Renewed Calls for Gun Control
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-01-12/renewed-calls-gun-control
President Obama plans to attend a memorial service this evening for victims of the weekend shooting rampage at an Arizona supermarket. The gunman killed six people and injured 14. One of the injured, Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, remains in intensive care. The tragedy has led to renewed calls for tougher regulations on guns. But it has also had led some to urge looser gun laws to allow more private citizens to arm themselves for protection. The debate over who should be allowed to possess a gun and whether certain kinds of firearms should be banned.
Guests
Alan Gura
partner in the Washington law firm Gura & Possessky; lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court gun rights case District of Columbia v. Heller.
Daniel Webster
co-director, Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Josh Horwitz
executive director, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
IT's NOT THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ANYMORE!! IF GUN OWNERSHIP IN THE U.S. IS INFRINGED THERE WOULD BE NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE RUNNING OF MILITIAS, MAINTAINING DOMESTIC SECURITY OR THE DEFENCE OF THE U.S.!!
Looking at the U.S. and its passionately debated fire arm-ownership controversies from the outside- Vancouver, BC, Canada-and having both a functional awareness of U.S. history during the 1750-1850 period and the U.S.'s current highly sophisticated domestic and defence infrastructure, the current debate (and previous debates going back a decade and a half) are all too often predicated on false logic and apparent deliberate attempts by some to ignore the realities of U.S. history and the enormous technological and industrial advancements within the U.S. since 1791 when the Right to Bear Arms as part of the 'Bill of Rights' was ratified...
Clause 2 states: "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..." and is perfectly understandable in terms of the times:
The then United States was still a comparatively weak country; at risk of re-invasion by the former Colonial power and/or having its territories claimed by other Western Hemisphere countries and colonies of European Continent countries...
Also, the development of U.S. states' and Federal infrastructure for supporting the functioning of a Militia was scant at best: the huge, well resourced men and materiel structures in place in all 50 states today that are used to facilitate the running of Militia did not exist in 1791...
In 1791, as a mater of necessity, many members of state Militia would have had to keep their fire arms and other related equipment at their homes or place of work since the Militia group to which they belong likely did not have: large, secure arsenals; equipment storage warehouses; training properties; barracks and the like....
CONTINUED
PART 2:
Today, due to the extensive resources, sophisticated weapons and vast amounts of weapons & equipment that U.S. state militias/"National Guard's" possess- located or at least based on large, secure properties- owned by state Militias/their government oversight body:
- there is no physical or functional/operational need for individual U.S. citizens who are members of Militia/National guard units to own or possess fire arms- particularly hand guns- in order to facilitate the running of Militia/NG's!!
The levels of gun violence in the U.S. could only be reduced substantially if there are laws put in place prohibiting the ownership of guns by any person without a demonstrated need for such...
And if this was to occur, there would be zero negative effects on the running of Militia/NG's in the U.S. and zero negative effects on the U.S.'s capabilities to:
1) stop insurrections;
2) maintain civil order;
3) defend the country's assets and interests; and
4) running Militias/NG units...
Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada
I'm deeply sorry over what happened in Arizona. This is a mentally ill person who needed help and didn't get it.
To the gentlemen from Canada who says he is familiar with American history; I respectfully disagree with your conclusion over what the second amendment states. I believe the US supreme court disagrees with your conclusion also. I doubt I can change your mind or anyone else's however I hope we can all have a civil discussion even if we disagree. If for no other reason then to distinguish ourselves from the ones who may need help.
If we find ourselves unable to have a "civil discussion" on terms that suit the holders and sellers of guns then what is our next step?
My contention is that being armed is not part of honest debate and civil discussion.
It's a shame that people take horrible situations like this and use them in a sickening attempt to undermine the individual rights of law abiding citizens in the United States. We don't apply this sort of misunderstanding to peoples rights of expression through religion when someone does something sickening in the name of religion, so why should we lash out at any of our other civil rights?
Some people seem to have no desire to have rights, and spend time endorsing ideas to disarm the populace and empower the police. Frankly, if you want to live in a police state where you don't have rights, feel free to move to the UK. Here in the United States, I happen to enjoy my rights, all of my rights, that our founding fathers were wise enough to bake into the very foundation of this country.
Would any of your esteemed panelists attempt what should be a fifth grade exercise and identify the subject and the predicate of this sentence:
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.
If you believe "right" is the subject and "shall [not] be infringed" is the predicate, why would our foundiing fathers, all extremely literate men, commit the most fundamental error by separating a subject and its predicate by a single comma?
Do any listeners of the liberal media such as the Diane Rehm show not see the opportunistic nature of the commentary in the wake of the Arizona shooting. Attacks on political right leaning commentators calls for more gun control and in general the call for more government involvement in all aspects of of our lives in the mistaken notion the nanny state can prevent such tragedies. On the topic of gun control I know Diane does not know the difference between a semi automatic and a machine gun and probably the readers of this do not either. The calls for restricting certain types of firearms flies in the face of the second amendment. The second amendment says nothing about bagging a duck or hunting anything. It is about self protection and if need be to maintain a free country against a corrupt government. The founders new where they came from and thought it important enough to include this in our basic rights. Some say the founders could not have anticipated the the advance of firearm technology, this is ridiculous on it's face these people were not stupid. Obviously if the people needed to rise up they would need weapons at least as good as the people they were fighting. To think our situation as a society cannot break down and anarchy can not happen is fool hardy. Look at Louisiana after Katrina. We the American people were given the right of self protection with deadly force if need be. Guns are the great equalizer, do not take your freedom lightly or it will be taken from you. Big government cannot be everywhere all the time to protect you I for one choose to be self reliant.
Listening to the radio yesterday (probably on NPR), I heard it reported that there WAS a person on the scene with a handgun. By the time he got to the center of the incident, the shooter was already on the ground and it was not obvious who his 'target' should be.
He could very well have mistaken someone who took the gun away as the initial shooter and killed him instead of the actual criminal.
Just arming everyone will lead to many future tragic instances where someone is killed because of a fatal mistake.
It already happens occasionally to law enforcement, how much worse would it be for non-trained gun carriers in public? No one was saved because there were guns in the crowd.
This is a great tragedy, but it one that is repeated every day. Usually the victims are not famous, and so their plight is ignored. As much as political vitriol, the following two Republican doctrines have led to this tragedy and leads to the suffering of thousands of crime victims and physically or mentally ill people every day:
1) Most Republican "Conservatives" care only about further enriching the top 2%, who already hold 50% of the nation's wealth. For 80 years they have lined up behind corporate insurance, corporate healthcare, corporate pharma, and the old AMA to oppose Comprehensive Healthcare Reform, including mental healthcare reform. Why? Because in their simple-minded, short-term-gain mindset they mistakenly believed that Comprehensive Healthcare Reformm would cut profits, cut shareholder dividends, and increase taxes. Accessible mental health care could have saved us from this tragedy and countless others.
2) Republican "Conservatives" have opposed reasonable gun control measures. Why? Not because they really care about the issue. They use this and other emotional issues (anti-gay, anti-abortion) to get the votes to remain a viable party. Without the GOP's mostly disingenuous stand on these issues, no-one, except multi-millionaires and billionaires, would ever vote against their financial self-interest by voting Republican. Reasonable gun control could have saved us from this tragedy and countless others.
For a truly fair, economy-saving tax reform and a better country, see http://fairsharetaxes.org
Hi Diane,
Here's my question for your panel: Let's say you arm everyone with a gun and something like Tuscon happens again. In the act of defending yourself you accidently shoot an innocent bystander. What happens then? Who's held responsible and how?
thanks,
-Paul in Dallas
It is interesting that if all these Arizonians have so many "concealed" weapons. And, presuming there were other concealed guns present, a lot of good it did for all the victims! So much for protection! Bah! To react properly, and NOT ENDANGER OTHERS, it takes training and I doubt if many of these hidden guns toters have it.
Jim, from Historic Battle Ground Indiana
It is hypocritical to not regulate guns as all other human inventions that cause human fatality (ie, drugs, cars) are tightly regulated for public safety.
Diane, I think you should discuss the recent killing in Baltimore of a police officer and civilian by police after a plain clothes police officer pulled a gun just as two pairs of officers arrived to assist. Reportedly 20 shots were fired by five officers - in the name of self defense and protecting the public. Another officer and three women were wounded.
My question is why does anyone need a gun with large number of bullets and rapid fire capability for self defense and protecting the public.
Fire arm safety teaches that each shot must be aimed with full awareness of the background to the target, fired after ensuring that no harm will be done if the shot misses the target or passes through the target.
How can a 9 bullet gun able to fire them in 30 seconds useful under such rules of fire?
I consider anyone buying a 30 bullet clip for self defense to be mentally ill, and if they aren't mentally ill, the buyer is preparing to commit mass murder.
I'm imagining the same scene as Saturday with very liberal gun control law where 1/2 the people there were armed with guns.
I am going to assume that once the shooting started that the armed members of the audience would draw their weapons and begin looking for the shooter. However, in all the mayhem that accompanies these despicable events it would be difficult to identify the shooter, especially with all those guns drawn. Then if the unthinkable then occurred, and audience members started shooting at other members of the audience with guns drawn, then the death toll would be much higher due to "friendly fire"
Sadly, this civilization fails to provide adequate care for the mentally ill, the brain damaged, children and the elderly. The amount spent on weapons demonstrates to the world we are still a barbaric people. I have been saying for decades that there are too many guns! But the gun people speak louder and there is increasingly more deadly weaponry broadly available. As long as guns are viewed as acceptable, these slaughters are going to continue to increase in frequency and intensity. Can't we progress, evolve if you will, into a more civilized people?
Hi,
If we must sell guns to the public, why not contain it to basic 6 shooter guns and not semi automatics weapons. This won't stop mentally ill individuals with the intention of mass murder from killing, but I believe it would be greatly reduced.
I do think law abiding "normal" citizens should have the right to protect themselves from home intruders, rapist, robbers, etc, but I would think a basic gun would allow them to do that.
I'm sickened by the mass murders that continue to happen is this country. We need to figure out a way to stop it or at the minimum reduced it.
God bless!!
Thank you,
Rosa M. Collazo-Smith
Absolutely! It is irrational to think MORE armed people would result in FEWER victims! And if they are THAT irrational, they certainly should NOT be armed!
Trying to catch mental ill people before they buy a gun misses the point. Neither they nor "normal" people need to walk around with fire arms. Many in the world view the on-going debate in the US over citenzen ownership of fire arms as insane. They are right. The constitutional provision on fire arms was in a context that is obsolete. Let's wake up and realize that we are simple hurting each other with fire arms, we're not protecting ourselves from OUR government.
No need to rediscover fire or reinvent the wheel! Many counteries have tried various means; the US need only examine them to find a better means of reducing gun violence.
Very little threatens the "freedom" of americans more than the high level of gun violence. One million fatalities since Kennedy was assasinated!
Gun control in Germany, for example, in no way prevents hunters or target shooters from owning multiple weapons, yet the fatality rate is a small faction of that of the US.
--- Al
Please discuss how this weapon is available at a sporting goods store...presumably, these stores would sell weapons associated with sporting and hunting. Clearly, the glock is not a hunting weapon.
My father once told me. The handgun was originally created for one person - to kill a human being. He went on to say: There are two types of people who own handguns. Those who are unable to kill a human being and those who are. The former are more likely to be shot by their own gun. The latter are the people the rest of us should be hoping do not have guns.
More people with concealed weapons in a situation such as the Arizona shooting could just as easily lead to a greater tragedy, and loss of life. The 8 hours of training for a concealed weapons permit (in Arizona) will not prepare the average person to handle a crisis involving gun fire with the same expertise as trained law enforcement personnel.
I personally had a family member who was involuntarily forced to attend a mental-health facility for about 4-6 weeks. In fact, he has done so 3 times now over the last 20-25 years. The last time, after he somehow convinced a judge that he did not need to remain there (despite driving his car into a wall while loaded on painkillers, having a forced detox and attempting to injure himself several times), he was able to get back in his car and drive away.
Within a week, he was demanding his guns be returned to him, and he hired a lawyer to pursue legal action against family members (including myself), who were trying to keep the guns from him. Not having the legal funds to fight his lawyer, I spoke with the local police department, and they told me that there was nothing they could legally do. They said they would take the guns from us if wanted, but it would not stop us from being brought to court and being held liable for destroying/disposing of the guns.
In the end, all we could do was have the police take the ammunition and hope the family member would not acquire more. Regardless, this was 3-4 years ago, and last I heard, he was driving around with a Saturday Nigh Special in his glove compartment and a shotgun in his trunk. Plus, he has been able to acquire more guns quite readily as his mental health records are not looked up when he buys new ones.
I doubt that he would try to hurt anyone on purpose, but I know he is a mentally-unstable and paranoid individual, and if he gets into an aggressive situation (think road rage), who is to say something would not happen?
As a family member who tried to do all that one could with limited resources, how are we supposed to help if the local laws don't back us up???
A few points, please:
1. Please lay the blame where it belongs: On the unstable man, himself. Not on the tool he used. He could just as well have made himself a car bomb.
2. The suspect's family and friends recognized for many years that he was a threat to many people and yet they stood idly by and did very little to stop him, specifically by having him committed involuntarily.
What is the current law for magazines? What is the punishment for possession of one? I recently was offered for sale a glock with three high capacity magazines- stamped clearly on the magazine was "restricted. military and police only"
This is truly an American problem. The question to ask here is not so much whether or not some unbalanced persons will kill again with a gun. The question to ask is why do Americans feel they are constantly in danger in their own country and need guns? Nobody in any other industrialized countries, France, Germany, Japan etc.. feels that they MUST have a gun to protect themselves from other citizens. I wouldn't exactly call German and Japanese culture non violent cultures by tradition. Still citizens from these countries do not feel the need to arm themselves in case other citizens. How do Germans, French and Japanese citizens deal with theft? Are French, German and Japanese citizens constantly attacked and robbed by other citizens because they don't have guns? The US has never been invaded. It never lived under a dictatorship. Its citizens never had to endure an oppressive regime. Still Americans are the ones on the world who need guns the most?
This needs for guns is in line with the general paranoia I've seen in this country. Very much in line with the ideology saying the Government is the enemy etc... Frankly, something is very wrong with the American psyche
Please check out the Daily Beast of two days ago. They created a list of the states with the most lax gun laws and the corresponding gun deaths per capita. Surprise!! The states with the most lax guns., for the most part, had the highest amount of deaths caused by guns!!!
The NRA will capitalize on the Tucson shootings to further cement its position of power in the US. See this excerpt taken from today's Huffington Post:
"During the election cycle following the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School--a grisly spectacle that brought sustained calls for gun control--the NRA's political action committee more than doubled its campaign spending relative to the previous election, shelling out a total of $16.8 million, according to OpenSecrets.org.
During the 2004 election cycle, when the Clinton assault weapon ban law was set to expire, the political action committee spent $12.8 million, 17 percent more than in the previous cycle.
After the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech, the same PAC expended $15.6 million, an increase of nearly 40 percent over to the previous cycle.
Experts say the NRA has proven skillful at portraying individual gun ownership as an almost sacred piece of American freedom, casting proposed restrictions as the bleeding edge of totalitarianism. The NRA did not return calls seeking comment."
The sad thing about the "mentally ill" concept is that not all of us are UNSTABLE!!! I have been medicated since my late teens (20 years). Please don't lump us together. There are plenty of NORMAL people that shoot people everyday. Let's get with the program. We don't want to be feared by the general public. No wonder why it's such a stigma.
You can break the "mentally ill" issue down to those of us that go undetected because others are too busy to care and the fact that there are not enough resources for out reach. Do these people know about them? No...because they are hard to find.
There is plenty of anecdote aimed at supporting the claim that guns are an important tool for self defense. Are these types of events tracked, recorded and statistics kept? If so, where can they be found? Framing the questioned in possibly the crassest possible manner, how many lives are saved relative to those lost?
Never mind. It's being discussed.