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.
What happened in Arizona is just heart breaking and my condolence to all the persons injured there.
I do not think another law is going to do much to stop people from doing things like this.
It is common for lawmakers to jump in and pass a new law to solve a problem, that is what they do.
If the authorities and general public would actively enforce existing laws, that would be the most effective way to stop incidents like what happened in Arizona.
All to often the law of unintended consequences kicks in when lawmakers attempt to solve a issue with another law that most likely will not be enforced or have the intended effect.
Diane's demand of her guest to justify the availability of handguns revels her and most other liberal's lack of understanding of the US Constitution. It's intent was to protect citizens from Government oppression and so the burden of justification is on those who want to restrict citizen's rights.
Perhaps we should step back and look at the larger societal picture. It seems to me that the heavy emphasis on gun (and other) rights places a very heavy burden on law enforcement and other elements of government to prevent the inevitable second-order impacts of these rights, with the recent incident in Arizona being just one example. Today's legal guest specifically made that link - local law enforcement should have been more effective. So that ends with taxpayers paying far higher taxes for law enforcement, mental health services, etc. It also leads to violation of other rights as we possibly begin to mis-identify people as mentally ill in an effort to avoid such incidents. What happens when we cut these government capabilities back due to their high financial costs? Don't gun advocates and advocates of other rights also have a responsibility to consider the indirect consequences their demands place on society at large? Don't legislators have a duty to weigh these issues when crafting legislation?
As a lifelong hunter, I see no constitutional or other impediment to (re)enactment of a federal ban on oversize gun magazines. Such restrictions are legal, reasonable, and common. Federal law prohibits me from hunting wildlife with a shotgun capable of holding more than 3 rounds. Most states prohibit me from hunting big game with a rifle capable of holding more than 5 rounds. Given such reasonable protections of animals from wanton slaughter, don't we humans deserve similar protection?
My son died of a self-inflicted gunshot many years ago, when he was 17. He was angry about taunting and bullying, and could easily have targeted other people. While I support gun control, I believe this discussion should focus more on the lack of adequate mental health services nation-wide. It is extraordinarily difficult for families and friends of troubled people to know how to effectively intervene before these crises occur. This is clearly borne out by the reports from Tucson, in which "the mental health system" simply was inadequate to address this sort of issue. No gun control system is going to prevent this sort of tragedy without effective mental health intervention, which means more resources for publicly available services, not just for those who can afford it.
How could we determine if Mexican drug cartels are funding the NRA? They have more to gain by the NRAs practices than anyone in America does.
I am concerned about the comment that a person needs more than 10 round due to the fact that they may not be able to hit their target in 10 shots. What harm do they pose to those around them, what/who can be accidentally hit during those first 10. Should there not be some type of required training before a person can own a deadly weapon?
According to columnist Brian McGrory in today's Boston Globe, "Massachusetts [which has strict gun control laws] had 3.51 gun deaths per 1000,000 residents in 2007, the third fewest of any state in the nation; Arizona had 14.95, the seventh most."
Its sad to see a 1 in 300 million event justify further erosion of our civil liberties. Surely there are more likely events that should be avoided.
I am offended that the gentleman said that government employees depend on the "largesse of the federal government" for their jobs! Federal workers EARN their money just like the rest of us. It is not a gift or a benefit; they WORK. We should all thank them for serving the public in their work capacity.
I don't understand what regulating the weapon the killer used would accomplish.
You're trying to apply a rational solution to an irrational person.
If you ban extended clips, the murderer might bring two handguns.
If you ban guns, the murderer might borrow/steal a car and drive it through the crowd.
It's an ugly fact of life that as long as we live in a free society, some people are going to use that freedom for horrible things. This tradgedy is the price of our freedom.
It seems to me that the best way to control guns is to have people who want to buy, or have a gun, pass a test and get a license as we have to do to have a Driver's license.
People who have uncontrolled Epilepsy or a TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) may not drive. It follows that people who are unstable or have a criminal record should not own or possess a gun.
The gun test should include training in guns, just as we train to drive.
If someone does not have a license they should not be able to purchase a gun ANYWHERE, including Gun Shows.
Greetings Diane,
I'm an army officer and own four firearms. I grew up on a small farm where learning to shoot was just a part of growing up, and skills were mastered at a very young age (although we didn't use handguns at all - those were considered unnecessary on a farm in the 1960's, and were a shade too close to being "people killing" devices).
My comment relates to the how 2nd amemdment advocates treat the constitution. It seems odd to me that the constitution is seen as an almost sacred document when the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is quoted, but many gun-ownership proponents find it easy to entertain the idea of tinkering with other amendments (the current debate about the 14th amendment comes to mind). This may not be true for your panel, but it isn't easy to see the common thread in much of political rhetoric (you have every right to own a gun...those people have no right to be considered citizens). Why are gun owners in general so adamant on one section of the constitution, but so loosy-goosy on other sections? If the argument is that circumstances have changed, then that could also be applied to the firearms issue - after all, the conditions in 1791, when the 2nd amendment came into beling are FAR different than the conditions in 2011 (just consider population as an example - 1791, a scant 4 million, 2011, over 300 million).
I agree with you to some extent, but as to your first point, I think many people do not lay as much blame on the tool (a gun) as much as the ease with which he could acquire one. It is true that he could have used a car bomb, but much more planning and a lot less spontaneity would have been involved. The ease with which many Americans can get guns, especially those who should not have access to them, is frightening. As it stands in many states, a criminally-insane felon on parole could go to a gun show and buy a semi-automatic. This seems unreasonable and should be stopped.
As for your second point, as someone who has had a mentally-unstable family member, it is very very difficult (and prohibitively expensive) to involuntarily commit them and even more difficult to force them into a guardianship (one of the ways to restrict their access to funds, weapons, and prescription medication). Maybe this family did nothing, which would be unfortunate, but they may have taken steps and found that law enforcement, politicians, and doctors (restricted by patient protection laws) left them hamstrung unless they were willing to go through the courts and spend potentially tens of thousands of dollars.
The point here is that the laws need to be more stringent to protect those with mental illness from themselves and others, but this would require a broader mental health funding and enforcement program, something few are able or willing to pay for.
What did the NRA and other gun violence apologists do to help prevent the shootings in Arizona? What will they do to reduce or correct the damage caused by their advocacy? These are not rhetorical questions: since their advocacy prevents solutions, when will they take responsibility?
NRA oppose more comprehensive background checks that might identify mental health concerns. They oppose government regulation that might reduce the speed, power, or number of shots fired. They oppose agencies and budgets whose focus is maintaining awareness or monitoring activities of violent and hate-based citizen groups. They oppose candidates who would fund, mental health, gun control, and law enforcement programs. They have always opposed -- and continue steadfastly to oppose -- every program, practice, policy, and person that might reduce the problem, any one of which might have limited the carnage in Tucson.
Please: I don't mean after-the-fact revisions of their longstanding positions -- NRA is good at plausible denial of their previous stance, once a common sense law (such as minimal background checks, despite their opposition) exists.
I mean this: if NRA won't permit society, law, or government to address the problem, when will NRA step up and provide the solution? Some solution? Any solution?
At present, their only clear proposal seems to be: give more guns to more people. Seriously? More shootouts with more shooters will settle things down? That sounds far more like advocacy for widespread terrorism than for gun rights.
I appreciated the balance of the panel as they discussed not only the emotional reactions to the tragedy in Tucson, but also the lawful use of firearms and handguns within the United States.
One false and dangerous myth that arose during the discussion can be paraphrased as "Law Enforcement exists to protect us." Unless you yourself are a law enforcement officer, or happen to live with one, the odds of a law enforcement officer ever protecting you from crime or violence approaches zero. Ultimately, each of us is responsible for our own protection and the protection of our loved ones and property. Law Enforcement almost universally arrives on the scene after the crime, assault or violence has occurred.
Interestingly, in a State that presumably is awash in hand guns and concealed weapons, it appears that not a single citizen present during the Tucson tragedy was armed and able to prevent the gunman from emptying the magazine of his weapon. Had an armed citizen been present, the carnage may have been considerably less. Or perhaps there were armed citizens whose analysis of the situation led them to believe that it would endanger the innocent if they were to attempt to stop the shooter with deadly force. Whatever the case, there has never been a law that has prevented those with criminal intent from accessing firearms.
I am from a "gun" state, Montana. I grew up with guns and own several. However, there is a big distinction between rifles and hand guns. Handguns are much more dangerous and much easier to use for foolish or illegal purposes.
I don't know personally of anyone who has had to use a gun to defend themselves. On the other hand, I know of several people who have been injured and killed by handguns, including relatives.
To have parents who care to guide you to expect the most of yourself, WHILE offering unconditional love, seems a most wonderful environment.
Focusing on guns and gun laws as a solution to violent crime makes as much sense as focusing on cars and tires to solve drunk driving. the key to understanding violent crime is understanding the violent criminal.
We also have to understand that out of the 120-140 million US gun owners, 99.9+% are law abiding citizens who use their guns for recreation, self defense, hunting, or other perfectly legal purposes. Gun control creates hurdles for these law abiding citizens, but it doesn't pose a problem for criminals.
One need look no further than Chicago, Washington, DC, or Mexico to see that strict gun control doesn't eliminate crime. Crime thrives where criminals live and find opportunity. It doesn't care about gun laws any more than it cares about laws against murder or assault.
Further, in a society of 300 million+, there are going to be violently disturbed individuals. We can try to protect ourselves against them, but nothing will ever eliminate them or their crimes. In the most recent incident, we had an individual with a violent obsession on one lawmaker. Had he not had a gun, he would have chosen some other means. All the gun control in the world wouldn't have stopped him from enacting his plan.
When we, as a society, develop a sense of perspective and opt to focus on the root causes of crime and ways to protect ourselves from unpredictable crimes we will make progress. But as long as our response is kneejerk legislation and fingerpointing, we'll see the same problems we always have.
I don't think it's "liberal's lack of understanding." After all, your assumption when you say that is that you have the correct understanding of original intent, and because liberals disagree with you, they don't get it. The problem here is that original intent is notoriously difficult to root out, and so we apply current understandings on ancient situations. I disagree that the original intent was to protect individuals from the government. The fragile newly established nation recognized a need for a competent fighting force, but the citizenry did not like a strong standing army (for obvious reasons, given the previous war with the standing army of England). Hence the "well regulated militia" language. The early writings are very, very weak on supporting the idea of needing to keep arms to fight off the government, especially once a representative government was firmly established. By the way, I'm in the army, I grew up in the south, I own firearms, and even I think we need to look at something different than we have today. I am well represented in my government, even if most of the people who represent me are of a different political persuasion than I am.
Hi ,I live in Tucson,Az.I have talked to Gabby Giffords as she is a friend of my boss.I just would like to point out that people like to jump to the gun laws and how we can control that aspect every time someone goes on a senseless rampage.The media has not pointed out a few import key components.One this man had been report but not named as a young adult who had made threats to Sen. Giffords.I had heard this sometime ago and no mention of the threats to her was reviewed.Secondly we forgetting that our mental health care system due to budget cuts could have prevented this mentally disturbed person from committing the crime in the first place.The calling signs I am sure as a parent must have obvious .Unless the parents were living in a cave.The shooter was kicked out of the pima college system his friends knew him to be disturbed and yet all of the calling signs were not addressed.It's not the gun that kills it's the person behind the gun that kills.If this man was able or even forced to seek medical attention this crime would not have been committed in the first place.Lets address this issue first and foremost....Jeff
Hi ,I live in Tucson,Az.I have talked to Gabby Giffords as she is a friend of my boss.I just would like to point out that people like to jump to the gun laws and how we can control that aspect every time someone goes on a senseless rampage.The media has not pointed out a few import key components.One this man had been report but not named as a young adult who had made threats to Sen. Giffords.I had heard this sometime ago and no mention of the threats to her was reviewed.Secondly we forgetting that our mental health care system due to budget cuts could have prevented this mentally disturbed person from committing the crime in the first place.The calling signs I am sure as a parent must have obvious .Unless the parents were living in a cave.The shooter was kicked out of the pima college system his friends knew him to be disturbed and yet all of the calling signs were not addressed.It's not the gun that kills it's the person behind the gun that kills.If this man was able or even forced to seek medical attention this crime would not have been committed in the first place.Lets address this issue first and foremost....Jeff
Many gun owners are quick to try to claim that the orignal intent of the 2nd amendment was to ensure that people had firearms to protect themselves from a government-gone-bad. Original intent is very difficult to establish, but I would point out that the amendment came along at a time when the young American government was working to "insure domestic tranquility," not build up a "keep your guns handy in case the government goes bad" mentality among the populace. The amendment clearly related to the needs of a new country, especially when the bad boys of England were not happy with outcome of the first war with their colonists. There is much less in early writings about worrying that the government will turn into the Lord Sherriff of Nottingham than about the need to have a responsive militia in a nation that distrusted standing armies. The attempt to build and sustain "well regulated militias" became the foundation of the modern citizen-soldier currently regulated by the individual states and the federal military, i.e. the National Guard.
There are some who think the sacrifice of liberty for the government's promise of protection is a good bargain. They are all too eager to dance in the blood of the victims of criminals in their quest to whittle away at the rights of their law-abiding neighbors. The problem with Arizona's mass homicide is not unique - a person with mental health issues did a terrible thing. But for our nation to ration personal freedom out of fear of lunatics would be the tantamount to restricting all of us to life inside an asylum.
I think we are very quick to judge colleges in these cases if they have not done enough to "manage" someone who may be mentally ill and a threat to society.
If we want colleges to return to en locale parentis then we have to make resources available to them to have the mental health professionals and police on staff to perform these roles.
I certainly have not heard where the family of this man who was the Arizona shooter was in this matter. Even though he was an adult individual, where is their responsibility in this matter?
I'm an Arizona resident, and I don't have strong feelings either way relating to the 2nd Amendment. What point is there to regulating a market when there's a very healthy black market? Wouldn't it be better if we established high penalties for illegal or unregistered weapons to help destablize this illegal market?
There are already some 25,000 gun laws & regulations on the books now, what makes you think 25,001 would have stopped the AZ incident? And hey, how about we make murder illegal, that would have stopped him wouldn't it? Isn't it already illegal to shoot people? What would make anyone think that because there is now a law prohibiting carrying a gun within 1000 ft of a public official, that would have stopped him? You can't regulate or stop CRAZY!
Contrary to what one of your guests stated, Arizona has a higher crime rate than the national average, my state is not one of the safest in the nation
I am a gun owning Arizona resident. The discussion about gun control misses the mark concerning this tragic event. The very disturbed young man purchased the Glock handgun and magazines legally at a sporting goods store. He apparently had a long range plan to commit his crime. No level of gun control would have likely deterred him.
The tragedy is the inability to effectively intercede when a person is following a disturbing path. Our high commitment to free speech causes this issue to be a razor edge with personal freedoms on one side and public safety on the other side.
My prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords and the families of those who died. This was indeed a day of infamy in Arizona
Intended purpose of the 14th amendment is in question.