Americans And Gun Control
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-12-18/americans-and-gun-control
The horror and outrage in the aftermath of last week's mass shootings in Connecticut are galvanizing new efforts to ban assault weapons. Diane and her guests discuss Americans and gun control.
Guests
James Fallows
national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine.
Laura Meckler
White House correspondent for The Wall Street Journal.
Adam Winkler
law professor at the UCLA and author of "Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America."
Congressman John Yarmuth
U.S. Representative from Kentucky's 3rd Congressional District.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
As has been proven through studies, these mass shootings are usually the work of the mentally, or at the very least emotionally, ill. I don't listen everyday, so I don't know if Dianne has had a story about this or not, but this is not so much a time to talk about gun control as it is to talk about mental health. How do we both better serve and care for the mentally ill in this country, and how do we better protect the public from the mentally ill who are dangerous to us? Not only might this approach be much more effective than gun control attempts (in limiting mass shootings), it would actually show the compassion that's lacking in today's laws and care surrounding mental illness.
Your crocodile tears for the mentally disturbed are touching, alger. Just so....sniff, sniff - touching.
" How do we both better serve and care for the mentally ill in this country, and how do we better protect the public from the mentally ill who are dangerous to us?"
I think the show attempted to address this. Part of the conversation at least was about whether or not to ban the types of weapons used by the murderer. So, that might help you there.
How to protect the "mentally ill" as you say? How about by not putting mass assault military weapons within arms reach? Might that be a start? Or, in order to pass your mental health test, does every single adult human have to sit in a room everyday with military weapons, and belts of ammo and not do anything? And THEN we can be declared sane?
I'm sorry, but you asked the question: "how do we better protect the public from the mentally ill who are dangerous to us? "
Pancake Rankin wrote:
"We need confiscatory gun control much stronger than the expired assault weapons ban. Two reasons: 1. Mass shootings 2. Right wing threats to overthrow our federal government."
THX wrote:
"Make no mistake, what is wanted is a semi auto ban."
Still think so, THX? Just semi-autos?
A fascist government and a defenseless populace is the longer-term goal. It starts with the fringe folks like Pancake and Clifford and ends with your local Congress person.
Your guest, Adam Winkler, was exactly right when he said that we focus too much on mass shootings. The daily toll of gun violence in the USA is appalling and yet it's just background noise to most of us who don't live in the "bad" parts of town. Are we so jaded that it's acceptable that nearly 100 people/day die as a result of gun violence across the USA? Any discussion of gun control must take this public health crisis into consideration.
I always enjoy your show and listen on Houston's KUHF 88.7, and I was listening this morning on the way into my office.
With respect the gun issue, each step we take to limit freedom of choice and access serves no good. It does damage to the liberty of all Americans, just as government intervention (whether federal, state or local) in issues such as same sex marriage or government censorship does damage to our nation.
As an avid sport shooter, I've encountered people of all political stripes who also happen to be gun owners. They are stable individuals and both better educated and with greater financial resources than average Americans.
Mental health may be the largest component in this problem. A solution might be a 1 cent sales tax per cartridge (or cap in the case of reloading supplies) and one percent sales tax on the sale of firearms with any revenue generated through such a sales tax earmarked for the state in which the sale occurs and where those funds must be used directly for mental health programs. Given the amount of ammunition sales annually, I expect that could go a long way to addressing the funding needs of our mental health agencies.
With respect to the larger solution, it is about a cultural shift away from violence. That is not something that can be legislated. That takes a change on the part of each individual. It requires that we examine why we make violence a fetish and work to find more affirming means for personal and cultural gratification.
ecgberht wrote: "Just semi-autos?"
I know they want it all, but I also know they will take what they can get, for the time being they think that's all semi autos. If they go after semi handguns, they will shoot themselves in the foot. pun intended.
If I am forced to make a prediction, most of the damage will come through executive orders, the Justice Department and it's ATF branch can all by themselves create many headaches for domestic gun manufactures, ammunition importers and manufactures and the importers of gun parts.
For me it is not crocodile tears. I read about the shooter, and he easily could have been the young man with autism whom I live with. I could not imagine having guns around the house available to him. It was incredibly irresponsible for the mother to have had those kinds of weapons in her home. Unfortunately, there is no way to legislate individual's judgement and responsibility. :(
That's what I was saying. The posting of alger basically said that it's ALL about mental health, and not about guns. I somewhat sarcastically said that in order to pass his or her mental health test, all people should be able to sit at all times in a room with those kinds of military weapons and not do anything.
You say " Unfortunately, there is no way to legislate individual's judgement and responsibility"
I say there is nothing further from the truth. These kinds of weapons should never have been allowed to be in circulation to begin with. They are not needed for self-defense.
I have heard, but not verified, that the murderer may have tried to get weapons on his own, but failed. If true, then that means SOMEthing worked.
As I said earlier in the thread... In response to this particular shooting, I think the most effective way to protect our kids in school, would be to provide Resource Officers in our schools. Thankfully my own children have them in their schools.
In the long term, the gun and mental health aspect is a good discussion to have.. But will really not do much of anything in the short term.. It will not prevent, god forbid, a copycat incident next week, next month. This is a very emotional time, and I feel like people are just wailing and gnashing their teeth. What people are proposing will make our grandkids safer perhaps, but does not address our immediate problem effectively.
Hyacinth, we have got to think long-term here. If our grandkids are better off because of what we do now, I will get down on my knees and say THANK YOU, because that is a victory. We might not be able to prevent next week's, but if we cannot get it together enough now, to prevent next year's or one five years from now, that speaks badly of us.
And, I do not mean to be crude or brutish, but among the people the young man murdered was the school psychologist. So that resource was present in the school.
There is another aspect to prevent gun violence that is not getting discussed. No one is talking about the gun owners personal responsibility for the firearms they own. Why is this not part of the discussion? It is one of the first lines of defense against gun violence and it is never talked about.
The firearms in question were not secured and out of the reach of the perpetrator. A person who was known to have emotional and mental problems was allowed access to firearms and did the unthinkable. The owner of the firearms hold sole responsibility for that and no one else.
I am a firearm owner, hunter, handgun owner, and a father of two young boys. I am also a member of the NRA. My firearms and ammunition are kept in a gun safe and are out of reach. This is to protect my family and the public from unlawful or harmful use of my firearms.
THX wrote:
"If I am forced to make a prediction, most of the damage will come through executive orders, the Justice Department and it's ATF branch can all by themselves create many headaches for domestic gun manufactures, ammunition importers and manufactures and the importers of gun parts."
Excellent point.
I'll reiterate the same two points I made yesterday:
'NRA members, legitimate gun owners - including those who own assault weapons, hate incidents like this even more than today's panelists.'
'This is a parenting issue. Nothing more. Mrs. Lanza failed at that and it cost 28 lives. One might start by asking, why Adam Lanza had access to the weapons in her home? When will people learn that, sadly, bad s- happens. It always has, and it always will, whether there are guns in the hands of the public or not. '
I'm curious why the national knee-jerk reaction to tragedies of this sort is focused so narrowly on gun control. It is clear that access to guns is not the root of the problem facing those who perpetrate such heinous crimes. The root is (almost) always mental health. A story yesterday on Deseretnews.com (out of Utah) is a reposting of a blog written by a mother struggling to maintain control of her violent mentally ill son. She's extremely fearful that without proper care her son is capable of committing serious crimes: taking her life and others' lives. I think the national conversation should switch quickly from gun control to a discussion about how to improve our mental health care system. You can read the DN story here: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765618038/I-am-Adam-Lanzas-mother-Wri...
Part of the requirement for backgrpund checks is to stop the sealing of juvenile records of violent offenders. As a gun advicate I secure my weapons in a safe. Pistols, hunting and assult are locked in a different room for the ammo which is also locked. AR15 is one of the best target weapons made. Don't punish responsable shooters. Identify adults and children that are violent Violence begins before adulthood.
Why aren't we talking about the demography of people who are 'mass shooters?' It seems that they are nearly entirely young men. Don't efforts need to be made to work with this group?
Why aren't we talking about the demography of people who are 'mass shooters?' It seems that they are nearly entirely young men. Don't efforts need to be made to work with this group?
You say the root is mental health. Not everyone would say that.
Some might say that the common denominator is in fact guns. Guns are the weapons of choice in these kinds of situations. If every country had the same gun regs as the US, these kinds of things would be going on a lot more frequently world wide. The difference is, most countries have much stricter gun regs.
Also, others might say that the common denominator is meds.
Can we take a few days and mourn? Can we gather the facts and make educated comments and decisions?
Today I am disappointed in the show. Where typically I have found the show to be two-sided, I am hearing only 1 side being discussed.
I hear people who don't use, don't appreciate, don't want, and don't understand something to ban it. What about Scotch- violence, or Pinot Noir violence. If we are looking to legislate our rights away, why not start here. I'd bet there is more violence associated with these items than guns.
I would bet not, Viscount.
I have a question for all of you who think that citizens need guns in order to defend against a tyrannical government: How does that work? In the event that the government does become tyrannical, how will mere guns defend against the most powerful military in the world? How will a gun defend against tanks, fighter jets, drones, bombs and missiles?
Alternately, if you want guns to defend against criminals, don't you think it might be better if we focus on reducing crime rather than focus on killing our fellow citizens? In other words, if you need guns in order to protect yourself and your family, don't you see that there is something wrong with that picture?
Just asking.
In November, the Republican party suddenly found themselves lacking relevance. This is because the nation had moved forward in the last four years, their party remaining entrenched and even moving backwards in the same period. While the Republican party preached “freedom” they were really about growing the freedoms of the 1% while they limited the personal freedoms of regular citizens.
The NRA now finds itself in a similar situation. They claim to be the keepers of the 2nd amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, but they are really about the rights and profitability of their primary constituents the gun industry. Its a charade and everybody knows it.
In the wake of Newtown, the NRA must ask itself, no, we must insist that the NRA explain how its advocacy of gun manufacturers rises to a level of importance over that of insuring the most basic right of safety and security of the nation’s citizens, and our children.
Let’s hear from the NRA…
Beyond my inability to understand why a person interested in target shooting would need an assault-type weapon...the discussion of gun CONTROL contains the major clue for CONTROL of the weapons.
If only the shooter's mother had secured the weapons in a combination lock gun safe, because she knew he was troubled AND smart enough to get into a simple key locked gun case.
Yes, he could have obtained weapons otherwise, but they would not have been hers!
"NRA explain how its advocacy of gun manufacturers rises to a level of importance over that of insuring the most basic right of safety and security of the nation’s citizens"
That is their stated goal!
Samcot wrote:
"I have a question for all of you who think that citizens need guns in order to defend against a tyrannical government: How does that work? In the event that the government does become tyrannical, how will mere guns defend against the most powerful military in the world? How will a gun defend against tanks, fighter jets, drones, bombs and missiles? "
I answered this question on yesterday's board, Samcot. Now, seeing that you think you are more clever than the Founders, I'm sure you will have an even more clever reply.
Alejandra, please reference current DUI death rates compared to gun death rates.
Secoherence, please analyze the past two years since the Arab spring. Smaller rebel groups are freeing themselves in Syria, and recently in Libya.
Hyacinth, not only did the mother have an assortment of powerful weapons in the home, she took her son target shooting with them, even though she knew that he had emotional and behavioral issues. Even in a home with "normal" people, weapons should be locked up in a safe with very restricted access. Even "normal" people go a little crazy sometimes.
TRAINING! why not licence gun owners and require training in safety and mental health.
I think the conversation of illegal guns falling into criminal hands and mass killings like Newtown are not very related. How many of these mass killings were committed by people with prior criminal records? The conversation for gun regulation should be taken in pieces. To stop even one more killing would be better than not doing anything at all.
Had an interesting conversation yesterday with a couple of people who were ranting and raving about "assault weapons" and gun control. It was pretty obvious by their comments that the empy trash cans do in fact rattle the loudest... When I showed them a picture of a 223 semi auto with a traditional wooden hunting stock and compared it to the same rifle with the bushmaster stock they were adamant that there was no place in society for the Bushmaster configuration. Both rifles function exactly alike... they just look different. By and large, the american populace (and especially Pancake and Clifford) have zero working knowledge of firearms... They wouldn't know a semi automatic from a tree stump and yet they blather on senselessly. Does average joe sportsman need a 30 round clip... probably not. Does that mean that we should ban every semi-automatic rifle or handgun? Very unlikely that will ever happen. Here's a novel idea... hows about learning and truly understanding what you are talking about before spouting off guys??? What happened at the school was terrible and preventable and my heart goes out to these poor families, but knee jerk, single minded solutions will not solve this problem. Education and carefully addressing ALL aspects of the failure (social, parenting, arms control) will help to solve it. Just don't focus on one single aspect of the failure.
Ecgberht, I'm asking the question on TODAY'S board, so why don't you copy and paste your "clever" answer so I can respond to it?
A bonus question: Why do people - like you - seem to refer to the Founders as if what they thought and wrote is some kind of holy gospel that is beyond all question or modification, and as if they could foresee all the requirements of government for all eternity? You do realize that the Founders argued among themselves, don't you?
The Founders were men. Clever men, as you might say. But they weren't gods and they weren't perfect. There is no such thing as a perfect government because there is no such thing as perfect people. There were plenty of people at the time who viewed the new government and the Constitution as tyrannical. When you create a union out of separate parts that's to be expected. We still feel that tension today. So don't try to sell me a phoney story about how all the Founders agreed on everything, and that somehow you understand them and I don't.