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.
I find it quite troubling that the notion of vesting power within the citizens of a nation that underlies the second amendment has faded along with our collective understanding of the compliments of liberty and self-determination. Did the founders contemplate such massively destructive weapons in the hands of the populace at large? The question so thoroughly misses the point. Our founders contemplated a society in which the fear provoked by a firearm in civilian hands is relegated to a footnote by the understanding that each individual bears the duty of responsibility, not just in handling a weapon but in conducting themselves in a manner that exhibits a respect for the consequences to society at large should said power be abused.
Automobiles kill far more innocent people in this country every year than firearms have domestically in any year and in all military conflicts since WWII combined. Yet we do not hesitate to bestow this privilege upon men and women both too young to have reasonably contemplated the capacity of their actions behind the wheel for good or evil and too old to be reasonably expected to exercise a minimum of physical control. I despair that we have grown so comfortable that we look elsewhere when contemplating responsibility for our freedom, the question of which no longer elicits the radical and visceral understanding that forged this nation.
More troubling still is how this tragedy in Connecticut, instead of leading us to a reasoned examination of the most profound question-that underlying the motive of such an act, has resulted in a clamor over the means-the how-with which this terrible act was committed. Seemingly absent from any discussion in the media is any attention whatsoever to the possible factors contributing to such a troubled psyche and how those factors connect the minds of each perpetrator of similar tragedies of the recent past.
Okay, climatewiz, you were able to fool a couple of people who know nothing about guns. So what? The whole "experiment" makes you look silly, not them. The question for people who do know something about guns - like you and me, okay? - is how we as a nation want to regulate weapons. I'm sure you agree that there has to be SOME regulation.
Here's a novel idea: How about not worrying too much about people who know nothing about guns, because I guarantee they are not the ones who will write the laws??? Can you point me to a stupid gun law that was actually written and passed by people who don't know anything about guns? Why are people like you - the pro-gun people - the most paranoid people in our society? I would think that having all those guns would make you feel more secure. :-)
"A fascist government and a defenseless populace is the longer-term goal."
There you go again, ecgberht, making my point again: Pro-gun people like you are among the most paranoid in our society. There is definitely some irony in that.
"both better educated and with greater financial resources than average Americans."
Mhwh, what are you trying to imply? That gun owners are better educated and more successful than "average" Americans? The NRA repeatedly makes two statements that seem in conflict with your point: First, that if we make guns illegal, the only people that will have them are the criminals, and second, that guns don't kill people, people do. It seems to me that the NRA is saying that criminals don't have any problem getting guns, and that most of the problems we have with guns are because of criminals. That means that LESS educated people with FEWER financial resources are getting guns, too. So what is your point, exactly? Do you mean to say that the non-criminal people you happen to know with less education and financial resources than you and your friends tend to own fewer guns? Well, maybe there might be some truth in that. Maybe such people don't have the kind of disposable income to make gun ownership as common a hobby?
Regarding our society becoming less violent, of course it can't be "legislated." Though the conservative right in government sure does try to legislate their views of morality. But speaking of individuals, I will suggest that when an individual like you immediately starts expressing concerns about "limiting freedom of choice" whenever anyone wants to talk about weapons regulations (i.e. gun control), you are doing your part to perpetuate the culture of fear, paranoia, and violence. People are trying to reduce the loss of innocent lives, not limit your choices. People are trying to find a balance between safety and freedom, not take away all of your freedoms.
Some type of gun control is obviously needed. And this may be an entirely different subject, but I do believe our schools could do better as far as building secure and safe schools.
I noted teachers had no where to go but hiding in bathrooms and cupboards. How about a door for all classrooms leading outside the room. That would also be a safety issue if a fire were to break out. Otherwise, all are trapped in their respective classrooms with no escape. Naturally, the door would be locked from the inside. Especially for the elementary schools where the children have to be guided.
Another item is closed campuses. Locked gates and visitors show ID and are subject to a moderate search. I understand this falls on the taxpayer, but one life is too many not to address security measures that are easier to control than gun control.
"all people should be able to sit at all times in a room with those kinds of military weapons and not do anything."
Alejandra, sarcasm aside we should try to think of things that might actually help. Mental health IS an issue that we as a nation should discuss and address. Gun regulation IS an issue that we as a nation should discuss and address. Both of these issues are far from being settled yet. (Not to mention issues like the economy, jobs, education, health care, drugs, etc.) :-)
Silentcitizen, we COULD turn our schools into mini-fortresses with multiple escape routes. The Sandy Hook school was a closed and locked school. The killer shot his way through the door and proceeded to shoot anyone who got in his way. We could spend another million dollar per school to make them "safe." But right now we're busy cutting money to schools - not to mention local police, not to mention mental health care, etc.
I think that we as a nation finally has to address some of the underlying causes of violence and mental illness in our society. And if we don't, we'll have more of the same. It's that simple.
Although no one in the Press seems to have mentioned it, Cerberus Capital CEO is John Snow, former Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush. Vice President Dan Quayle also in senior management. Interesting that Cerberus has announced its desire to unload Bushmaster/Freedom Group. Pang of conscience in the aftermath of Newtown shootings?
When the President, our country's spokesperson, expresses the same grief and sympathy for the lives of every child/person killed by intentionally designed weapons and human perpetrated violence little will change. The US produces and USES such weapons around the planet with impunity and trains citizens in the effective use of such weapons.
Perhaps "Everything I need to know I learned in Kindergarten" should be required reading. At age five we learn to "never hit anybody", at age 18 we learn to "kill".
Good morning Dian,
Would you please ask your guests what the difference is between killing children in Iraq or Afganistan, etc. and the killing in Newtown, CN.? Bottom line ... children die by human inflicted violence. We, as humans, condone killing in one circumstance and rebuke it in another. Neither is acceptable. Ban the PRODUCTION of such weapons.
I have heard that the assault rifle found at Sandy Hook Elem. was not used in the killing spree but was found in the shooters car. And yet all the talk re: gun control is about assault type weapons. If this is indeed the case that the rifle was not used then banning assault rifle types would not have saved any of these children. My understanding is that only the handguns were used with rapid expanding type ammo. While I do not condone the owning of assault rifles, I think this case should be more about high capacity handgun magazines. The two handguns that were used, a Glock 17 and a Sig Saur P226 each held 17 rounds and 15 rounds respectively and you can add one round to each by placing a round in the chamber so that a combination total could be 34 rounds. If the shooter had several extra magazines for each gun, the potential for wounding or killing could have been much higher; whether the assault rifle was brought into play or not.
I agree with THX1138. Why should there be any restrictions on what type of weapons I want for my personal protection? As a matter of fact, the Second Amendment does not simply refer to "guns," but to "arms". I think I should be able to have anti-personnel land mines on my property to protect me from theives, grenades to ward off potential attackers from a distance, etc. Why stop there, why not personal use nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment doesn't allow for any regulation of a persons right to possess arms. It's a free for all! The more guns in circulation the better! There is nothing we can do to protect us from a tragedy like this. People like THX1138 would have us believe the terrible tragedy that befell these poor children and their families are no good excuse to restrict ones ability to arm themselves. For shame.
THX,,#3 and #4 bullet size as intermediate is misleading. Assault rifles come in bullet sizes from .223 to .338. Anything in size .30 size and above is most definitely High powered. Semi auto rifles in 30-06 and .308 are readily available from several rifle makers and have been marketed to the hunters of the world for the last 50 years at least. Several gun manufacturers offer assault type rifles in these calibers and as well as a wide range of smaller and larger calibers.
Not everyone who supports gun ownership is a tea party fanatic. Sorry don't pull out that strawman.
Take a long look at the arc of history....how many times have governments gone bad? I know many on the left like to think of europeans as more civil and enlightened, but it was only a few decades ago that unspeakable horrors occurred under their watch. So its just really short sighted thinking, the unthinkable happens, thats just the lesson of history, maybe not if we are lucky, not even by the time of our childrens children, but this is the only insurance we have.
Its just a matter of perspective as well. You bring in 9/11, well in that 19 hijackers killed 3000 people, injured 6000 more, and each had a body count of 157 people. That dwarfs that of this one nutcase who killed 26. So surely you should be calling for bans on islam, clearly the body count that religion produces calls for regulation/ban right? Just be consistent if that is your position.
Bullet sizes/assault rifles is all misleading. The virginia tech shooter killed more people with just hand guns. The ugly secret is that it doesn't matter what gun you have, in such close and enclosed spaces, it doesn't matter. People can fixate on scary terms like "assault" rifle or clip size or whatever else, it doesn't matter, in the end its just a fact that its very easy to kill lots of people in an enclosed space with guns in general.
M. Anderson, Good luck with banning all guns. While I might agree with the idea, it is a logistical impossibility given that there are over 3 million guns in 47 % of the households in the US. Banning ammunition sales might be the way to go.
"Some type" of control is not needed. Only rational well thought out solutions should be considered, and that might even include the conclusion that there are none.
Your suggestion of closed campuses is just an example of a feel good measure that does nothing in reality. These are feel good measures that just reduce liberty for no gain, a fools bargain. Locked gates? So what? If a gunman holds a gun to your head, you will open the gate for him....and then what? Everyones in a locked building with a shooter, and the entire thing is rendered a farce again. The truth is unless you have a swat team on campus its not going to do any good to enact "measures", it wastes money. I'm pretty sure virginia tech was a "gun free" zone, and what good did that do? Bad legislation and solutions are just bad, no matter the intention behind it. We've already lost enough liberty on the war on terror, no need to go further locking ourselves down over fear. The simple fact is that these incidents while common in the media, are rare in statistical reality.
@ Samcot: 1st off braniac, showing them the comparison was an attempt to educate, not fool. The only fooling going on around you is you fooling yourself about what is at issue here... 2nd off, I take issue with your statement of "Here's a novel idea: How about not worrying too much about people who know nothing about guns, because I guarantee they are not the ones who will write the laws???"
Are you saying that you totaly place your future in the hands of those "educated" "reliable" members in the legislative branches and the POTUS??? How much stupid government regulation do we now have in place that originated via these wizzards? TONS... (and executive decisions like Fast & Furious to boot...)
4th - I spent 2 years with the multi national "peace keepers" in country in Viet Nam (after April 1975) documenting what the Khmere rouge did when the US withdrew. I understand first-hand what mass murder is... consider over 2.9 million killed by Pol Pot and his buddies. Reading is fundamental - If you will read my post I stated nothing that indicated that I am opposed to some CAREFUL regulation and I also stated that we need to look at ALL of the facets that caused this, not just the guns. You assume way, way too much and make and ass out of yourself without the me part. :)
Yep thats the fact, columbine happened while the "assault" gun legislation was still in force. The fact is these measures are based on ignorance and fear...and the end result is that they do nothing to improve the safety of people. Its funny how people on the left understand this about terrorism and the war on terror, but somehow don't when it comes to guns.
Its also rather disturbing how many on the left almost pride themselves on having strident opinions on guns while being wholly ignorant on the subject. How many times have we had this discussion and many ..many of you even commentators and talk show hosts get the basics wrong. Its like people on the left suddenly drop down to the level of intellectual integrity as fox news blowhards when it comes to guns, suddenly facts stop mattering, reason stops mattering, only emotion and outrage matter. The simple questions of whether "doing something" is actually effective seem not to matter. Facts stop mattering. It just becomes a mob, and its just rather disappointing to see...especially when so many on the left love to spend their time pointing out how irrational and ignorant conservatives are.
wetnap wrote:
"Yep thats the fact, columbine happened while the "assault" gun legislation was still in force. The fact is these measures are based on ignorance and fear...and the end result is that they do nothing to improve the safety of people. Its funny how people on the left understand this about terrorism and the war on terror, but somehow don't when it comes to guns. "
Because it's about control, wetnap. Whether it's guns, "climate change", or how people are allowed to spend their own money, it's always about control with the left. CT is one of the toughest gun control states in the country. In fact, most high-gun-control areas (DC for example) have higher gun crime rates. When the AW ban was in place the rate of shootings with these weapons did not go down. When it was lifted, the same rate did not go up. The fallacy is that gun control is going to take guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. It isn't.
***Feinstein: Isn't that the gal who was standing before a group in San Francisco preaching about gun control and gun regulation when someone in the crowd asked her why she had a gun in her purse?
Her reply was: “I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I’d walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me"
I'll deal with your issues one step at a time:
Samcot wrote:
"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?"
Rather than cluttering up the board with duplication, if you are truly interested in reading it, go to the "Search" box above, key in "Lemuel Gulliver" and it will be the second of two responses. When you are done reading that, then you can ask your question of the Russians ... and then the Afghanis.
Next, the CLASSIC strawman argument:
"So don't try to sell me a phoney story about how all the Founders agreed on everything"
Show me where I said any such thing. I think the evidence and their writings indicate that the second amendment was put in place to protect the citizens against the government - something that the Founders were particularly sensitive about, considering their backgrounds (which view you seem to support when you say, "There were plenty of people at the time who viewed the new government and the Constitution as tyrannical"). I never said that the Founders were in one accord on this or any other subject. But what I do know is what they settled on.
"... and that somehow you understand them and I don't."
You seem to indicate that you know better than the conclusion they reached, what else am I to think? By the way, it is an important side note that the Bill of Rights was put in place SPECIFICALLY to address the "slant" of the Constitution as written toward a government-heavy society. Specific rights like the second amendment were carved out to protect the people from same.
So it's not just the "left" who has the corner on the ignorance market?
People l-o-v-e to cite the District of Columbia when it comes to gun violence.
I would like to reference this:
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2011/12/d-c-murder-rate-on-track-for-lowest...
Without comprehensive gun control regulations, states doing their own, piecemeal and patchwork, will have little effect (but some effect, just not enough).
The one thing I haven't heard anyone mention in this discussion (anywhere) is why folks these days feel the need for personal armaments for protection in the first place. Back when I was growing up, we relied on the policeman ("our friend") for that, and the FBI were all heroic good guys. With all the wrongful arrests, shootings, wire-tappings, "black ops" within our country, etc., etc., by our "lawful" protectors over the past decades, it is somewhat understandable why some of us feel a need to fall back on our own resources to defend our lives, fortunes, and sacred honors. In a "civilized" society, we should be able to trust "the authorities" to do the job of protecting the citizenry--and many other countries do succeed in doing so. Maybe the real solution is for our police and other law organizations to get cleaned up/out and to re-establish the codes of honesty and honor that made them our heroes in the past. If that happened, would we really need all those dangerous armaments in our homes???
Budcarr7 wrote: "THX,,#3 and #4 bullet size as intermediate is misleading."
It was important to be concise. The AR15 and the AK47, are the guns most recognized by the public and the ones referred to by the media as high powered. They take a similar style cartridge and bullet. They are also the guns causing all of the controversy. My post was accurate, concise and served it's purpose perfectly. It was not misleading in anyway.
If you want to get technical the semi autos we refer to as assault rifles is MISLEADING! they are not select fire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
"An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge"
I found today's show to be very biased and one-sided. It was a big disappointment since I am always touting NPR as presenting all sides of an issue.
The NRA today said it "is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
This is a very telling statement.
"Alejandra wrote:
So it's not just the "left" who has the corner on the ignorance market?
People l-o-v-e to cite the District of Columbia when it comes to gun violence."
DC was one example. Are they improving. Sure - but so is gun violence across the nation - even as gun ownership increases. Are they still #1? Yeah. So I wouldn't be bringing up the "ignorance" word.
'You look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top [by a landslide btw] - with 12 firearms murders per 100,000 men...DC is also top for firearms robberies per 100,000 people - with 242.56'
CA has the strictest gun laws in the country, yet has two cities on the top 10 list; Stockton and Oakland. MI is in the top 10 states in terms of the strictness of their gun laws but has the TOP TWO cities in terms of gun crimes; Flint and Detroit.
"Without comprehensive gun control regulations, states doing their own, piecemeal and patchwork, will have little effect (but some effect, just not enough)."
So, your conclusion is utter nonsense. With strictness of gun laws should follow reduced gun crimes. But it doesn't. So, yeah, let's extrapolate that across the country.
Alejandra wrote:
"The NRA today said it "is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
This is a very telling statement."
So is this ...
'NRA members, legitimate gun owners - including those who own assault weapons, hate incidents like this even more than today's (now yesterday's) panelists.'
I wonder if we should start referring to the MASSACRE at Newtown (or Aurora, or Phoenix, or the Sikh temple) rather than the "tragedy."