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.
Diane,
I sent the followint letter to President Obama:
Mr. President,
As a parent, I mourn the loss of our children as a result of the recent gun violence in CT., including other recent and similar incidents. With all due respect, I offer the following suggestion to reduce gun violence in the US.
I propose a Gun Owner Tax (GO Tax). There are an estimated 250 million guns owned by citizens of this country.
>One in four citizens are registered gun owners, owning an average of 4 guns each (by FBI estimates).
>Gun ownership should be taxed, similar to registering a car.
>Tax might be $50 per year for ownership of one gun.
>That amount doubles for each gun thereafter. 2nd gun is taxed at $100, 3rd, $200, etc. Plus liability insurance for each gun owned.
>Ownership of assault guns (rifles), $5000 per year, plus liability insurance.
>Get caught with an un-registered gun, go to jail.
>Can't afford to pay GO Tax, Government buy-back: $100 per gun.
>All gun sales, including rifles, are registered, and taxed, including private sales, and at gun shows.
>2nd Amendment Rights remain intact.
>Unpaid GO Tax equivalent to Drunk Driving offence, and all guns are confiscated. Second offence, jail.
>One minor drug offender released for each gun offender placed in jail.
>Fiscal Cliff averted as result of GO Tax.
>GO Tax administrators hired, reducing unemployment.
>GO Tax program pays for itself.
>Criminals with unregistered guns will be dealt with severely.
Mr. President, I am a decorated Vietnam veteran. If people choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, it is their privilege. Taxing gun owners is not unreasonable. Now is the time. What I recommend is not a complete solution to gun violence in the United States, but I believe it is a step in the right direction.
Respectfully,
David D. Weinberg
Capt David W. wrote: Infringements
I don't think you understand "infringed" or probably anything else in the second amendment.
When they say soldiers fight and die for our freedom and one of them writes what you did.....
"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."
ote:
DC is not in the top 10 among cities with the highest rate of gun violence.
Stop talking utter nonsense.
Climatewiz, I'll assume that your calling me a "brainiac" is a compliment. By the way, you misspelled "brainiac." :-)
I hate to use my brains against your brawn (since it's such an unfair advantage), but I'm not buying your argument that you only meant to "educate" the people you fooled. No educator refers to his students as "ranting and raving." No educator refers to his students as "empty trash cans." No educator implies that his students are too dumb to tell the difference between certain types of rifles and tree stumps. No educator says that his students "blather on senselessly."
So what is the "real issue" here? And after you tell me that, please tell me what I wrote that indicates I've got it wrong. And speaking of blather, why are you bringing up Vietnam and Cambodia?
No matter how many people you can fool, the controversy is NOT over the type of gunstock. Your teaching methods - if you can call them that - are designed to shame people, not teach them. After you've shamed them and demonstrated your "superior knowledge," you imagine that you've put yourself in a better position to convince them of the superiority of your opinion. It's an old cheap trick. Bill O'Reilly likes to insult people he disagrees with, too.
You take issue with my sarcastic repetition of your "novel idea" statement? LOL! You can dish it out but you can't take it! But if you really want to get serious, I meant what I said: Stupid gun laws will NOT be enacted by people who know nothing about guns. You say there are "tons" of examples, but you fail to provide even one example. "Fast & Furious" was not a gun law. It was a federal operation intended to put a damper on illegal gun smuggling. That's a totally different topic, but I suppose you, being the brainiac that you are, have a perfect plan to put a stop to illegal gun smuggling? Have you sent your suggestion to the ATF?
I bet a brainiac like you really is a wiz on climate change, too. :-)
Wetnap, first, there are plenty of "conservatives" who think that there should be regulations on guns. Second, there are plenty of "liberals" who know all about guns. This may come as a shock, but plenty of liberals like to hunt, too.
Now maybe you think that ANY discussion of background checks, waiting periods, semi-automatics, number of rounds, types of bullets, etc., are based only on fear and ignorance. Maybe you'll say that none of that is going to make us safer anyway, so why bother? Maybe you think we shouldn't have any regulations at all, that any citizen should be able to have any weapon at all. Maybe you think that citizens need to be as well-armed as possible just in case the government becomes tyrannical. Maybe you think the government already is tyrannical, and you want to resort to your "Second Amendment remedies," as Sharron Angle of Nevada suggested in 2010. In the event of that confrontation, who do you think will win - a well-armed citizenry, or the US military? :-)
I am a mom and I have a broken heart that these children were killed in such a reprehensible way. But I do want to bring some perspective to this discussion so that not just one subject is discussed. I agree that preventing people who shouldn't have guns from getting guns is the top priority here. I agree that machine guns should remain illegal. I believe that there needs to be a licensing agent and a required training course for the use of guns. I also believe our society must help mothers like me, deal with children who have mental illness. Now, their choices are limited. There are very few mental hospitals who will keep long-term cases for treatment. There are very few trained psychologists who can work with brilliant children who have anger management issues. Most of these potentially dangerous children will grow up only to be incarcerated for their illness.
We have an increasingly violent media. TV shows and movies have ramped up the rampage which has been shown over and over to desensitize young people to the consequence of violence. The military use these desensitization practices to train their people to kill the enemy.
Both of these subjects were brought up only to be shot down as impossible subjects by your guests today. Both of these subjects are far more pertinent to the issue in Connecticut than gun control because they are the root cause of the mass shootings we have been suffering from recently.
OK.......so establish state militias ala 2nd Amendment and require all gun owners to keep their single shot flintlock muskets locked up and guarded by those militias. No wording or implication in 2nd Amendment as defined by our glorious genius forefathers ever said the "arms" should be technologically more than that....no multi-shot devices, no clips at all, no ability to fire without reloading each shot, no explosives or rocket propelled projectiles or energy beams or toxins or radiation or damaging emanations or force fields or sound emanations permitted.
Those state militias must be regimented and monitored both externally and internally so gun users are properly trained and checked frequently for background and current mental/emotional stability.
Those who have seen or used an assault weapon in action know there is a drastic differnce between a hunting device and an all out killing device. True hunters don't use more than a shot or two to bring down prey. Hunters in the true sense are not engaged in pest eradication e.g. rogue hogs, nutrinos, swamp rats, et al. That is an entirely separate issue and function. Hunting is closely akin to fishing.......fishermen don't use sticks of dynamite or complex equipment that destroy the sport.
Kudos to Capt. David D. Weinberg!
Thanks for your service and ideas.
Ecgberht, you expect me to look through 188 comments from a program that occurred three days ago so I can benefit from your words of wisdom? If your comments are worth anything, it would hardly "clutter" this discussion. Besides, nothing you've said in this discussion convinces me that you are worth my trouble to search another discussion. I won't ask why you think the Russians and Afghans have anything to do with a discussion of gun violence in America.
If you don't think you were waxing on about the Founders, I suggest that you read your comment again. You make the same common mistakes that most people make when they refer to the Founders in defense of their own political views. You imply that your views are in accordence with the Founders (as if they were all in accordence with each other), and you imply that you understand the Founders' intentions more than the people you happen to disagree with. You compound your mistake by implying that the Founders' intentions are all that matters to us today, and that we will fall into chaos if we dare to modify anything. Oh, and by the way, not all of the Founders wanted the Bill of Rights. Moreover, not even constitutional scholars totally agree on what the Founders' intentions were regarding the Second Amendment. But I suppose you know. Ever thought of becoming a constitutional scholar? They could really use someone like you who possesses such certainty about everything. :-)
Alejandra wrote:
"DC is not in the top 10 among cities with the highest rate of gun violence.
Stop talking utter nonsense."
That is because DC is considered among the state statistics.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
Facts are a wonderful thing, Alejandra. You should try some.
Captain Weinberg, just so I understand you correctly, are you suggesting that each rifle should cost $5,000 per year for registration? And by "guns," do you mean handguns? Any handgun is $50 and any rifle is $5,000? Relatively few hunters will be able to afford such fees for a rifle.
HonestAbe wrote: with self inflicted ignorance.
Does anything you write have anything to do with reality?
@Samcot
A lot of lovely rhetoric - no facts.
"If you don't think you were waxing on about the Founders, I suggest that you read your comment again."
I did. I mentioned the Founders once. Hardly "waxing on".
"You imply that your views are in accordence with the Founders "
I don't imply, I STATE that my views are in accordence with what the Founders WROTE - which, as a body, are the conclusions they came to. Sorry if you don't like those. The fact that there was dissent is irrelevant. No body is going to agree on everything.
"Moreover, not even constitutional scholars totally agree on what the Founders' intentions were regarding the Second Amendment. But I suppose you know."
It is not difficult to infer from from what they wrote. There are two primary interpretations of the second amendment; that which Honest Abe espouses in this thread which contends that citizens had the right to bear arms because they might be called to duty - a complete departure from the intent as well as the tone of the other nine amendments; and the contention that citizens had the right to defend themselves against a potentially tyrannical government - which perfectly aligns with the other nine amendments and the backgrounds and experience of the Founders as a whole. That's why I believe that interpretation is correct.
Part deux.
"I won't ask why you think the Russians and Afghans have anything to do with a discussion of gun violence in America. "
It has nothing to do with gun violence in America. It has to do with your contention reproduced below:
"In the event of that confrontation, who do you think will win - a well-armed citizenry, or the US military?" The Russians thought their overwhelming military might would defeat the Afgahnis in short order. After more than nine years, they went home.
Now, since you are either slothful, think the ideas of posters here yesterday are worthless, don't know how to use simple search features, even though I gave you simple step by step instructions to narrow the list to TWO (not 188), or, most likely, are afraid to be confronted by my statement from yesterday, I will reproduce the comment below:
"You think individuals could not defend themselves against an all-out assault by an autocratic government? You've got another think coming. There are roughly 1.5M troops. Even with their weaponry they are facing odds of 150 to 1 (and 300M firearms). Not good. Need a visual? Try Lemuel Gulliver. And, the fact that our military is strong is even MORE reason not to disarm the citizens."
Capt. David D. wrote:
"2nd Amendment Rights remain intact."
With all due respect, sir, you should have added "if you can afford it".
Washington, DC is unfortunately not a state. To compare a fairly densely populated city (not the most densely populated, I understand) with states and their vast tracts of empty land is hardly apt. But you are in search of facts to support your view, I get it.
"Cities have substantially higher rates of murder by gun, as Moroz points out. New Orleans has the highest rate, 62.1 per 100,000, more than twice its metro rate. Detroit has the second highest rate with 35.9, nearly four times its metro rate, followed by Baltimore (29.7), Oakland (26.6), and Newark (25.4). St. Louis, Miami, Richmond, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., round out the top 10. All of these rates are considerably higher than their metro rates — in most cases more than double or triple, or in the case of Newark, nearly eight times its metro rate. On the other side of the ledger, Austin has the lowest rate of gun-related homicides (1.5), followed by San Jose (1.9), Portland (2.2), Virginia Beach (2.7), and San Diego (2.8)."
I think if Michael Bloomberg and other politicians want to pass legislation banning many firearms and severely restricting private ownership they should also give up their body guards and security personnel, many of whom are armed. Aren't the lives of the average citizen just as valuable as theirs?
Ecgberht, what "facts" are you looking for me to provide? You made some silly remark about how I was trying to be more clever than the Founders, which doesn't even really make sense, other than to reveal yourself as a Founder worshipper.
The Founders wrote a lot of things. I suppose what you're trying to say is that the so-called "conclusions" are what's in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and your views are in accordence with everything contained in the original Constitution? You do realize, don't you, that even after the "conclusion" you are referring to, the Founders continued to disagree? Some of those disagreements were downright ugly, even by today's jaded standards. Sure, I don't "like" some of the views of some of the Founders. But I'd bet a thousand bucks that you don't "like" some of the views of some of the Founders, either. So what? You're the one who brought up the Founders, and I assume that there was some point to it? Or would you like to admit now that there was no point to it?
The fact that you claim it is not difficult to determine what the Founders intended with the Second Amendment tells me that you are not familiar with the body of scholarly research on that topic. Is it just coincidence, then, that the interpretation you prefer also happens to be the "obvious" and correct one? :-) Now, I'm not saying that the Founders were not at all concerned about deterring a tyrannical government, but that is, at best, one of many considerations for the purpose of the "right to bear arms." Of course, back in the days of the Founders, the arms of the people were about equal to the arms of the government. That's no longer the case. Today, the best defense against a tyrannical government is an informed and involved citizenry that keeps its government accountable. I'm much more concerned about ignorance and apathy than I am about a lack of arms against a tyrannical government with Apache helicopters and nuclear weapons.
"The Russians thought their overwhelming military might would defeat the Afgahnis in short order. After more than nine years, they went home."
First, the Russians did not use "overwhelming military might" against the Afghans. Neither did the US in Vietnam (or in Iraq or Afghanistan, for that matter). Second, is that how you envision a reasonable application of the Second Amendment, in which America is a war-torn nation with thousands of insurgents living in caves, and with people living primitive lives within feuding tribes ruled by warlords? Is that your vision for America, land of the free and the brave? Really?
Let me suggest something: The dystopian vision you hold for a future America could only happen if Americans completely abrogate their responsibility to hold their government accountable, through PEACEFUL POLITICAL engagement. In other words, if we end up with the kind of tyrannical government you seem to fear, by definition, not only will we have asked for it, we will have deserved it. You are putting the cart before the horse. In America, it won't be a deficiency of guns that causes tyranny.
And by all means please feel free to elaborate on what you meant by writing, "A fascist government and a defenseless populace is the longer-term goal." C'mon, that sounds a bit paranoid to me.
Part one @ Samcot: OK spellchecker I'll begin at the exact point that your train left the tracks... your statement "No matter how many people you can fool, the controversy is NOT over the type of gunstock."
That in itself is the very point of contention between gun nuts and those "enlightened" individuals like yourself along with those who would make our laws. Precisely that would be "The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" in which the term "assault rifle" was created by anti-gunners as propaganda specifically to confuse non-gunnies into thinking that semi-automatic rifles were actually machine guns. It also banned all detachable magazines of more than 10 rounds capacity made after the ban's enactment. Why was this original law stupid? It banned guns based only on cosmetics, not on function. The law created a list of features (detachable magazine, telescoping or folding stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor) that were forbidden. So if a .223 semi-auto rifle had 2 or more of these features it was banned, while, at the same time, you could (and can) posess a semi-auto BAR in .300 Winchester Magnum (much more powerful rifle) without any of these features but much more fire-power. So now, Feinstein and others will resurrect this same law and it will be as "effective" as it was back then?
Part two @ Samcot: Here are some other examples of "Stupid laws" that you should consider: Section 922(r) says I can't assemble any imported parts into a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun that is prohibited under 925(d)(3). I CAN however, legally assemble as many as I want out of all the domestic parts I want to use. Once again, cosmetics only, but still an indication of how little the law-makers (and yourself) research and think before they enact law or react. Last but not least, I never stated that fast and furious was a gun law. Look at my post... I stated "(and executive decisions like Fast & Furious to boot...) which means Holder and POTUS can take ALL of the credit for themselves - will they? NAWWW - they will blame Bush. My point in mentioning it was to show the total hypocrisy of this administration. So... spellchecker, as I stated before, reading IS fundamental, but I would also add that you need to be able to UNDERSTAND what you read and use critical thinking before you start acting like Bill O'Reily yourself... It would help if law-makers would also do the same before repeating the same stupid mistakes concerning gun laws.
As for your statement: "But if you really want to get serious, I meant what I said: Stupid gun laws will NOT be enacted by people who know nothing about guns." Think again... there are already over 20,000 of them on the books...want to review them all for sanity? :-)
This arrogant attitude that the U.S. government could not possibly turn on it's people as the founders predicted it could very well do, is a display of total historical ignorance. I can think of several scenarios. For one, using the liberals notion of global warming. Mass starvation because of total crop failure, government forces deployed to seize private stock piles of food, this scenario would certainly have people at each others throats. After Hurricane Katrina, armed police disarming citizens leaving them defenseless against looters, rapists or whatever, play this out to a larger disaster. The governments soldiers and police turned against their own families, the inevitable desertion rates, millions of armed citizen organized to fight against the government that would do that.
Human life as we know it on this planet will end, just as all species have either gone extinct or were forced to go through extreme evolutionary makeovers to survive. This planet has in fact gone through periods where almost nothing survived, mass extinction, periods where the earth was entirely covered with ice. Our sun is in fact growing hotter as it ages, it is a medium sized star that is predicted to end it's life as a red giant, engulfing the earth.
The fact is we don't know whats coming until it gets here, to believe otherwise is just plain stupid.
climatewiz1 wrote: "before you start acting like Bill O'Reily yourself"
I cringe every time he brings up gun control, in fact I emailed him a few weeks ago asking him to do us all a favor and not bring up the subject again. Obviously he did not listen, "AK15", for a brief moment he acknowledged his ignorance, and then proceeded to further diminish the intent of the second amendment.
Alejandra wrote:
"Washington, DC is unfortunately not a state. To compare a fairly densely populated city (not the most densely populated, I understand) with states and their vast tracts of empty land is hardly apt. But you are in search of facts to support your view, I get it."
Not at all. Facts are facts. And you're damaging your case, Alejandra. "vast tracts of empty land" having nothing to do with the stats. The stats are per 100K people. If anything, the statistician (not me - did you bother to look at the link?) was generous by comparing the DC stats with the states. It's still in the top 10 in cities - again, according to your stats. NO makes sense in the stats you cite (though you don't offer a citation). It's why LA is #2 among the states.
climatewiz1 wrote: "So now, Feinstein and others will resurrect this same law and it will be as "effective" as it was back then?"
It's not the same law.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=28d0c...
@Samcot
I thought you'd do better in this response, but you simply repeat a lot of the rhetoric from the first one.
"I suppose what you're trying to say is that the so-called "conclusions" are what's in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and your views are in accordence with everything contained in the original Constitution?"
Correct. Again, whether there was dissent before (or now, after) or not is irrelevant. What matters is what ended up being signed. What ended up being signed has to be considered in context, of course, which is why I think the 2nd amendmet should be interpreted as I have stated. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of what seems right at the time. The ultimate law is the Constitution. (I'm not sure what the "original Constitution" even means). That's why I brought it up. Not because I am a "Founder worshipper". Because the Founders envisioned the need for modification, they included an amendment process and made it difficult. As for being a "Founder worshipper", that is, of course misdirected hyperbole, which you seem to be getting good at. I respect the Founders tremendously. I revere the Constitution and its amendments as the ultimate arbiter in our society. But, I only worship God.
"Today, the best defense against a tyrannical government is an informed and involved citizenry that keeps its government accountable"
It is A defense. But that is an excellent point. How do you think we're doing?
"First, the Russians did not use "overwhelming military might" against the Afghans. Neither did the US in Vietnam (or in Iraq or Afghanistan, for that matter). "
OK, I get it. It only took the Russians 10 years to give up, and the U.S. more than 20 years in Vietnam because they weren't trying!
"In other words, if we end up with the kind of tyrannical government you seem to fear, by definition, not only will we have asked for it, we will have deserved it. You are putting the cart before the horse. In America, it won't be a deficiency of guns that causes tyranny."
Not causes, but allows, and the history of tyrannical governments demonstrates it. The point is, the presence of 300M guns in the hands of the citizens will prevent that tyrannical government from ever becoming a reality. I always envision peace in this country, so don't imply otherwise. We want an informed citizenry and a transparent government, yes, - and I think the Founders did too - though I would maintain again, we're not doing that good of a job at those just now. But ultimately, for a free people, the defense of LAST RESORT, the protection of LAST RESORT against tyranny lies with an armed citizenry. And we should keep it that way.
"And by all means please feel free to elaborate on what you meant by writing, "A fascist government and a defenseless populace is the longer-term goal." C'mon, that sounds a bit paranoid to me."
I've done that in my body of posts on this MB. Suggest you either go back and read, which you seem unwilling to do, or keep following in the days ahead. Oh ... and a little paranoia is good for the soul. It's what keeps you from crossing a busy street at rush hour, and makes you drive around the high-crime area of your city instead of through it.
I believe that the Newtown killings were tragic, but also a case of a Perfect Storm. The mother did not have the guns locked up, guns were supported around the house, the school was such that it was able to be broken into, and so on. Right now we are in reaction mode, and that's not a good thing, but necessary.
I think that we as a society need to do many things to mitigate these massive killings:
Establish guards at the schools (and give them the money to do that). Schools don't have the budget for extra costs.
Train teachers in self defense and psychology to help them know the warning signs.
Encourage the public to keep guns in locked cabinets and safes. The NRA could do this with ads and public awareness programs.
Restrict sales of weapons like the AR15.
Give the schools back the ability to instill discipline and authority. Today, schools are pretty much powerless in this regard. And reduce the amount of paperwork that teachers have to do so that they can focus (and want to focus) on their students.
In terms of training children, we do need to give them tools for defense, hiding, preparedness. We did that with national defense (duck and cover), so I don't see a problem with it. At least they would be prepared.
Thank you.
I would like to know how Switzerland does it?
@ Neta Lawhon: must be the drugs... (sorry...just being facetious) Check out the national statistics website
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sz-switzerland/cri-crime
According to this statistic website, though, 49,201 out of 100,000 have some kind of drug arrest on their record. Not too good... I do know that they have conscripted service in their fully armed, national citizen militia and that service is mandatory. They keep their weapons at home. Looks like it boils down to their people being educated about taking personal responsiblity for themselves, for their actions and for their weapons.
Now there is a novel idea....