a gun by legal means under current laws?

And his buddy, was he some dark underworld figure, or did he perhaps buy his gun legally? Because that kind of lawbreaking. . .shoot, I saw that happen all the time as kid. My friends bought and sold legally obtained weapons amongst themselves. That's about as criminal as something like. . .speeding.

 

[maycocksean]

Two things that are common in the hunting community I would add - mandatory "safety" classes and requirements for how and where the gun can be kept. There are requirements as to how people can keep certain exotic pets in their homes, so it's not a stretch to ask that people be required to keep their guns in locked cases that meet certain regulations (would have to be determined).

I'd be happy with such legislation. Again, I don't think an outright ban is practical, but much stricter legislation, I'm all for.

 

[maycocksean]

Of course it's speculative, but I wonder if the fact that we have such a high rate of handgun possession in the absence of conscription might not be symptomatic of a tendency towards an impulsive, looking-out-for-me-and-mine attitude towards gun possession that's more conducive to reckless use (and indifference to extensive training) compared to the relationship to guns which hunters, trained law enforcement or security personnel, and current or former soldiers tend to have.

And if indeed some sort of societal "attitude" in America makes gun deaths more of a liklihood in the U.S., shouldn't the U.S. of all countries have the most stringent gun laws since apparently we're least capable of "handling" the responsiblity.

 

[indra]

My post was directed at AEON, yet you responded so defensively. What nerve did I hit?

If I have never known anyone who this has happened to, how does your argument hold up? I wonder at the actual statistical chances I have of this happening to me or someone I know?


Yet he keeps a loaded gun within reach?

I don't think I responded particularly defensively. Certainly no more so than your "I'll take my chances, thank you" comment. AEON's entire post was in reference to my post, so you saying you were only responding to him is disingenuous at best.

The statistical chances of something like this happening to you are about the same as they were to him. You are free to not have a weapon -- no one is saying you must have one. You are, however, saying that he shouldn't have one, despite him never being any kind of threat to you. You obviously don't know him or care whether he lived or died, but I'm glad he did have a gun that night. I personally don't know anyone who's had a child find a gun and shoot itself or anyone else. So why should I give a flying fuck about that argument either? (I do by the way, and think that anyone with children who cannot or will not properly secure any weapons should not have them.) Do you only care about something that is likely to happen to you or someone you know? If so, you are a mighty callous person.

As for his gun being stored loaded -- I'm not sure it was. I didn't ask and he didn't say. You just assumed it was loaded. It's entirely possible he retrieved and loaded it when he heard the guy breaking in. If you know what you are doing loading a gun only takes a few seconds.

I find your willingness to brand a person you do not know "fucking paranoid" because of something you assume (ie., that he stored his gun loaded) obnoxious and not nearly as tolerant as you'd like people to believe. Or does tolerance only apply when you agree with the person?

 

[indra]

Nobody and I mean nobody here ever suggested that there is CAUSATION between buying a gun and becoming a killer. There isn't a single post on this thread, and I know because I've read them all.

So I'm not sure where you are seeing this "paranoia."

The post of yours quoted below comes mighty close. It's not much of a stretch to see how that post, and especially the line "Everyone is law abiding initially" can be interpreted as stating that once people buy a gun they are hell bent to find a way to use it.

I love the talk of these magical law-abiding citizens who don't abuse guns.

Guy goes crazy, catches wife in bed with another guy, loses his mind, picks up the gun in his garage and shoots her. He used to be law abiding. (And btw, these cases aren't rare, I could cite a dozen just off the top of my head)

Stupid teenager and his 3 buddies go to a 7-11, they're horsing around, decide to be dumb and steal a 6-pack of beer, it goes wrong, one of them happens to have a gun, shoots the cashier. No previous history of criminality, no previous convictions, hey, maybe it was his buddy's gun - he just happened to be holding it.

9 year old boy finds one of his father's guns in the basement, plays around with it, accidentally shoots his sister and the family dog. No history of criminal behaviour.

Guy owns house backing onto ravine, hates how neighbourhood cats and dogs wander on to his property. Sees a beagle taking a dump, picks up his gun to teach it a lesson and misses, shooting the mother of 3 who happened to be walking the dog. No history of criminal behaviour.

Guy's business is crumbling, he's got debt collectors showing up, he's under stress, they're relentless, he orders them out of his store, they refuse, he picks up a gun and shoots. No history of criminal behaviour.

Guy's wife tells him she's leaving him and the kids and is going to clean him out and by the way, his dick is small and she's repulsed by looking at him. He's enraged, picks up his hunting rifle, shoots her, the inlaws who live on the main floor of their house and then takes his own life.

Everyone is law abiding initially.

 

[dazzlingamy]

Just a question. What do you think would happen if no normal citizen had a gun? What do you think would happen to society?

I also wonder about the different social aspects between say the US and Canada and Australia. We watch the same TV shows/movies, we have the same obsession with computer games with guns, we have armies, and i see lots of little boys at school playing with toy guns and "shooting" each other, so the gun culture is still there, so why does it get so out of control in the states?

 

[Dreadsox]

Yes, AEON or Dread could you please explain this. . .

Of any of the examples I have provided, do any of them follow this argument?

Why dread on this? I know people who hunt. Lots of people who hunt. I know people who carry when they are out on the acres and acres of bogs they work.

I have not made the home invasion argument, quite honestly, because I do not believe a loaded weapon should be out in my house. I have two children who do not know if I have a weapon or not. I can say this, if there were an intruder in my house, my dog would get him first.

 

[Dreadsox]

but if we are taking care f the weapons in the manner that they should, then we are defenseless against the intruders who are breaking into our houses to rape our wives.

I agree 100%. That is why the pit bull lab mix is handy to have in the house.

I am pretty sure I have not advocated this position in the debate.

 

[Dreadsox]

Completely different situations.

WEll, how can that be, when we are going to BLANKET remove the right for responsible people. It's not completely different based on the premise put forth in this thread.

 

[martha]

WEll, how can that be, when we are going to BLANKET remove the right for responsible people. It's not completely different based on the premise put forth in this thread.

Not by me.

 

[martha]

I don't think I responded particularly defensively. Certainly no more so than your "I'll take my chances, thank you" comment. AEON's entire post was in reference to my post, so you saying you were only responding to him is disingenuous at best.

The statistical chances of something like this happening to you are about the same as they were to him. You are free to not have a weapon -- no one is saying you must have one. You are, however, saying that he shouldn't have one, despite him never being any kind of threat to you. You obviously don't know him or care whether he lived or died, but I'm glad he did have a gun that night. I personally don't know anyone who's had a child find a gun and shoot itself or anyone else. So why should I give a flying fuck about that argument either? (I do by the way, and think that anyone with children who cannot or will not properly secure any weapons should not have them.) Do you only care about something that is likely to happen to you or someone you know? If so, you are a mighty callous person.

As for his gun being stored loaded -- I'm not sure it was. I didn't ask and he didn't say. You just assumed it was loaded. It's entirely possible he retrieved and loaded it when he heard the guy breaking in. If you know what you are doing loading a gun only takes a few seconds.

I find your willingness to brand a person you do not know "fucking paranoid" because of something you assume (ie., that he stored his gun loaded) obnoxious and not nearly as tolerant as you'd like people to believe. Or does tolerance only apply when you agree with the person?

This is one hell of a defensive response. I'll leave you to decide what nerve keeps getting hit. You make your assumptions about this man, and I'll make mine.

I personally don't know anyone who's had a child find a gun and shoot itself or anyone else.

That makes one of us.

 

[Liesje]

I also wonder about the different social aspects between say the US and Canada and Australia. We watch the same TV shows/movies, we have the same obsession with computer games with guns, we have armies, and i see lots of little boys at school playing with toy guns and "shooting" each other, so the gun culture is still there, so why does it get so out of control in the states?

Neither Canada nor Australia borders a country other than the US. I don't have a problem with immigration, but if you look in some other threads you will find the type of people that are all paranoid because we border Mexico. Also, most cities have pretty big gang problems, and I'd bet gang/drug related gun incidents vastly out number isolated domestic incidents. We also have the huge military, and many people who think that serving gives them the right to carry around their weapons for life. I don't mean anyone in this thread, but I know people that joined the military for lack of anything better to do and now think that they are some expert on combat and defense and carry pistols in their pockets.

It seems to me that among the people I know who are very anti-gun restriction and actually have their own guns (excluding sport rifles) do it more for the tradition than actually feeling threatened. They come from militaristic families with histories of owning and using weapons, so they kids just grow up around weapons and for them it's normal to have one.

 

[anitram]

The post of yours quoted below comes mighty close. It's not much of a stretch to see how that post, and especially the line "Everyone is law abiding initially" can be interpreted as stating that once people buy a gun they are hell bent to find a way to use it.

No it doesn't. Nowhere did I suggest that "but for the fact he had a gun ____ would not have become a killer." It merely pointed out that in those cases, people who are law abiding and own a gun could certainly find themselves in a situation where it goes off. I don't see how you can interpret it another way: if a guy commits a crime in the heat of passion it was cause by an external event (ie. seeing his wife in bed with somebody else) NOT because he owned a gun. The gun merely helped him achieve his end, but was not a factor in causation. It's really not that difficult of a concept.

 

[anitram]

Neither Canada nor Australia borders a country other than the US.

I really think it has to do more with American views of property ownership and that their property is sacred. The idea that in some jurisdictions you are allowed to shoot at a person if you feel "threatened" is inconsistent with say, Canadian or English law. But Americans in particular feel extremely strongly about their right to their land and mere trespassers are seen as something of an affront to a much higher degree than here.

 

[maycocksean]

Of any of the examples I have provided, do any of them follow this argument?

Why dread on this? I know people who hunt. Lots of people who hunt. I know people who carry when they are out on the acres and acres of bogs they work.

I have not made the home invasion argument, quite honestly, because I do not believe a loaded weapon should be out in my house. I have two children who do not know if I have a weapon or not. I can say this, if there were an intruder in my house, my dog would get him first.

Fair enough. Perhaps we can agree that both of our positions are more nuanced then we might have given each other credit for.

I wouldn't advocate a ban on hunting rifles either.

 

[Liesje]

I really think it has to do more with American views of property ownership and that their property is sacred. The idea that in some jurisdictions you are allowed to shoot at a person if you feel "threatened" is inconsistent with say, Canadian or English law. But Americans in particular feel extremely strongly about their right to their land and mere trespassers are seen as something of an affront to a much higher degree than here.

I agree to an extent. Most family members and friends who would speak out against banning guns or tighter restrictions don't actually own any guns or feel the need to defend property. Heck, most of us don't even own property or have families to "defend" yet, so I can't really get in the mindset of being all obsessed over property, but maybe I'm in a majority, who knows? I guess it just goes back to their assumption that restricting guns is too dangerous a precedent for restricting rights in general. I don't agree, because I don't think that guns should be a "right" in the first place, but that's the way they see it.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

BLACKSBURG, Virginia (CNN) -- When a judge deemed Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho a danger to himself due to mental illness in 2005, that ruling should have disqualified him from buying a handgun under federal law.

It didn't.

And his slaughter of 32 people last week has raised questions about the efficacy of instant background checks for firearms purchases by the mentally ill.

Under federal law, anyone who has been judged to be a danger to himself or others because of mental illness, as Cho was, should be prohibited from buying a gun.

His status should have been noted in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, a database of people disqualified from gun purchases.

But, in Cho's case, his mental status never went in the system.


That's because the federal government relied on Virginia to provide the information, and Virginia law disqualifies a person from buying firearms only if they have been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital.

Cho was ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, but he was never committed. His appearance before the judge and his evaluation at a mental health facility did not show up when he bought the guns.

So Virginia never reported him, and he was not flagged in a background check.

Virginia Attorney General Robert McDonnell concedes that "the gap is clearly there in the state and federal law."

"We're taking a good look at whether the federal law would have been an absolute disqualifier," McDonnell said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

He said state law may need to be changed to meet federal requirements.


Ironically, although Virginia law created a loophole for Cho, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says Virginia is actually one of the best performing states when it comes to entering mental status of persons into the background check system.

In fact, only 22 states, including Virginia, put any mental-status entries into the federal database. The remaining states cite costs and privacy concerns as reasons they don't.

But even if Virginia had put Cho in the database, he could still have sidestepped the background check by buying his firearms at a gun show or from a private seller.

Those types of transactions account for about half of the guns sold in the United States each year.

In Virginia, a person 21 or older can buy only one handgun a month, unless he has a license to buy more.

Cho bought one gun, a .22-caliber pistol, in early February and another, a 9 mm pistol, in March.

He apparently bought the .22-caliber weapon from an out-of-state dealer.

Under federal law, a weapon purchased from an out-of-state dealer must be shipped to an in-state, federally licensed gun dealer, who runs a background check. The buyer must appear in person to pick up the gun, and the dealer receives a small fee -- usually between $20 and $40 -- for facilitating the pickup.

On February 9, Cho picked up the out-of-state purchase -- a Walther P22 pistol -- from JND pawnshop across the street from campus, according to Joe Dowdy, who owns the shop. (Watch dealer recount selling weapon to Cho Video)

Cho bought a Glock 19 and 50 rounds of ammunition on March 12, staying just within the limit of one gun purchase per month, said John Markell at Roanoke Firearms in nearby Roanoke, Virginia.

Even though Cho is a resident alien, Markell said, it was legal for him to purchase a firearm, and he presented three forms of identification: a driver's license, a checkbook with an address matching the driver's license, and a resident alien card.

Cho moved to the United States from South Korea at age 8.
Clips possibly bought on eBay

Investigators are seeking records related to an e-mail and eBay account that may have been used by Cho, a source close to the investigation said. The account being checked was used last month to buy magazine clips that would fit one of the handguns used by Cho in his shooting rampage.

A CNN check of eBay transaction records online showed that the account that investigators are examining -- Blazers5505 -- was used in numerous transactions over the past several months.

Those included the March 22 purchase of two empty, 10-round magazines for a Walther P22 handgun from a company in Rigby, Idaho, that sells hunting and shooting supplies. Authorities have said one of the two handguns used by Cho was a Walther P22 pistol.

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

I firmly believe there is no way to keep guns out of hands of people determined to get them. There will always be illegal ways.

 

[verte76]

Most political entities control guns in some way or another. The freedom to own a gun is something that most people don't think about. It shocks Australians, for example, that it's so easy to own a gun in the States and the way we use the Second Amendment to argue for rights to own a gun. I agree with Indra that this guy probably would have found a gun, although it was too easy for him. He just ordered his on the internet. A friend of mine from Ireland emailed me with the Va. Tech story and a plea for more gun control. It was too easy for this guy to get guns. He was seriously mentally ill, and really exploited the Second Amendment. It's too easy to exploit the Second Amendment. I think it's sort of dangerous.