When should we have a gun-control debate?

posted at 9:21 am on July 25, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

After incidents like the massacre in Aurora, gun-control advocates adamantly demand a debate on new restrictions to prevent the use of firearms in mass murders, and accuse their opponents of callous disregard for the victims when they refuse to engage on the topic immediately.  Opponents accuse gun-control advocates of exploiting the victims and emotional turmoil to score points on a topic in which they routinely lose.  So when is a good time for a gun control debate? That’s the topic of my column at The Week today, but I’ll get to that in a minute.  First, the Washington Post reports that even Democrats don’t really want a debate on gun rights:

In the weeks after the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, Senate Democrats led the way on passing a modest gun-control bill, even though they were in the minority. The issue commanded the national spotlight for a few weeks until it was blocked by House Republicans.

Thirteen years later, and now holding a majority in the Senate, Democrats have run for political cover after a similar suburban Denver shooting. Congressional leaders have declined to endorse any legislative remedy, and the most politically endangered Democrats have either fully embraced gun rights or lamented that nothing can be done.

The hushed response to last week’s tragedy signals just how fearful Democrats have become of anything that upsets the National Rifle Association, with its vast political clout, and how even once-ardent supporters of gun control are now resigned.

We hear about the NRA’s clout, but this is mainly a dodge to avoid the real truth, which is that the NRA simply represents the widespread consensus on gun rights.  In 2008, the NRA’s PAC contributed just over $1 million in all political races, with about 75% of those donations to Republicans.  In 2010, the NRA’s PAC donated $1.278 million in total, with roughly the same demonstration.  The gun rights lobby in its entirety in 2008 spent $1.187 million, which barely outpaced the pro-abortion lobby’s $1.015 million, and didn’t even make it to half of “human rights” lobby, which spent $2.495 million.

When we compare the NRA’s 2008 contribution against PACs other than single-issue, they get positively dwarfed in clout.  The top 20 PACs for the 2008 cycle all spent more than the entire gun lobby; the 20th, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, spent $2.21 million.  Of the top 20, eleven are unions, with the IBEW coming in second place with $3.344 million, 98% of which went to Democrats.  That cycle produced a Democratic President and large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.  If “clout” was all that was in play, then surely that Congress could have passed gun-control legislation as well as Card Check for their union backers.

Next, Sam Stein seems surprised by a poll of NRA members conducted by Frank Lutz in May and cited by the Center for American Progress, which he uses to argue that even NRA supporters back greater gun control:

According to a study unveiled at the Center for American Progress on Tuesday, 82 percent of 945 self-identified gun owners said they support requiring criminal background checks for gun purchasers. The sample was divided evenly between gun owners who were current or lapsed members of the NRA and non-NRA gun owners. 74 percent of the NRA members said they support the background checks.

The study, which was conducted in May by GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz, revealed the following data points as well:

  • 74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
  • 68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
  • 63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.
  • 75 percent of NRA members believe that concealed carry permits should be granted only to those applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors.

Taken in full, the numbers cut against the conventional wisdom, which holds that there is little political will for tackling gun control legislation in the wake of Friday’s shooting in Aurora, Colo. But that theory, the study’s authors insisted, was always based on a false reading of the public opinion data.

“Gun owners and NRA members overwhelmingly support common sense steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, even as the NRA leadership continues to oppose them,” said New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which commissioned the study. “It’s time for those in Washington -– and those running for President –- to stand with gun owning citizens who are concerned about public safety, rather than influence peddling lobbyists who are obsessed with ideology.”

One can only conclude that this means NRA members support gun control if one ignores the fact that many states deny permits to people who meet those qualifications.  That’s why Minnesota finally passed a “must issue” law for gun permits that require county sheriffs to approve applications unless one of the above situations apply, after an eight-year campaign by local gun-rights advocates.  Wisconsin recently did the same.  Only Vermont allows people to carry weapons without a permit [see update], and most other states allow county sheriffs or the state to arbitrarily deny carry permits.  To buy a firearm, the federal government already requires these kind of background checks.

And as far as this incident goes, which of those above qualifiers would have prevented the Aurora shooter from getting a weapon?

To get back to my original question, when is a good time to have a gun-control debate?  My answer in The Week is that gun-rights activists are ready to have that debate, as long as people get their facts straight, which clearly hasn’t been the case in the last several days, starting with Brian Ross at ABC. However, we’ve been having this debate for decades, and the facts show that gun control doesn’t work, and providing for individual rights doesn’t increase crime:

Small wonder, then, that conservatives have balked at conducting a debate on gun control in the midst of such irresponsible behavior by the media. Though, in actuality, the main reason so few are interested in the debate is because it has largely been fought and decided. Americans have repeatedly rejected an expansion of gun-control because it doesn’t work. Look no further than Aurora, where both the city and the theater where the shooting occurred have rules forbidding the carrying of any firearms (the city statute was deemed unenforceable, however, because of the state’s concealed-carry permit statute). On top of that, no one can fire a weapon within Aurora city limits except at gun ranges — not even, apparently, in self-defense. Of course none of that stopped the perpetrator in this case from committing the murders.

What about other areas where gun control legislation has been implemented? Illinois has the most restrictive carry laws in the country, and Chicago has one of the toughest gun-control regulations among cities. Yet, the murder rate for Illinois is above the national average, according to the FBI (5.5 per 100,000 in 2010, compared to 4.8 murders for the rest of the country), as is the state’s violent crime rate (435.2 incidents per 100,000 compared to 403.6 nationally). Chicago recently lost a gun-control case at the Supreme Court (McDonald v. Chicago), but the city lost the gun-control argument years ago — considering that its murder rate is 18th among large American cities at 15.2 per 100,000, more than three times the national average. Washington D.C., which in 2008 lost its own Supreme Court gun control case, ranked seventh in 2010 with a 21.9 rate. For the record, Aurora’s murder rate was 7.1 per 100,000 in 2010, while other Colorado cities were significantly lower: 5.0 for Colorado Springs and 3.6 for Denver.

In comparison, Minnesota a few years ago passed a must-issue law that requires counties to issue carry permits unless specific reasons exist to deny the application. Critics of the law insisted that it would lead to a wave of shootings. Instead, in Minneapolis, crime rates have fallen to 1980s levels, with a murder rate of 9.7, 30th for large American cities despite Minneapolis being 16th in size. Its twin city St. Paul has a murder rate of 5.7. Other factors certainly contributed to those decreases in violent crime, but clearly, allowing responsible and law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms did not increase crime rates.

We’ve had this debate, and gun control has lost it.  That’s why no one in Washington is willing to have it again.

Update: Actually, four states allow people to carry without a permit: Vermont, Arizona, Alaska, and Wyoming.  Thanks to the readers who provided me links to update my out-of-date knowledge on that issue.

Update: I should have been more clear — I was talking about concealed carry permits when discussing those states.  Some states allow open carry without permits or licenses, but that number is getting smaller, not larger; California won’t even allow open carry of unloaded firearms now.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Verbaluce

What is your point anyway?

That our right of self-defense should be infringed by the number of cartridges we’re Allowed to have in a magazine?

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 12:53 PM

I agree, and made the same point myself.
It’s not about denying folks the right to defend, or to carry.
It about how hard it would be to defend against such a military-grade level of assault weaponry.
verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:50 PM

You’re such a dishonest hack. It wasn’t “military grade assault weaponry”. It was a freakin AR15. It looks like an M4 but functions like a semi-automatic pistol.

Why do you lie?

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Oh..so you mean if only there was someone carrying standing right next to such a maniac at the moment he pulls out his weapon.
Right.
What kind of hackery do you call that?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:45 PM

BS what if argument.
If I were standing right next someone who pulled out a gun and started shooting, I wouldn’t waste time pulling out my own gun – I’d grab the shooter’s hand and/or gun and try to take him down physically. But if you have a gun and are several feet away, pulling a gun and shooting back is absolutely the best way to stop the shooting.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Oh..so you mean if only there was someone carrying standing right next to such a maniac at the moment he pulls out his weapon.
Right.
What kind of hackery do you call that?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Or perhaps someone unseen by this turd who responds to said turd’s violent actions? You, my friend, are a clueless twit.

Watch this video.

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM

I agree, and made the same point myself.
It’s not about denying folks the right to defend, or to carry.
It about how hard it would be to defend against such a military-grade level of assault weaponry.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:50 PM

It’s not a military grade weapon. Unless you’re going to classify rifles in general as military grade.

But I’ll grant that an AR-15 is usually more difficult to defend against than a sidearm but this is also besides the point. An AR-15 with high capacity magazine has very legitimate self defense uses (i.e., defending yourself against a mob during a riot or other situation where social order has broken down like L.A., New Orleans etc). Remove the AR-15 from the open market and you will definitely deny it’s legitimate uses by law abiding citizens in defending themselves and maybe you’ve prevented a criminal from getting one.

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM

It’s been confirmed by a cadre of scientists using the latest and newest high-tech equipment that the chances of shooting a mass-murderer are greater if you have a gun available than if you don’t.

Bishop on July 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM

I’d rather face a dude carrying an AR15 than one carrying a 12 gauge shotgun, you know, the most ubiquitous firearm in the world.

Bishop on July 25, 2012 at 12:58 PM

You’re such a dishonest hack. It wasn’t “military grade assault weaponry”. It was a freakin AR15. It looks like an M4 but functions like a semi-automatic pistol.

Why do you lie?

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Good point – I missed that earlier.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 12:59 PM

No…not ‘many variables regarding the shooter, many of which are unknown’.
I’m asking for speculation based on some very clear facts.
That he had this weapon and this high capacity clip, that is was undoubtedly his intention to use it, and that he wanted and was hoping to kill a lot more than 12 people.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:22 PM

What is a high-capacity clip? Four? Six? Eight?

In this case a 100 round magazine was in use. Now, to answer your basic question, “How many more people would he have killed had this magazine not jammed”, you must first answer a very pertinent question.

How many rounds remained, unfired, in the 100 round magazine when it jammed?

Yoop on July 25, 2012 at 12:59 PM

verbaluce,

If you’re going to use shootings like this to set gun control policy then can we use Gossner to set abortion policy?

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 12:59 PM

How many would not have died if someone in that theater was able and armed to fire back?

It only takes a second or two to reload a magazine if you have practice so what’s the difference between what happened and you’re naive scenario where the killer has to reload several times vs having a 100 round drum – either way no one has the firepower to stop him in the room.

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 11:44 AM

The shooter can only aim one direction at a time. Anyone with a weapon could have stopped him, two or more would have.

RobBert on July 25, 2012 at 1:00 PM

damn good thing he wasn’t on a plane with a boxcutter.
ban boxcutters and planes.

or had a truck with fertilizer.
ban trucks and fertilizer.

or cooked up something in the labs and tossed it into subways (not sure if any there) or mass transit areas there.
ban labs and local mass transit.

could have walked in with an axe or a wood hook and killed as many as fast in that target rich environment.
ban forestry equipment.

better yet, allow people to defend themselves.

dmacleo on July 25, 2012 at 1:00 PM

It’s been confirmed by a cadre of scientists using the latest and newest high-tech equipment that the chances of shooting a mass-murderer are greater if you have a gun available than if you don’t.

Bishop on July 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Links please.
.
.
.
.
;-)

Yoop on July 25, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Verbaluce

Since we’re on the subject:

What is the numerical break point with regard to the term bandied about by the Left of High Capacity?

How many different kinds of weapons could be used for the purpose of committing an assault?

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 1:02 PM

No – you really didn’t. You keep trying to sidestep that very relevant argument.
You keep digging for arguments to ban guns and large capacity magazines without ackhowledging all relevant facts – as is typical for liberals who have no concept of cause and effect or long term or unintended consequences.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 12:41 PM

I really don’t think I’ve sidestepped the CCW argument. I acknowledge is quite possible somebody armed might have had and taken the opportunity to to stop this guy. But I also not that this is merely one possibility – and as someone else noted these are chaotic scenes.
As far as ‘digging for arguments to ban guns and large capacity magazines’, I don’t think banning guns is the answer. But I also don’t think the absolute refusal to consider or discuss any remedies at all is just knee-jerk ideological NRA dogmatic b.s.
It’s a screechingly loud minority of gun owners and 2nd amendment ‘advocates’ that shout down any common sense discussion. I see that as a contributing factor to both this tragedy…and future ones.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:03 PM

30,000 existing gun laws, but yes one additional law would have stopped this attack, that or a ban on “assault weapons” whatever those are.

Bishop on July 25, 2012 at 1:06 PM


verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:03 PM


What is your point anyway?

That our right of self-defense should be infringed by the number of cartridges we’re Allowed to have in a magazine?

What is the numerical break point with regard to the term bandied about by the Left of High Capacity?

How many different kinds of weapons could be used for the purpose of committing an assault?

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Oh, I figured out what an “assault weapon” is: a Remington 870 pump shotgun, the sort of gun you will probably find in any hunter’s home.

Bishop on July 25, 2012 at 1:07 PM

The shooter can only aim one direction at a time. Anyone with a weapon could have stopped him, two or more would have.
RobBert on July 25, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Imagine, had the 3 service members shot in that theater had been allowed to carry their firearms into the theater, they would have stopped him. But responsible gun owners follow the law so once again we have proof that stricter gun laws wouldn’t have stopped this from happening and actually cause more death.

People intent on murdering others aren’t going to follow through because of restrictions on guns? Do liberals really believe this tripe?

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 1:07 PM

It’s a screechingly loud minority of gun owners and 2nd amendment ‘advocates’ that shout down any common sense discussion. I see that as a contributing factor to both this tragedy…and future ones.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Minority as in majority. Yeah, we get it. Same old gun grabbing dishonesty that all gun grabbers practice. Why not throw out the name Koch as well since you are bringing up that “scary” membership driven and operated organization the NRA. Maybe you could enlighten us about the secret mind control devices the NRA uses to make even Democratic pols shut their mouths about gun control? Or maybe they use their scary machines on voters instead who boot gun grabbers from office?

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 1:08 PM

But I also don’t think the absolute refusal to consider or discuss any remedies at all is just knee-jerk ideological NRA dogmatic b.s.
It’s a screechingly loud minority of gun owners and 2nd amendment ‘advocates’ that shout down any common sense discussion. I see that as a contributing factor to both this tragedy…and future ones.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Define your supposed remedies and how they would actually accomplish anything better than allowing law-abiding citizens to have their own ability for self-defense.
Many of us have discussed all of your remedies ad nauseum – but you ignore it – and the plain and simple fact is what your side proposes DOSE NOT WORK. Your remedies have been tried many times in many places – and it has been repeatedly proven they don’t work.

So – go for it – propose a remedy, that has not already filed, that might work better than CCW.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 1:09 PM

So – go for it – propose a remedy, that has not already FAILED filed, that might work better than CCW.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Darn dyslexic fingers…

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Common sense remedies pertaining to guns always come with an addendum entitled: “Your rights need to be curtailed because of the actions of a handful of jackasses”.

Bishop on July 25, 2012 at 1:13 PM

I really don’t think I’ve sidestepped the CCW argument. I acknowledge is quite possible somebody armed might have had and taken the opportunity to to stop this guy. But I also not that this is merely one possibility – and as someone else noted these are chaotic scenes.
As far as ‘digging for arguments to ban guns and large capacity magazines’, I don’t think banning guns is the answer. But I also don’t think the absolute refusal to consider or discuss any remedies at all is just knee-jerk ideological NRA dogmatic b.s.
It’s a screechingly loud minority of gun owners and 2nd amendment ‘advocates’ that shout down any common sense discussion. I see that as a contributing factor to both this tragedy…and future ones.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Oh, common sense discussion? You still haven’t addressed many common sense arguments we’ve made. We have honestly engaged you in the discussion of remedies: We think citizens should be free to defend themselves from criminals, you think more laws will stop criminals. As has been pointed out laws are really poor deterrents to criminals but excellent deterrents to law-abiding citizens. Laws are good at dealing with criminals after the fact but really poor at stopping them (again I’d point you to European countries with outright bans on weapon ownership where some of the worst shootings have occurred).

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 1:15 PM

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Common sense like banning 90% of the guns on the market?

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Imagine, had the 3 service members shot in that theater had been allowed to carry their firearms into the theater, they would have stopped him. But responsible gun owners follow the law so once again we have proof that stricter gun laws wouldn’t have stopped this from happening and actually cause more death.
jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 1:07 PM

The sad reality is most Navy and Air Force people do not have weapons directly issued to them or available to them on a regular basis. And I believe most Army personnel have their weapons locked up in the armory most of the time – to be checked out to go to the range or deployed. In my entire 8 years in the Air Force, the only weapons I ever handled were an M-16 and .38 revolver at the range (1 day) during basic training, and a demilitarized M-1 to march with at the Academy.
If those guys at the theater had anything, they would have had privately owned weapons – just like any other civilian with CCW.
Other than the military/security police, nearly everyone on a military base is unarmed.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Hey verbaluce, maybe we should lass “common sense” restrictions on children with hands and feet.

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Have*

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 1:23 PM

If only those weapons didn’t include a bayonet lug…

PXCharon on July 25, 2012 at 1:24 PM

We think citizens should be free to defend themselves from criminals, you think more laws will stop criminals.
gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Based on that argument, why have any laws at all?
Of course you already support and appreciate laws and regulations that are in fact intended to stop criminals or prevent criminal activity. You probably support some laws that many on your side in this debate here object to.
Should people be able to purchase without any background check and then open carry or conceal carry a fully automatic weapon?
Should such sales be completely unreported or subject to any record keeping at all?
Some it be legal for someone to buy 100 of these? 1000?
Should a law-biding 15 year old be able to make such a purchase?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:24 PM

“Common Sense” would tell you that Outlaws are going to ignore gun laws, wouldn’t it?

kingsjester on July 25, 2012 at 1:25 PM

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 1:21 PM

I read that retired police officers have automatic CCW permits issued to them valid in all 50 states. If this is true, this is also something that should be extended to retired, or active military personnel of they choose to carry a privately purchased firearm.

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 1:26 PM


verbaluce

What is your point anyway?

That our right of self-defense should be infringed by the number of cartridges we’re Allowed to have in a magazine?

What is the numerical break point with regard to the term bandied about by the Left of High Capacity?

How many different kinds of weapons could be used for the purpose of committing an assault?

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 1:28 PM

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 1:22 PM

A question for you:
Have I ignored you?
Yes – except to tell you that.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Oh, I figured out what an “assault weapon” is: a Remington 870 pump shotgun, the sort of gun you will probably find in any hunter’s home.

Bishop on July 25, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Actually, “Assault Weapon” is a term used to make semi-automatic rifles scary to Lib ladies.

RobBert on July 25, 2012 at 1:29 PM

PXCharon
or a pistol grip…..

angrymike on July 25, 2012 at 1:29 PM

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:24 PM

We live in a free society. There are risked associated with that. Seems to me you just hate freedom.

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 1:30 PM

A question for you:
Have I ignored you?
Yes – except to tell you that.
verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:28 PM

And?

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Based on that argument, why have any laws at all?
Of course you already support and appreciate laws and regulations that are in fact intended to stop criminals or prevent criminal activity. You probably support some laws that many on your side in this debate here object to.
Should people be able to purchase without any background check and then open carry or conceal carry a fully automatic weapon?
Should such sales be completely unreported or subject to any record keeping at all?
Some it be legal for someone to buy 100 of these? 1000?
Should a law-biding 15 year old be able to make such a purchase?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Most if not all of these laws you mentioned don’t actually reduce crime (or criminals access to weapons). You’re also highlighting Bishop’s point: we’ve already got tens of thousands of gun control laws. How many more do we need to stop criminals from getting weapons? And how many law abiding citizens will these laws deny access to weapons to defend themselves?

As someone asked you already: name a new specific law that would fix this.

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 1:33 PM

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:28 PM

You’re ignoring my questions:

What is your point on High Capacity mags?

That our right of self-defense should be infringed by the number of cartridges we’re Allowed to have in a magazine?

What is the numerical break point with regard to the term bandied about by the Left of High Capacity?

How many different kinds of weapons could be used for the purpose of committing an assault?

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 1:33 PM

angrymike
Don’t get me started on flash compensators, those things turn an SKS into an MG42 instantly!

PXCharon on July 25, 2012 at 1:33 PM

A question for you:
Have I ignored you?
Yes – except to tell you that.
verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Is this supposed to stop me from dismantling your inane arguments?

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 1:33 PM

I read that retired police officers have automatic CCW permits issued to them valid in all 50 states. If this is true, this is also something that should be extended to retired, or active military personnel of they choose to carry a privately purchased firearm.

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 1:26 PM

I fully agree with that.
But I’m just pointing out that the vast majority of military personnel (Army infantry excepted perhaps) don’t carry weapons on duty on a daily basis or even train with them on a regular basis unless they are deployed to a combat zone. Air Force personnel (for example) operating computers and satellite tracking systems, and working in staff positions in HQ buildings just don’t carry weapons, and for aircrew members it’s pretty much just a sidearm when they’re flying – and even that may not happen if they’re just flying within the US (not sure).

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 1:35 PM

What is the numerical break point with regard to the term bandied about by the Left of High Capacity?

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Problem with violent crime solved, just make them reload at 9 rounds instead of 10 or more.

PXCharon on July 25, 2012 at 1:36 PM

laws prevent nothing, they are only the vehicle we use to punish people.

dmacleo on July 25, 2012 at 1:36 PM

I firmly believe and support the most stringent gun control – use both hands, train and practice regularly to excel in controlling your gun.

hawkeye54 on July 25, 2012 at 1:40 PM

laws prevent nothing, they are only the vehicle we use to punish people.

dmacleo on July 25, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Oh I don’t know about that. Chicago and New York have very strict gun control laws that appear to prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. They sure don’t prevent criminals in those cities from getting and using whatever they want though…..

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 1:40 PM

We’ve had this debate for at least the last five decades that the left has been trying hard to disarm and weaken America under the pretext of stopping crime (which their “angry victim” policies appear to encourage in the inner cities?)

When JFK was killed their were over 22,000 gun control measures on the books in this nation. They seek to take the guns away from those responsible citizens so that only they can bring a gun to the knife fight as they seek to fundamentally transform America.

If anyone doubts it just research fast and furious for starters.

Don L on July 25, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Problem with violent crime solved, just make them reload at 9 rounds instead of 10 or more.

PXCharon on July 25, 2012 at 1:36 PM

A semi auto Remington 7400, in 30.06, with small 5 round mags which are easily interchanged, could not have possibly caused that kind of carnage in a small theater. It’s all because of the 5 round mags. Ballistics are for sissies.

a capella on July 25, 2012 at 1:42 PM

laws prevent nothing, they are only the vehicle we use to punish people.

dmacleo on July 25, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Also, did I see something recently about the President of Mexico saying we should have stricter gun control – like they have in Mexico? How’s that working out for Mexico?
(I believe that supports your initial point)

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 1:43 PM

What is the numerical break point with regard to the term bandied about by the Left of High Capacity?

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Problem with violent crime solved, just make them reload at 9 rounds instead of 10 or more.

PXCharon on July 25, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Sad thing is, there are those who actually think that would work – just like gun free zones.

Chip on July 25, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Laws? Heck, the intended evildoer can just go around them as easily as…well..er…as easily as the president can just go around congress, can’t they?

Don L on July 25, 2012 at 1:44 PM

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Ah, I see. I wasn’t aware of that. I suppose that explains why Nidel Hasan managed to kill 13 people before some one took him down.

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 1:45 PM

As someone asked you already: name a new specific law that would fix this.

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Well I don’t know of one that’s been proposed or even up for discussion. But I’d be open to the idea of it, of course.
And I’m not saying that means a ‘ban’ or denying folks the ability to ‘defend’ themselves.
One could use an armored tank to defend their family…is it legal to own one?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Should people be able to purchase without any background check and then open carry or conceal carry a fully automatic weapon?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Yes.

Should such sales be completely unreported or subject to any record keeping at all?

Define record keeping. Sellers keep records for tax purposes. Do you mean registering with the state, feds? No.

Some it be legal for someone to buy 100 of these? 1000?

Yes.

Should a law-biding 15 year old be able to make such a purchase?

Let each state decide that for themselves.

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 1:48 PM

And I’m not saying that means a ‘ban’ or denying folks the ability to ‘defend’ themselves.
One could use an armored tank to defend their family…is it legal to own one?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:46 PM

And, the other part? The part about government tyranny? Important? Not important?

a capella on July 25, 2012 at 1:51 PM

How about a Drone control debate. The idea is that the constitution acknowledges that the problem of keeping freedom is intrusive governments, not the few sickos that are pumped up daily with hatred by our media.

Don L on July 25, 2012 at 1:52 PM

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 1:48 PM

gwelf ,
I’d ask if you totally agree with NotCoach here, but i fear a qualified answer.
:)

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:52 PM

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:52 PM

What does a background check do to stop criminals?

How does removing automatic weapons from the hands of the law abiding stop criminals?

How does keeping tabs on the law abiding stop criminals?

How does restricting firearm access to minors stop criminals?

What is the point of gun control. To stop criminals, or disarm the average American?

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Gotta run.
(Sorry, jawkneemusic)
Of course this debate – that Ed says we are not having –
continues…

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:57 PM

1) It’s a convenient retort – he would have ‘found some other way’.
But I’m pretty comfortable saying, no – he porbably wouldn’t.

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Of course you are, you have no capacity for Rational Thought.

jaydee_007 on July 25, 2012 at 1:58 PM

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:57 PM

“Oopsie, the questions are getting too tough! My true motives might be revealed! Laters!”

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Well I don’t know of one that’s been proposed or even up for discussion. But I’d be open to the idea of it, of course.
And I’m not saying that means a ‘ban’ or denying folks the ability to ‘defend’ themselves.
One could use an armored tank to defend their family…is it legal to own one?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:46 PM

So you don’t know of any new law that would improve things – only that that is the way the discussion must turn?

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 2:00 PM

It’s a nice day out, go play outside like a good little boy.

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 10:52 AM

I’m both a Florida resident and a gun owner. You should get the facts before you attempt to correct someone.

Dante on July 25, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I’m both a Florida resident and a gun owner. You should get the facts before you attempt to correct someone.

Dante on July 25, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Go see what little Jimmy down the street is doing. I bet his mom would love it if you went and played with him outside somewhere.

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 2:05 PM

gwelf ,
I’d ask if you totally agree with NotCoach here, but i fear a qualified answer.
:)

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I pretty much agree with NotCoach.

I think some very minimal regulation at the state level is appropriate for weapons but most laws regarding weapons don’t do anything to impede criminals.

For example, why shouldn’t a private citizen be allowed to buy a tank? You are afraid of some eccentric who has millions of dollars to sink into a tank that he can’t drive on public roads?

People keep fully automatic weapons in their homes in Switzerland.

I hold that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that – like all rights – doesn’t flow from government but as a condition of being human: we have the right to defend ourselves. It’s one of the most basic rights. I know you mostly agree with this part but I don’t think fear of “what if” should be used to curtail this right.

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Gotta run.
(Sorry, jawkneemusic)
Of course this debate – that Ed says we are not having –
continues…

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Translation:

I’m out of ammo talking points; must go reload.

Yoop on July 25, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Ah, I see. I wasn’t aware of that. I suppose that explains why Nidel Hasan managed to kill 13 people before some one took him down.

jawkneemusic on July 25, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Yes.
Believe it or not most military bases are “gun free” zones – to a large degree. Just plain wrong and a very sad state of affairs in my mind.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 2:11 PM

I thought we had that debate on April 19, 1775

dom89031 on July 25, 2012 at 2:16 PM

From a July 18 1933 shootout between Law Enforcement and Bonnie and Clyde…

Clyde Barrow is said to have shortened the barrels on his B.A.R. ,his weapon of choice, and it is was reported after the Red Crown Tourist Court shootout that he had welded three 20 round magazines to make it a 57 round magazine.
B.A.R. stands for Browning Automatic Rifle, the weapon discharged .30-06 rounds.

So Verbulance, you are suggesting that a fellow who constructed homemade bombs and designed and implemented self made booby traps in his apartment would not have been able to do what a Bumpkin in 1933 was able to do?

You further submit that he would not have been capable of developing another method of killing people in the Theater with the absense of the Availability of Guns?

Yeah, right, you feel Comfortable with that kind of Nonsense.

jaydee_007 on July 25, 2012 at 2:17 PM

One could use an armored tank to defend their family

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 2:19 PM

One could use an armored tank to defend their family…is it legal to own one?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 1:46 PM

You must be out of ammo since you’re now taking your argument to the ridiculous level. Why not just suggest that we want people to have nukes for home defense?
You have no concept of choosing a proper weapon for the desired purpose.
But, on the bright side, I can say that I do know private citizens who actually do own tanks, and armored personnel carriers, and jeeps with machine gun mounts, and fully automatic weapons of all kinds – and not a single one of them has ever used any of those weapons illegally.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 2:20 PM

What I’m about to say is sure to irritate people on both sides of the issue. Please, read whole thing and engage brain before commenting on this proposed solution.

– Magazines and clips designed by the weapon’s licensed manufacturer or certified by them (not the government) as safe, functional parts must be allowed as they would be legitimate and carry an implied warranty. For the AR-15, this would probably be sizes of 20 or 30 rounds, as determined by each manufacturer.

– Uncertified aftermarket contraptions (as was the situation in Aurora) should be illegal for sale under common law product liability standards. (They jam, cause unsafe distraction for the shooter, etc.) When incidents occur, sellers and manufacturers of these contraptions should be able to be sued for providing unsafe merchandise. Note: common law liability standards, not government statute.

– If a business or other entity declares themselves to be a “gun free zone” in contravention to local or state carry laws, they must be obligated (under those laws) to provide armed security to protect their patrons whom they have disarmed.

In this solution, the “camel’s nose under the tent” argument would not be applicable. (The federal government camel is nowhere in the proposal.)

Manufacture and sale of inappropriate, subject to abuse equipment would be discouraged.

Since gun manufacturers inevitably get blamed for the misuse of their products I would think they would be glad to prevent tinkering with their products.

Constitutionality under the Second Amendment would be assured so long as the legality of the weapons themselves is protected.

Gun free zones would not be banned, just eliminated as free fire kill zones.

RobBert on July 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Gun grabbers all seem to have one thing in common: They are the most ignorant people in the world about firearms, firearm history, and current laws concerning firearms. I am sure verbaluce would be shocked to know private citizens do, in fact, legally own armored equipment and automatic weapons. Shocking!

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 2:26 PM

verbaluce,

If you’re going to use shootings like this to set gun control policy then can we use Gosnell to set abortion policy?

gwelf on July 25, 2012 at 12:59 PM

++++++++++++++++

slickwillie2001 on July 25, 2012 at 2:30 PM

– Uncertified aftermarket contraptions (as was the situation in Aurora) should be illegal for sale under common law product liability standards. (They jam, cause unsafe distraction for the shooter, etc.) When incidents occur, sellers and manufacturers of these contraptions should be able to be sued for providing unsafe merchandise. Note: common law liability standards, not government statute.

Manufacture and sale of inappropriate, subject to abuse equipment would be discouraged.
RobBert on July 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM

I’m only going to respond to these 2 points at this time.
Should laws like this be allowed or encouraged for other products besides guns? Automobiles kill more people per year in this country than guns. Should we ban all aftermarket parts such as performance engines and engine parts, higher torque transmissions and differentials, high flow exhaust systems – pretty much anything that makes a car go faster or “more dnagerous” than as originally manufactured?

As I stated not long ago, the fact is many people in this country currently legally own fully automatic weapons, mortors, rocket launchers, flame throwers, tanks, and other such military weaponry – some of which was homemade or modified – and none of which has ever been used for criminal activity.
So why do we need to outlaw any of it?

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Bill O’Reilly on Fox News last night claimed that you can buy any kind of automatic weapon you want at gun shows without having to fill out any forms.

O’Reilly is such a fair and balanced lying scumbag that I will never watch his lying ass again.

woodNfish on July 25, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Besides – full auto (in a hand held weapon) is not good for hitting a target – and it doesn’t work like they show in the movies. There’s a reason military people call it “spray and pray”. All it does is put a lot of lead downrange (with very little accuracy) – and the best use is to make the enemy keep their heads down while others get in position to pick them off with accurate shots. How many libs have actually ever fired a full auto weapon? None I’d guess. It’s very hard to keep the barrel, and hence the bullets from climbing up and over the target.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Besides – full auto (in a hand held weapon) is not good for hitting a target – and it doesn’t work like they show in the movies. There’s a reason military people call it “spray and pray”. All it does is put a lot of lead downrange (with very little accuracy) – and the best use is to make the enemy keep their heads down while others get in position to pick them off with accurate shots. How many libs have actually ever fired a full auto weapon? None I’d guess. It’s very hard to keep the barrel, and hence the bullets from climbing up and over the target.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 2:44 PM

You are aware that the introduction of Facts and Correct Tactical Thinking will not be appreciated by liberals who have their minds made up!

jaydee_007 on July 25, 2012 at 2:48 PM

What I’m about to say is sure to irritate people on both sides of the issue. Please, read whole thing and engage brain before commenting on this proposed solution.

– Magazines and clips designed by the weapon’s licensed manufacturer or certified by them (not the government) as safe, functional parts must be allowed as they would be legitimate and carry an implied warranty. For the AR-15, this would probably be sizes of 20 or 30 rounds, as determined by each manufacturer.

– Uncertified aftermarket contraptions (as was the situation in Aurora) should be illegal for sale under common law product liability standards. (They jam, cause unsafe distraction for the shooter, etc.) When incidents occur, sellers and manufacturers of these contraptions should be able to be sued for providing unsafe merchandise. Note: common law liability standards, not government statute.

—– snip—-

RobBert on July 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Your comment should rightly irritate knowledgeable firearms owners.

The magazines shipped, by the manufacturer, with my very expensive Kimber 1911 caused random unacceptable *stove piping* and FTF, even after proper break in. Aftermarket mags solved the problem.

How does that fit your scheme?

Yoop on July 25, 2012 at 2:54 PM

How does that fit your scheme?

Yoop on July 25, 2012 at 2:54 PM

It doesn’t matter. His ‘good intentions’ and ‘deep concern’ trump your liberty every time.

tom daschle concerned on July 25, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Bill O’Reilly on Fox News last night claimed that you can buy any kind of automatic weapon you want at gun shows without having to fill out any forms.

O’Reilly is such a fair and balanced lying scumbag that I will never watch his lying ass again.

woodNfish on July 25, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Yeah, can’t stand them any more than I can stand MSDNC. O’Rly needs a wakeup call in the form of a few thousand tweets…

PXCharon on July 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM

The magazines shipped, by the manufacturer, with my very expensive Kimber 1911 caused random unacceptable *stove piping* and FTF, even after proper break in. Aftermarket mags solved the problem.

Yoop on July 25, 2012 at 2:54 PM

I’ve personally never known anyone who’s had good luck with Kimber mags. Browning made a follower that works, why mess with it?

Now, I’ve heard of people who love their Kimber, but that’s just “friend of a friend” stories. ;>

PXCharon on July 25, 2012 at 3:06 PM

You are aware that the introduction of Facts and Correct Tactical Thinking will not be appreciated by liberals who have their minds made up!

jaydee_007 on July 25, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Every now and then I get this ridiculous thought that they might actually be capable of learning something – since they control the education system – but I realize it’s usually an exercise in futility – my main exercise program whenever liberals are involved.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 3:08 PM

all this talk is just an attempt to drive us to where thee Brady group eventually wants us.
and that is ONLY federal gov contractors build arms and they sell ONLY to federal agencies.
They, in their hearts, do not want any citizen to have a weapon.

Jim Brady was not forced to be a SS agent and I for one am tired of having to pay for his career choice.

dmacleo on July 25, 2012 at 3:10 PM

– Uncertified aftermarket contraptions (as was the situation in Aurora) should be illegal for sale under common law product liability standards. (They jam, cause unsafe distraction for the shooter, etc.) When incidents occur, sellers and manufacturers of these contraptions should be able to be sued for providing unsafe merchandise. Note: common law liability standards, not government statute.

so you want to ban the one thing that MAY have saved lives here…the jamming.

dmacleo on July 25, 2012 at 3:11 PM

What is the point of gun control. To stop criminals, or disarm the average American?

Hmmm, gotta be a trick question.

We’ll never be able to stop criminals, so…………………

hawkeye54 on July 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM

so you want to ban the one thing that MAY have saved lives here…the jamming.

dmacleo on July 25, 2012 at 3:11 PM

The libs always miss that point, and related to it the fact that someone who really wanted to inflict damage AND had very good working knowledge of guns would NOT have used a large capacity drum – precisely because they are unreliable.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 3:20 PM

The libs always miss that point, and related to it the fact that someone who really wanted to inflict damage AND had very good working knowledge of guns would NOT have used a large capacity drum – precisely because they are unreliable.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 3:20 PM

But, but, no one needs working knowledge to just pull the trigger! /s

Sadly, I’ve heard that argument, usually followed by complaints about “cowards’ weapons” and wanting to go back to swords. Any idiot can stab someone with a sword, and I say this as a fairly competent fencer. Sure, it takes skill and training to use one well, but how’s that different from a handgun, rifle, or circular saw?

4 spares in a tac vest or cargo pockets. Less room, better weight distribution, and more ammo. Plus, it actually works…

PXCharon on July 25, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Jim Brady was not forced to be a SS agent and I for one am tired of having to pay for his career choice.

dmacleo on July 25, 2012 at 3:10 PM

James Brady was Press Secretary!

jaydee_007 on July 25, 2012 at 3:42 PM

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 3:20 PM

They don’t miss the point, they are dishonest. Luby’s massacre was the most deadly shooting in the US before Virginia Tech. But George Hennard had no “massive capacity” magazines when he committed that atrocity. He had two run of the mill pistols with typical magazines anyone might carry; a Glock 17 and a Ruger P89.

Verbulace has no interest in “common sense” gun laws, whatever the Fluke that means. He thinks disarming law abiding citizens makes people safe. Forget the fact that Luby’s massacre lead directly to Texas making a shall-issue law because people were following the law, and thus unarmed inside the cafeteria. (One woman actually reached for her revolver that was unfortunately legally locked in her vehicle.) Forget the fact that massacres don’t happen when people are allowed to be armed. Forget the fact that criminals have testified over and over again that they only break into vacant homes because they don’t want to be shot. Forget the fact that the most violent cities in the United States have the toughest gun laws. None of that matters. All that matters is that “something” must be done.

No mass-murderer ever follows the law.

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 3:45 PM

No he wasn’t.

Dante on July 25, 2012 at 10:31 AM

You’re an idiot.

Solaratov on July 25, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Florida does not have open carry and one does not have to have a license to carry. As usual, you are short on your facts.

Dante on July 25, 2012 at 10:44 AM

You’re seriously trying to say that one does not need a license to carry a concealed weapon in Florida?

Not only are you ‘short on facts’ – you’re downright stupid.

Go outside and play. The fresh air will do you good.

Solaratov on July 25, 2012 at 4:25 PM

How many do you think he would have managed to kill had the AR-15 not jammed?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Dunno. I’m too busy worrying about how many would have been killed if that last asteroid hadn’t missed Earth.

Solaratov on July 25, 2012 at 4:32 PM

My son has a 100 round drum for his AKM – and it is not very reliable – the high capacity drums just aren’t.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Try the Romanian 75-rounders. Much more reliable than the 100s.

Solaratov on July 25, 2012 at 4:39 PM

How many do you think he would have managed to kill had the AR-15 not jammed?

verbaluce on July 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Many more than he would have if not for Aurora’s recognition of Colorado’s statutes regarding the guaranteed natural right of The People to keep and bear arms and Cinemark choosing to allow it’s patrons to carry on their property.

Oh, wait…

Point taken, gun free zones are a bad idea.

PXCharon on July 25, 2012 at 5:00 PM

NotCoach on July 25, 2012 at 3:45 PM

I sure can’t argue with any of that – and wouldn’t anyway.

dentarthurdent on July 25, 2012 at 5:17 PM

There’s nothing to discuss on gun control[s].
Why?: Because the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land.

byteshredder on July 25, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Democrats should make gun control a central part of their campaigns.

Dollayo on July 25, 2012 at 7:10 PM

We had it April 19, 1775.
Progressive scum have been trying to undo it for nearly 100yrs.

rayra on July 25, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4