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.
Responding to climatewiz part1:
For your first example of a bad gun law you complain about the term "assault rifle"? Your dislike does not constitute a "bad law." Like it or not, some people, even some gun owners and hunters, feel that it is not unreasonable to refer to some rifles and even some handguns as assault weapons. I will grant you that the term "assault rifle" is annoyingly vague, because there is no official definition. For that matter, there isn't really a clear-cut definition of the term "high-powered." Opinions vary on whether "high-power" begins at .223, .270, 30-06, .308, .338, whatever, it partly depends on context. For example, in some states I recall that it wasn't legal to hunt deer with a .223 because it was thought to be too "light" and therefore inhumane. On the other hand, improvements in bullet technology has been a big game changer, so to speak. Likewise there can be restrictions on the number of shotgun shells you can load when hunting birds. And we have semi-auto rifles with clips of 30 rounds that a maniac can use to kill people very efficiently. Be that as it may, it's not difficult to figure out what people mean when they use a term like "assault rifle."
Now maybe, in your opinion, banning clips of more than 10 rounds is an example of a bad law. I happen to know gun owners and hunters who think that it wouldn't be a bad law. (My father was an instructor for the NRA, so I grew up in and around gun/hunting culture) There are pros and cons; most people understand that restricting clips is not going to stop mass shootings. But just because a law doesn't completely eliminate a problem, that doesn't make it a bad law and it doesn't mean that ignorant people wrote and passed it. With anything as large and complicated as guns, there are going to be some inconsistencies and ineffectiveness. So what's new? Do you have a set of regulations in mind that would maximize both effectiveness and freedom?
Response to climatewiz, part 2:
You tell us that there are "tons" of bad laws written by ignorant people, and here you are already digging deep into a farily obscure section of the USC that doesn't apply to the vast majority of gun owners.
As you know, BATFE works within the framework of existing regulations such as the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act. If you take the USC sections you are referring to out of context, I suppose you might fool some people into believing they are "stupid" and were enacted by people who know nothing about firearms. In a nutshell - I'll oversimplify for the sake of brevity - those sections deal with restrictions on the importation of foreign firearms, such as some types of semiautomatic rifles. I would agree that some of the rules are over-complicated, but I suspect that is because there was too much effort put into trying to accommodate various special interests. Welcome to Government 101; I'd like to see you do a better job. However, there is nothing particularly bad or stupid about the purpose of those sections.
So, for example, because of this "bad law," you can't import a fully automatic firearm. You can't import an AKM or an RPG-7. But you'd rather focus on the annoying parts of the section, right? I suppose you want a Striker-12 shotgun to go bird hunting?
Maybe the only "law" you think is perfect is the Second Amendment? :-)
"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."
THX, I've gotta hand it to you: Human life will end, but at least you'll hold on for a few happy years eating your stock of canned food. Maybe you could even eat some of the people you shoot in defense of that canned food. If that's your world, if that's what you have guns for, you are welcome to it. One question: How will you defend that peanut butter and jelly sandwich against a tank? American servicemen are heroes when they are well fed, but if they are starving they'll be coming after you. :-)
Alejandra, what point are you and ecgberht debating in which it matters whether DC is compared to cities or states? Is the question whether it's useful to compare DC to a state? If that is the question, then I would say it's more useful to compare DC to other cities rather than to states. For certain purposes it might be useful to compare large cities to states, especially if it can be shown that violent crime rates are higher per capita in large cities than in states overall. Of course, some states are quite small while some are quite large, and some states have much denser populations than other states. As usual, it all comes down to context. I guess what I'm saying is: I don't know what the context is for your debate with ecgberht. What "case" are you trying to make?
@ Samcot: Grasping at "strawmen" and trying to insert intentions or meanings into what I stated does not an argument make... it does exactly what I said you were doing in the first place... assuming way, way too much about what I think. i.e. your statements: "If you take the USC sections you are referring to out of context, I suppose you might fool some people into believing they are "stupid" and were enacted by people who know nothing about firearms." I did not take them out of context. They are as they were written. I will leave to others to decide if they were intentionally written that way in order to leave loopholes or if they were poorly crafted because of inadequate knowledge. I will give you that me simply calling them "stupid" leaves a lot of room for speculation on your part and on the part of others. What is not noted in our conversations is that in reality, we are BOTH acknowledging the shortfalls in the law making process... call it stupid or not... Intentional loopholes and vague wording in the laws? Probably... So what do we have here then...legislators that are devious, that intentionally craft gun laws to resemble swiss cheese, or citizens that are gullible, or both? Either way it happens, and it is unfortunately very likely to happen this round of lawmaking too. Too many cooks in the kitchen.
Samcot wrote:
"Alejandra, what point are you and ecgberht debating in which it matters whether DC is compared to cities or states? "
You didn't like to read growing up, did you Samcot? The posts are there for you to peruse for yourself. This began when I used DC as an example of places where there are tough gun laws, but high gun-crime statistics, including murders. Indeed, most of the states with the toughest laws have the worst murder rates. Since DC is not in a state, the stats I cited compared it to state statistics and it was #1. Among cities, it is number 10. (She originally claimed it was not in the top 10 - a small point, then tried to claim that states had lower rates because of "vast tracts of empty land", which is irrelevant when you are comparing statistics per 100K of population). But the major point remains intact; areas, whether states or cities, with the toughest gun laws have the highest gun murder rates.
I apologize if I have taken away anything from climatewiz1 arguments, that was not my intention. I was not following the ongoing conversation and I may have have given the false impression that I disagreed with something he wrote.
@ TXH1138: No worry... As I'm sure you have noticed, these conversations often meet many forks in the road. I celebrate though, each time when people who start out thinking that they could never see eye to eye with another's point of view, (myself included) somehow cut thru all of the underbrush and talking smack and actually identify and agree on what the problem is...
Arriving at the solution, however... can be a much steeper climb...as demonstrated by our POTUS, SCOTUS and legislators on a daily basis. :-)
With the recent shooting at an Element school there has been a lot of discussion about gun control or better Mental Health practices. I think the pundits are missing the point. I work daily with maladaptive behavior. The key thing to carefully examine and control if possible are the antecedent behaviors. From what I see in our culture that I am guessing is an antecedent behavior is spending time watching shows and playing games with an excessive amount of violence. If I had to guess what action the government could do to curb violence in particular incidents of mass shooting I would vote for banning violence of this type in the media.
A guest that I would be very interested in listening to would be a Psychologist with a strong background in social learning and the effects of violence in the media. As a side note I think we as a county are more likely to ban guns then violent entertainment. We tend to go for the simpleminded quick fix.
I agree Lamont, except I would answer that the two industries complement and need each other: the gun manufacturers and the media (video and film). Just as the Army and tobacco companies used to be very involved in movie-making, so too I imagine are the gun manufacturers. What's the point of having a big mean gun if you cannot see it glorified in video games and DVDs? You know? So, the two industries go hand in hand.
These are complete knee-jerk reactions. Ban guns, lockup anybody who might be crazy, build fortresses with armed guards, now ban all violent images! There's very little thought or practicality that goes into these ideas.
Climatewiz, I wonder if you've noticed how often people will claim there is a strawman argument almost every time someone disagrees with them. It's gotten to the point that the strawman argument defense is in itself a strawman argument. It's way overused and is just an attempt at an easy escape from factual debate. Nice try.
You're taking those sections of the USC out of context when you thump on your chest about how they are bad laws made by ignorant people, when you don't bother to mention that they do have a very legitimate purpose that even you - I "assume" - would not disagree with. Unless, of course, I'm wrong and you WANT to be able to import true assault weapons.
When dealing with complex and controversial issues, our system of government practically guarantees an annoying degree of incoherency and inconsistency. Consider the Constitution itself. I suppose you think that the Founders were "devious" too? Too many Founders in the kitchen, eh? :-)
"You didn't like to read growing up, did you?"
And you like to insult people, don't you? Regarding your answer, you're the one who didn't seem to understand the point Alejandra was making. She referenced an article about the declining rate of murder in DC. Her larger point was that things can be done to address the issue of violent crimes. She made another point about piecemeal and patchwork laws - many experts I've heard and read make the same point. Essentially, you poo-poohed the whole thing, and from that point on you seemed to be arguing about whether DC should or shouldn't be compared to states. And to that I'll ask: What difference does that make in reference to Alejandra's original points?
Not only that, your implying that "tougher" gun laws lead to higher murder rates, or that tougher gun laws shouldn't be part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce gun crime rates, is bogus. I don't know if you liked to read growing up, but it seems clear that you don't read as an adult. You need to be more careful about cause and effect. Did you read any part of the recent Supreme Court decision on this matter? The justices discuss this very point.
I'm not going to stay in this discussion forever. Diane has moved on to other shows and other topics, and it's time for me to move on as well. But there's one thing you can do before I'm gone. You've been avoiding it, but can you please explain what you meant when you wrote, "A fascist government and a defenseless populace is the longer-term goal." I think that if you can explain that statement adequately, everything else will fall into place. :-)
Lamont, are you aware of any good studies which show a causal relationship between violent video games and violent behavior? I would be the first to agree that many of these games are "excessively" violent (I never purchased any of them for my kids), but as far as I know there isn't any established link to what you call "maladaptive behavior." Besides, there was plenty of violence before video games were invented. Before the Internet, TV, radio, and gangsta rap, too, for that matter.
My kids are grown now and none of them like violent video games, even though I "deprived" them as they were growing up. My main objection to them is that there are so many other better things to do than to immerse oneself for hours at a time into someone else's sick fantasies. :-)
Alejandra, I guess I don't have to ask your opinion about Hit-Girl, the most vulgar and brutal superhero ever to "grace" the big screen, and she was an 11-year-old character! I can also guess how ecgberht feels about her. :-)
"Not only that, your implying that "tougher" gun laws lead to higher murder rates, or that tougher gun laws shouldn't be part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce gun crime rates, is bogus. ...You need to be more careful about cause and effect."
Samcot, I'm going to explain the "strawman" argument to you since it seems to be a favorite tactic of yours. It's an automatic "lose" in debate.
"A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
Here's my favorite example.
Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."
Get it? Represent your opponents position farily. Then refute it.
Here's another example, "your implying that "tougher" gun laws lead to higher murder rates". Do you see how that is different than, "With strictness of gun laws should follow reduced gun crimes. But it doesn't. " That doesn't say that "tough gun laws lead to higher murder rates", it says that "tough gun laws and a reduction in murder rates are unrelated" and that is supported by the facts.
Samcot wrote:
"You've been avoiding it, but can you please explain what you meant when you wrote, "A fascist government and a defenseless populace is the longer-term goal." I think that if you can explain that statement adequately, everything else will fall into place. :-)"
I haven't avoided anything. This was the answer I gave you:
"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'll just leave you with this, samcot, which happens to be right on queue:
"Attorney General Eric Holder indicated that President Obama might turn to executive orders to implement his agenda on guns in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting.
“The Obama administration will consider executive actions and specific proposals for legislation as part of its gun policy response to the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, U.S., Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday,” per Reuters."
Nothing happens all at once, samcot. Fascism and a defenseless populace. It's a step by step process, you see.
you will be assimilated, resistance is futile.
@ Samcot: Part 1 "A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Read your own posts and you decide if this is not what you are doing. An example you say? From your most recent post, you stated:
"Unless, of course, I'm wrong and you WANT to be able to import true assault weapons." THIS IS A STRAWMAN THAT YOU HAVE USED TWICE NOW SAMCOT... "is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position"
No where, have I indicated that I want to import true assault weapons... In my previous post, which was intended to document the flaws in current gun laws, I pointed out that while it is illegal to assemble a semi auto with import components, you can make all of them you want out of domestic parts... I then, indicated that I don't know if these flaws in the law were intentionally crafted or genuine mistakes. You sir, threw out the strawman that I want to import true assault weapons...
@ Samcot: Part 2
Another Strawman you keep throwing out there is in your statement: "I suppose you think that the Founders were "devious" too? Too many Founders in the kitchen, eh? :-)" How ludicrous is this assumption on your part? I have stuck to my original points all the way through our posts and you insist on trying to add complexities and diversions in order to avoid what is obviously the truth and the heart of the matter... The flaws in the laws et al...
In any of my previous posts on this subject, have I ever mentioned the founders or the constitution or speculated as to what they were thinking or intending with the 2nd ammendment? once again, A STRAWMAN... "create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition"
Agree or disagree...but don't misrepresent with innuendo, subterfuge, diversion and STRAWMEN OF COURSE!!! :-)
"Suggest you either go back and read"
Typical copout answer. And I'll suggest that a statement like that is more than a little paranoia. It seems that the most extreme pro-gun people are also the most fearful, which at first seems ironic, but once one realizes it is based on fear it isn't ironic after all. It makes perfect sense. A cuddly Teddy Bear might help you feel more safe and secure. Can I send you one for Christmas? :-)
If you agree that we shouldn't allow ordinary citizens to own true assault weapons, then you and I may not be very far apart in our views. There are reasons why government regulations tend to end up a bit messy and inconsistent. This has nothing to do with gun regulations specifically. Neither does it necessarily mean that ignorant people are passing stupid laws. Having said that, the USC sections you cite are only one part of how we are dealing with a very complex issue. They are not as comprehensive or consistent as they could be. But if you look at the bigger picture, they are intended to deal with the importation of assault weapon components. If those sections are the best example you can give me out of a "ton" of stupid gun laws, I'm not impressed, because it only affects people who want to import assault weapon components. Do I agree that ALL of those components should be classified as "assault"? No, I don't. But I agree that we shouldn't be able to import true assault weapons, and those sections cover that. Regarding your point about being able to get some of those same components domestically, we have regulations that deal with domestic firearms. Maybe someday we will live in a perfect world that has no flaws. Or maybe not. The thing with you and ecgberht, though, is that you think flaws are not just a normal part of humanity; you think they're signs of Fascism. It’s as if you’d rather deal with your Fear by acquiring more and more guns than to engage politically to prevent your Nightmare. If it comes to that, I guarantee that your guns will not protect you from it.
"How ludicrous is this assumption on your part?"
Yes, why don't you tell me how ludicrous it is? You point out flaws in laws and regulations, and whine as if it's peculiar to guns and is part of some conspiracy to control gullible citizens. You say these flaws are due to legislators who are devious, and you say that there are too many cooks in the kitchen. My point is that if you use the same criteria, you could say the same thing about the Constitution and the Founders. Even more so, if you consider that the Constitution is the supreme law of the nation. I wonder how much you've read about George Washington's first term as president, and the presidents that succeeded him? If you think it's swiss cheese now, I can only imagine what you would think if you lived back then. And when I say that, I'm talking about if you were a white male who fought in the Revolutionary War. I don't want to make it too hard on you.
If you're still not in the mood to think, go ahead and tell me that I'm handing you another strawman argument. And by the way, thanks for the lesson on strawman arguments. Of course, you would NEVER misrepresent, distort, or ignore any of my points. :-)
""A fascist government and a defenseless populace is the longer-term goal." I think that if you can explain that statement adequately, everything else will fall into place"
What part of that exactly, don't you understand, samcot. What exactly is it that you want me to "explain adequately". That, by definition, has to be the end-game for progressives.
As for my "copout" answer, if you want to understand my thoughts on this subject you're going to need to look at a body of posts. I'm not going to expound for you just because you ask. It doesn't work like that. The problem is, you're too lazy. You wouldn't go back and read an old post when I pointed you directly at it.
But, I'll be generous, and if you can replace your rhetoric with a specific question, I'll address it for you. As soon as I see phrases like, "I'll suggest that", and "It seems that", I know I'm dealing with pure rhetoric and nothing factual. By the way, I am not one of those "extreme pro-gun people" so the rest of that is non sequitur - including your Teddy Bear. What I am is an "extreme second amendment" person, just as I am an "extreme first, and third through tenth amendment" person too.
@ Samcot: Fully agree...TRUE assault weapons have no place in ordinary citizen's homes. That being said, there is the old addage "never watch law and sausage being made". Messy, yes, allways perfect results, no. I cited only 2 instances because they are the most obvious and you state that they only pertain to importing assault weapon components... this is wrong...they apply to all semi auto weapons, which shares a broad spectrum. Now.... on to your greatest strawman and assumption of all, which you aptly re-stated in your most recent post...
"Maybe someday we will live in a perfect world that has no flaws. Or maybe not. The thing with you and ecgberht, though, is that you think flaws are not just a normal part of humanity; you think they're signs of Fascism. It’s as if you’d rather deal with your Fear by acquiring more and more guns than to engage politically to prevent your Nightmare. If it comes to that, I guarantee that your guns will not protect you from it."
I fully acknowledge human fallibility (Law-makers included) and especially my own. Please, once again don't assume to know what I think and in your posts, don't put words into my mouth that I didn't say and thoughts into my head that I didn't think and I will return the same courtesy to you. I mentioned my service in Viet Nam in a previous post and you thought it was a side-track. Respectfuly, I personally witnessed the destruction that can only happen when there is no rule of law in a country and one group of people's ideology triumphs in blood and horror over another. Unfortunately, as currently divided, I see some of the same traits developing in our great nation today . Do we all have to be mindless robots and think alike? Thank God no... Can we agree to disagree and still live in peace? I pray we can.
"The thing with you and ecgberht, though, is that you think flaws are not just a normal part of humanity; you think they're signs of Fascism. It’s as if you’d rather deal with your Fear by acquiring more and more guns than to engage politically to prevent your Nightmare. If it comes to that, I guarantee that your guns will not protect you from it."
I didn't bother to read your posts to climatewiz until I saw in his response that I was referenced. Here's what I read: "the thing with you and ecgberht", "you think", "you think", "you'd rather". Why don't spend more time telling us what you think and can support and less time telling us what you think we thingk hmmm? Because your statement makes a lot of assumptions - all of which are wrong You don't know anything that you think you know and I think you probably know very little about what true Conservatives really believe or what motivates them. Your statements about Fascism and "dealing with Fear by acquiring more guns" are complete non sequitur based only in some sort of twisted version of reality that exists on the Daily Kos or Huffington Post.
"Even more so, if you consider that the Constitution is the supreme law of the nation. I wonder how much you've read about George Washington's first term as president, and the presidents that succeeded him? If you think it's swiss cheese now, I can only imagine what you would think if you lived back then. And when I say that, I'm talking about if you were a white male who fought in the Revolutionary War. I don't want to make it too hard on you."
Again, pure rhetoric. This is the "I know something you don't know" strategy. As though you know or have some deep understanding of history, and the movers of history, that the rest of us don't. It's BS - without specifics, pure rhetoric. Maintaining a democratic republic has always been difficult - from the time that Franklin alledgedly said "you have a republic, madam, if you can keep it". Progressives have made it that much more difficult, and might, someday, bring it to an end. THAT's what motivates Conservatives, samcot.
Climatewiz, I'm up for a good debate about gun control, but it's really hard to find anyone who puts any real effort into it. There's far too much fuzzy (and partisan) thinking on the topic. So when someone starts talking about "bad laws," they should expect to be asked about what you are referring to as the sausage making that comes with the territory - even the territory of the Constitution. What you cited was - at worst - an annoying inconvenience for people who want to import certain types of guns and components. I have a feeling that US firearm manufacturers aren't too unhappy to provide all the components that are banned for import. :-)
Also, I'll suggest that you shouldn't feel so concerned about people putting words in your mouth. If you think I've misunderstood the points you are making, all you need do is clarify your views. Any discussion involves listening to people and trying to understand what they are saying. There is no such thing as a discussion without assumptions being made. If that weren't the case, we'd all have to talk like lawyers in legalese, so that we'd be as precise as possible. And even lawyers argue about how to interpret contracts and legal documents. Heck, even Clinton tried to teach us something about the legal definition of sex. :-)
You think I've made too many assumptions and put words in your mouth, but for the record I can't say I know enough about your views to say that we would really disagree with each other. Our discussion never reached that degree of understanding. I know this much: We both acknowledge the need for firearm regulation. The devil is in the details. The larger question (and problem) is the culture we live in. There is too much violence (and other types of misery) in our nation. This strikes me as odd in the richest nation in the world.
Ecgberht, you don't think I've said much about my views? Really?
How's this for starters? I'm NOT full of fear and paranoia about a conspiracy to make us defenseless so that a Fascist government can take over. And even if I were worried about such a thing happening, I don't think that owning a few firearms would protect me against a Fascist government in possession of the world's premier shock and awe military.
You imagine that if I disagree with "true" conservatives, then I must not really understand them. To know them is to love them, right? Do you consider yourself to be a true conservative, ecgberht? Are true conservatives as fearful as you are?
This is what I think: The way to keep our Republic on the straight and narrow is to have an informed electorate capable of critical thinking and that is willing to engage in civics. And by engagining in civics I don't mean a gang of Tea Party wing nut Dirty Harry wannabes packing their guns and drinking coffee at their local Starbucks. :-)
"Ecgberht, you don't think I've said much about my views? Really? "
I suggest you re-read. Because I know you don't want to scroll up the page to find my post, I've included the pertinent part below.
"Why don't spend more time telling us what you think and can support and less time telling us what you think we think "
See the difference? Do you not understand why you telling us what you think we think with statements like "the thing with you and ecgberht", "you think", "you think", "you'd rather" is of zero value?
"You imagine that if I disagree with "true" conservatives, then I must not really understand them."
Again, why don't you frame what YOU THINK in a statement, not what I think or imagine? The latter is dishonest. (Substituting "imagine" for "think" doesn't help by the way). All of these types of statements have the flavor of the strawman argument - framing another's argument innacturately - an automaic "fail" in debate. It's essentially a crude attempt to cheat. Here's a hint, samcot. When a sentence starts with "You ... blah, blah, blah" chances are you are on the wrong track.
"I'm NOT full of fear and paranoia about a conspiracy to make us defenseless so that a Fascist government can take over"
Great. Neither am I. And insinuating that either climatewiz or I are "full of fear and paranoia" is wrong and innacurate. I do think, however, that a fascist government with a defenseless populace is a long-term goal of progressvies and it will happen in baby steps. We are the proverbial frog sitting in that pan of slowly heating water. That's all I've said from the beginning. Go back and read the posts ... oh, sorry, I forgot. With respect to gun rights and the purpose of the second amendment, the founders and I seem to be in agreement. It's right there in black and white. But, what did they know?
Merry Christmas.