I want to thank Senator John Ensign of Nevada for speaking out about the importance of reducing gun violence as a means of addressing America’s skyrocketing health care costs:
If you take out accidental deaths due to car accidents,
and you take out gun deaths — because we like our guns in the United
States and there are a lot more gun-deaths in the United States [than
Europe] — you take out those two things, you adjust those, and we’re
actually better in terms of survival rates.
Sen. Ensign is right, “there are a lot more gun deaths in the United States” than in Europe. America suffers about 30,000 gun deaths every year, including more than 10,000 gun homicides and another 17,000 gun suicides.
By comparison, Germany sees less than 200 gun homicides each year, while England and Wales have less than 200 total gun
deaths in an average year, including about 60 gun homicides. That
puts America’s gun homicide rate about 13 times higher than Germany’s,
and almost 31 times higher than England and Wales’.
What is Europe doing that we in America aren’t? Sen. Ensign put his
finger on it: Europeans have reduced the costs of gun violence by
working to prevent it in the first place. If we in America take
meaningful action to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people,
then in Sen. Ensign’s words, we can “adjust” downward the obscene
number of gun deaths in our country. We can save lives and reduce the
costs that plague our health care system at the same time.
While he probably didn’t mean to do it, full credit goes to Sen.
Ensign for bringing this issue to the fore. Now, what can he and his
colleagues in the Senate do to help?
First, they could make it harder for felons, wife-beaters and the
dangerously mentally ill to hurt our communities by co-sponsoring Sen. Lautenberg’s bill
that requires criminal background checks for all gun sales at gun
shows. Countless firearms are bought and sold at these shows from
“private sellers” with no questions asked, making it easier for
criminals and gun traffickers to get their guns.
Sen. Ensign and his colleagues could also speak in favor of legislation to limit the sale of handguns in bulk that enable illegal gun traffickers to sell firearms to criminals on the street.
Finally, they could support legislation to strengthen Federal law enforcement and crack down on the 1.2% of irresponsible or corrupt licensed gun dealers whose businesses account for almost 60% of crime guns traced to crime scenes in America.
This week, Sen. Ensign may have accidentally shined a light on what
we at the Brady Campaign have known for decades: Gun violence not only
takes about 30,000 American lives every year, it also puts a heavy burden on our economy and our health care system, particularly when you add in the other 70,000 non-fatal gun injuries each year.
Now is the time for us to do something about it.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
OPINION:GOP Senator Lists Guns as Major Factor in Health Care Crisis
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You know you have a flawed argument when:
You resort to lies in order to deprive the people of their constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.
You said:
"If we in America take meaningful action to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people..."
There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books in America. Most of these are designed to control who can buy, sell, transfer, own, use, and transport firearms and how they can do so.
Seems like meaningful action to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people to me!
Yet we still have a gun violence problem. People who do not follow the law , will not follow gun laws, no matter how many you write. Get this through your heads.
- SolarSanitizer
October 2, 2009 1:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sorry Solar...
There are nowhere near 20,000 gun laws in this country. I know, I know, you've heard this lie for so long you take it as the truth. But it simply isn't so.
A 2003 study "Description and Analysis of State and Federal Laws Affecting Firearm Manufacture, Sale, Possession and Use 1970-1999" found that there are "only 300 relevant federal and state laws regarding the manufacture, design, sale, purchase, or possession of guns ." In addition to the pitifully few laws at the federal level, the study found "the number of laws per state range from one to thirteen: among the most common concern mandatory minimum sentencing , dealer background checks, "shall issue" or carrying a concealed weapon, dealer licensing, and child access protection."
And as far as the "constitutionally guaranteed right" consider the words of Justice Scalia in the 2008 District of Columbia v Heller case: "like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
Scalia's decision went on to give numerous examples of constitutional gun regulations and made absolutely, positively clear that the right to own a gun exists side by side with the right to regulate the purchase, possession, and carrying of guns.
Our gun laws are filled with loopholes and gaps. 32 states allow private gun sales with no background checks and no record keeping - in other words, these states actually make it easy for criminals to buy guns.
- RichStein
October 2, 2009 2:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
who prepared that 2003 study, Rich?
and, clearly, its authors did not consider the myriad of state-based laws dealing with, for example, hunting --right?
Those (hunting) laws do deal, in myriad ways, with what firearm may be carried at what time and under what conditions of use. I cannot take my 38 Spl revolver into the field and call it my hunting rifle, for example.
Each of those are a separate item in a code--and each can be considered a distinct infraction--and therefore, a law that can be broken.
I will also presume that, until I hear otherwise, that this study created 'categories' of those relevant federal and state laws--and I question the reason why the authors would choose to do that.
- jfh
October 2, 2009 5:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well, of course,
That study was prepared by authors associated with The Brookings Institute. You know, the Non-Profit that Time Magazine has said is
"..."nation's pre-eminent liberal think tank."
Here's some comments from a critique of this study written by Mark A.R.Kleiman:
"Inevitably, design choices create limitations. The paper looks at state laws, not local ones; it puts aside laws about civil liability; it looks at categories of prohibited behavior, rather than penalties (other than penalty enhancements) or enforcement mechanisms, and, curiously, when it begins to count legal provisions, it counts only what might be called "anti-gun" laws, as opposed to, for example, "shall-issue" or pre-emption statutes. The count of statutory provisions seems, in effect, to be an attempt to construct a measure of how "anti-gun" each state’s laws are. All of this, say the authors, is in the service of a public health inquiry.
"The paper’s approach seems, to an outsider, to reflect the polarized nature of the debate over gun policy. That polarization itself echoes, albeit with the cultural poles reversed, the debate over drug policy, where the division is between those committed to stamping out "the drug culture" and those concerned with drug use only insofar as it causes observable damage."
In sum, then, a 'scholarly' advocational rag.
- jfh
October 2, 2009 6:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanbks for shedding some light
Having read the Brookings Institute, I think that there are easily 20,000 laws, but most of them are local ordnances and most are redundant in that the same law Ex. "Can't carry into the courthouse". I'll not concede that there are only 300 because this number, admittedly, does not account for any local laws (Like Chicago's and Oak Park's de facto gun bans, McDonald v. Chicago, NRA .v Chicago and NRA v. Oak Park).
I further reject the 300 number because the study admittedly omits carry and firing laws.
I further reject the 300 number because the study admittedly omits sub sections of a law as a law unto itself. For example, this study would count Ca. Penal code section 12020 (a major portion of Ca. gun law ) as a single law.
Read it yourself and descend if it is a "single law". (It might take a while to read through the sections and subsections, but these sections and subsections are no less important or vital knowledge for a Ca. resident to be a "law abiding citizen".
In summary, I contend that there could very well be 20,000, but since the spirit of these laws are mostly redundant in local lawbooks, and the number not indicative of the severity of the laws, I'll stop using the number.
Those reasons and the fact that John Dingell, (D-MI)came up with the 20,000 number in the first place.
- SolarSanitizer
October 2, 2009 10:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I meant to link to CA Penal code 12020 above.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=54192314488 +1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
- SolarSanitizer
October 2, 2009 10:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The link I included
Seems to point to an expired search of legalinfo.ca.gov.
Here is a better link which is more perma.
http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12020.php
- SolarSanitizer
October 3, 2009 7:02AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A little geography lesson for Brady.
First, Europe is not a country. It's what is commonly referred to as a continent. Can you say "continent" Brady? Good, I knew you could.
Second, the U.S. may have more gun deaths than a country that is slightly smaller than Montana (Germany), but it certainly does not have more than Europe. Let's take a look at a little thing I like to call "data." According to the "data" Europe has over 420 gun deaths per year. See, what Brady does in these instances is exclude countries that have a higher rate per 100,000 people. In other words, countries with much smaller populations, are still more dangerous. Countries like Estonia, Hungary, Slovenia, Finland, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Portugal.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
No disagreement that there are too many gun deaths in this country though. We need to get rid of the gangs and people need to take back their streets. But this is not going to be done in the legislatures. It is only going to be done when the law -abiding people of this country arm themselves and stop surrendering their liberty to the scumbag criminals that are the problem. Until this happens, this is going to change , even if Brady gets another billion new and useless laws passed.
Not that I'm overly worried about that. The trend over the past 15 years has been to empower the American people and recognize their inherent right to self defense. Thankfully there have been more restrictions lifted lately than imposed. And despite that fact, crime continues to decrease and there have not been the blood baths in our streets that Brady continues to warn us of. Gun ownership is on the rise, and crime is on the decline. So what's up with that, Brady?
- LagerHead
October 2, 2009 2:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well said.
Again we are of like mind. The trend is clearly headed in the correct direction. Popular opinion polls confirm the sentiment, but the real good news is that in the legal arena, we are routing the opposition. D.C v. Heller was a major milestone, and McDonald v. Chicago will be the death knoll for the anti-2nd Amendment crowd.
In a few years, with many of the more oppressive laws struck down, the attention will be turned toward overly-restrictive carry and transportation laws. The people over at Open Carry are doing great things as far as getting the word out that gun owners are not, after all, gun nuts. We're everyday average people who just don't feel like being victims.
I, for one, am very encouraged by the direction the gun rights argument is going. We are truly winning the debate and our rights back.
- SolarSanitizer
October 2, 2009 11:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Impossible to Study
Gun control effects on crime are actually impossible to study because of the inability to conduct a randomized double-blind study.
Both sides, including the conservative position you espoused, run into the "correlation versus causation" argument. You seemingly suggest that because crime is decreasing it is a result increased gun ownership when you have no reason to presume that except from your own intuitive bias. However, the liberal contention that "reduce gun ownership would imply reduced gun crimes" is obvious - if less people have less guns , that's less potential gun crime. However, the overall liberal contention that "less gun ownership would imply less crime" is equally fallacious.
The ecological fallacy is huge in analyzing gun-crime data and it makes it useless to make statements about it. I don't buy studies about any gun related restrictions or lack-there-of because they aren't falsifiable or provable.
Honestly, any gun study out there, due to the poor quality of data - could allow me to twist and turn it into saying almost whatever I want based on my own personal bias. I could make a strong case for any side based on the data. It's worthless.
That's why this argument should stand on a logical, societal, and liberty basis rather than a statistical basis because the statistics aren't usable due to the nature of the data. Maybe once statistics become usable, we can engage that end - but until then, it's useless and will lead to stupid policy choices.
- caelum
October 3, 2009 2:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Clarity
Just to be clear, I was talking about statistics regarding gun-control restrictions in relation to criminal behavior. I wasn't actually talking about all gun/ crime stats being useless.
- caelum
October 3, 2009 2:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Regardless, they're not useless.
For one thing, any restriction on gun ownership must be put in place with a clear view to prevent crime . Therefore when you can show that in almost every instance where gun control is implemented it either doesn't decrease crime, or the more common scenario, there is an immediate increase in crime, it makes it harder to argue for more gun laws . Hence the stats are very useful.
"You seemingly suggest that because crime is decreasing it is a result increased gun ownership when you have no reason to presume that except from your own intuitive bias."
Well, I neither said nor tried to imply that. My statement was to show the folly in Brady's argument that increased gun ownership means increased crime. However, other than my "intuitive bias," whatever that is, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that increased gun ownership does in fact lead to decrease in crime. In addition to the example of Kennesaw, GA, I would strongly suggest you get a copy of John Lott's books, either "More Guns, Less Crime" or its follow up "The Bias Against Guns." Both use very strong statistical analysis to analyze whether or not gun control laws have the effect that Brady suggests.
"However, the liberal contention that "reduce gun ownership would imply reduced gun crimes" is obvious - if less people have less guns , that's less potential gun crime."
Ignoring the double negative in that statement (assuming it was unintended) the statement may be obvious, but not true. This is obvious in the same way it should be "obvious" that since Shaq is taller than Michael Jordan he would obviously be a better basketball player. For example, Camden NJ, the most dangerous city in the U.S. is one of those places that fewer people have fewer guns because it is extremely difficult to get permits to carry them. As a result, the few people, other than police , that have guns have a very easy time making victims out of those who do not.
Morton Grove, Il was the first city in the U.S. to completely ban handguns and despite a decrease in population they saw an almost immediate and prolonged increase in crime. Less guns, more crime. And the examples go on and on.
"Honestly, any gun study out there, due to the poor quality of data - could allow me to twist and turn it into saying almost whatever I want based on my own personal bias."
If that is true, you have a very bright future in the gun control business if you so choose. Because they have so far been unable to successfully twist the stats in their favor. Not counting being blatantly dishonest, anyway. The fact is there are plenty of data out there that can be studied. The problem most people have is that they don't account for other factors when doing so. Again, I invite you to review John Lott's studies as he does just that.
- LagerHead
October 3, 2009 4:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
However-
You're punishing responsible people with more restrictions, fines, and possible surrendering of their weapons with a lot of the measures being suggested.
I can't think of anything that has less to do with liberty. Without our freedom to own arms our other freedoms can be taken without incident. Disarming leads to the oppression of societies, not the progression. That much is logical based on history.
Brady has already done enough to where I've had to apply - practically begging with all of the requirements - to exercise *my* right to self-defense with a firearm if need be. What's worse, it must be concealed (which can be misconstrued as dishonest). A loophole which allows me to get around a bad law in the first place. Since when did I have to grovel to the government for *my* right to free speech ? I don't. But that's because many of us are still armed, so we're still allowed to say quite a bit.
When government is the only one with the guns you no longer have a voice. This does nothing to prevent crimes of passion or violent or unsavory people acquiring weapons. But giving people a chance to defend themselves might prevent some victimization from those who would do them harm - whoever they might be.
- m46607
October 6, 2009 3:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Mental Illness
I'm diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, and I take offence to you deeming me dangerous. I have a constitutional right, under the 2nd amendment, to bear arms. It does not state "unless the person has a mental illness." This is simply an effort to ban guns from a large demographic of the population, who are in no way all dangerous. The Brady Campaign suggests that they want to keep guns out of the hands of outlaws, yet still in the hands of lawful people. How does my diagnosis make me an outlaw? I understand, as does any thinking person, that the initiative here is to undermine the 2nd amendment entirely. That is, quite simply put, un-American. Remember, this is still a Democratic Republic, and while it remains one, we have a Constitution that no American has a right to undermine.
- Starlon
October 3, 2009 12:11AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bad news and good news and bad news and good news
As we speak, it is only the Federal Government which is prevented from passing or enforcing laws in violation to your 2nd Amendment right. This means that the states can do whatever they want, in accordance with their own constitution .
The good news is that early next year, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether states have to respect the 2nd amendment also. It is widely predicted that the SCOTUS will opine in our favor.
The bad news in /this/ is that last year, when the SCOTUS opined that the 2nd Amendment was a protection guaranteed to the people, as opposed to the states, there was recognition that certain laws were still going to remain constitutional. Such as barring felons and the mentally ill from enjoying the right.
The good news for you, is that, according to the state you live in, you may have some recourse. In Ca., you can request the right back by petitioning the court. Also, if you were not committed against your will, the Ca. law banning you doesn't even apply.
In which state do you live?
- SolarSanitizer
October 3, 2009 4:38AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Lone Star State
I'm in Texas. As far as I know they haven't passed any laws outlawing mentally ill owning firearms . I knew California had a similar law , and I know one of the earlier health care bills had a provision similar. Before the health care debate I had written my representatives asking them to be on the look-out for this type of legislation. I would have written them again about the health care bill, but I couldn't find anything about gun rights in the bill itself, so I left it alone.
- Starlon
October 3, 2009 4:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I see what you're saying.
I thought you were under the impression that this crap bill was going to be attached to the ObamaCare bill. This piece of offal is a separate bill, or rather 2 bills; one in the House, the other in the Senate .
While it is sold as another "good intention" bill, it gives warrant less search powers to the Attorney General's office for the purpose of examine all records of all participants of a gun show, which would be any show, flea market, whatever with at least 50 guns for sale, regardless of the primary purpose of the event.
Read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Show_Loophole_Closing_Act_of_2009
It is just another example of Liberal Democrat over-reach.
Get out your pen and paper, American.
- SolarSanitizer
October 3, 2009 6:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
having a diagnosis may not disqualify you
but that issue is determined by the laws as written in your particular state / city / whatever.
The issue typically comes down to whether or not that illness has resulted in court-adjudicated findings that result in your hospitalization, or other court orders.
Remember, the current (Supreme) Court decisions have not found the 2nd Amendment to be absolute, but subject to 'reasonable restrictions.'
Otherwise, I agree with your observations that the Brady Bunch just uses any excuse they think the typical citizen will buy into to further limit this right.
- jfh
October 3, 2009 10:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Are you serious?
Not to make light of your mental disorder, but you can't be serious. As pointed out by several people on this forum, every one of our freedoms has restrictions. At the risk of sounding cliche, I would direct you to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument about restrictions to the 1st Amendment.
That being said, I admit I had to Google your disorder to be sure of the exact nature of it. According to the information I found, the possible effects include paranoid delusions and temper control. Do you not think that those two things alone make it a bad idea for someone affected by your disorder to carry a deadly weapon? Combine that with hearing voices and problems sleeping and you have a possible recipe for disaster.
Now I am not implying that you suffer from any or all of these symptoms. But the very nature of the disease makes it a very good idea to limit access to firearms .
If you read my posts you will know that I am extremely in favor of the 2nd Amendment, but you really have to temper that with a bit of logic. In this case I believe the right call has been made.
- LagerHead
October 5, 2009 9:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well
You haven't a clue what you're talking about. I'm not a violent person, regardless of my illness and what you read online about it. If you knew anything about schizoaffective disorder, you would know that it's basically "major depression with psychotic features." That means, yes, I can be suicidal. And I hear voices. They're both taken care of by medicine . You see, that's exactly why states stopped locking us up, because we can go on living a half way normal life through medication and therapy. Honestly, it's people like you who would still have me locked up against my will.
Stop being scared of what you don't understand. I know, you're like "But you hear voices." Get over it. You know what they say? They're very critical of me most of the time. But guess what? I've learned that they aren't real. I'm not really hearing other people's thoughts, or thoughts of celestial beings. It's all in my head. But guess what; I haven't heard voices in almost 3 years since I was placed on my medicine. So seriously, just lighten up and stop stigmatizing the mentally ill.
- Starlon
October 5, 2009 12:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm not scared of you.
But that's not the point. And I don't want to lock you up. I want you to do what you are doing. And I want you to be a productive member of society , which as far as I can tell, you are. But the fact is not all who suffer from your disorder, or any of the other disorder that would disqualify them from owning a handgun do take their medicines, and are as well adjusted. I know my uncle, who is diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, has no business owning a gun.
Now I'm not necessarily advocating blanket statements, either. That's where bigotry, prejudice, and racism come from. But the thing is there are lines to be drawn and unfortunately I don't see a good way to separate in a lawful way those who have been diagnosed with a mental illness that could make them dangerous, and those who have been diagnosed with a mental illness that could make them dangerous but are well controlled due to medication .
I admit again, as I did in my initial response, that I am not an expert on this topic, nor would I dare pretend to be. But it seems to me that some people with your disorder would have a tendency to be more violent than someone who does not. I may be incorrect, and if I am, then there is reason to get the law changed. But if I'm not, I believe the law is correct.
It's like convicted felons. As many as 2/3 of convicted felons offend again after release from prison. The other 1/3 suffer because of that 2/3. It may be unfair to that 1/3, but how do you know who is going to be that 1/3 ahead of time? You don't so you have to draw the line somewhere.
- LagerHead
October 5, 2009 2:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Huh
You're comparing me with convicted felons. Beautiful. Thanks for your judgement. I'll be sure and pass that on to my care takers, that I'm a low life. See ya.
- Starlon
October 5, 2009 4:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Putting words in my mouth.
I'm not comparing you to anybody. I was making a point about restrictions. You're taking this personally, and it's not meant that way. Sorry if you can't see that.
- LagerHead
October 5, 2009 4:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Right
Oh I get what you're saying. You're simply stating that most mentally ill are dangerous low lifes that can't be trusted. Well, let me tell you a little known fact. Most mentally ill are far from dangerous, and are more often than not vulnerable to being taken advantage of. They can't defend against proclamations like "You're crazy!" because it's more less like trying to defend against "You're racist" when you're really not racist at all. Who's going to believe you once the claim has been made? "I'm not crazy" -- The mob: Yeah right. Everything that comes out of the "crazy's" mouth is construed as beyond comprehension "crazy talk." A person says he hears voices, and suddenly he's capable of doing whatever these voices tell him to do. As if everyone does whatever the hell they're told to do. You do, don't you? I mean, I wouldn't want to tell you to go jump off a bridge, because by all means that's what you will go and do. Oh, but yeah, that doesn't pertain to you, because you're "normal" and the person hearing voices is "crazy." Right.
Let me tell you something. These voices I hear are very condescending toward me. They tell me that I'm crazy. They tell me that I'm no good. That I'm a low life. I don't need you nor anyone else coming around and confirming what the voices tell me. You hear that? I'm done with you. Be nice to the next mentally ill person you meet.
- Starlon
October 5, 2009 7:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nami
I understand that you're just naive, like most people are about mental illness. Since you have family who is mentally ill, maybe this will be good for that relationship, or maybe you can tell your family member about it. It's a website called NAMI.org -- it's for everyone who's ever been affected by mental illness in any way. Take some time to read through these people's struggles. You have it all wrong, so much like the majority of the population. I blame the media and Hollywood's psychological thrillers. Today one can absolutely lose their career over a mental illness, and it is truly regretful. If you only knew how many people your misunderstanding causes to keep their troubles buried away, never seeking help, because they don't want to deal with the stigma associated with the illness. Peace to you. I hope you gain some understanding.
- Starlon
October 5, 2009 7:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
5 year old Simon Hughes disagrees
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0 ,2933,559103,00.html?test=latestnews
I'd say owning a gun was a major factor in this boy's continued health .
- thebigmike
October 3, 2009 10:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
New link.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0 ,2933,559103,00.html
This is a great story. Sadly, the FMSM refuses to air these stories making them seem particulary uncommon.
- SolarSanitizer
October 3, 2009 11:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Silly Argument
One could easily argue that if the father were responsible he wouldn't have needed the gun in the first place. What absurdity is it to let a child fish with a baited hook in an area with alligators at the age of 5. That would be like me sending my child to play in a downtown Detroit park, him protect himself with a gun, and then say "well, look guns saved his live" - but then fail to address that saving of his life could have been just as easily accomplished by me not sending him to play in that park and not posing any risk to him at all in the first place.
Anyway, isolated incidents are terrible justifications for any argument. The big picture is what matters, not the insignificantly small incidents.
- caelum
October 3, 2009 2:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well, only if they were myopic.
"One could easily argue that if the father were responsible he wouldn't have needed the gun in the first place."
This argument would prove faulty when I point out that that by the same standard set in the argument, cops, military personnel, armed bank guards, armored car guards, the FBI, and Obama's bodyguards, LagerHead and myself are all irresponsible, because they are armed.
"What absurdity is it to let a child fish with a baited hook in an area with alligators at the age of 5."
Why? Seems to me that that 5 year old is 100% safer than he would be if you had your way. By following your reasoning, that child would have been eaten alive. Good thing you are wrong.
"That would be like me sending my child to play in a downtown Detroit park, him protect himself with a gun, and then say "well, look guns saved his live" - but then fail to address that saving of his life could have been just as easily accomplished by me not sending him to play in that park and not posing any risk to him at all in the first place."
We cannot lock up our kids in plastic bubbles. Sure, this is an extreme suggestion, but so was yours.
"Anyway, isolated incidents are terrible justifications for any argument. The big picture is what matters, not the insignificantly small incidents."
Yes, a child killing an 800 lb. alligator is not an everyday occurrence. However, every day people protect themselves from a life-threatening situation with a firearm. The details of this one are noteworthy, I agree. Most of the time it is armed force against an assailant or a rabid animal or similar dangerous situations. This one just happens to be incredible enough to push past the media 's inbuilt filter which prevents these stories from being reported.
- SolarSanitizer
October 7, 2009 9:11AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Lot's of Things would Reduce Violence
There are no doubt a handful of things that would reduce crime . Ignoring if any legislation could accomplish the goal of eliminating or significantly reducing gun ownership. In fact, let's assume it could. The question is, do a significant portion of the American population want it?
It should be obvious to any reasonable person that if virtually no one or only a small few had guns that gun violence would be significantly reduced. It's just a "duh" that doesn't require a study. Then again, unlawful searches and seizures would no doubt reduce crime significantly just by random chance. Wiretapping and monitoring all telecommunications and internet communications would shoot down organized crime dramatically. The revocation of 5th Amendment rights would reduce crime. Imposing outrageous fines and criminal punishments for traffic crimes, in violation of the 8th Amendment, would significantly reduce crime as well.
What all of the "take away guns = low crime" arguments always fail to address is the cost to the American population. As I said just above, there are a ton of invasive measures that could be taken to cut crime to near zero. Do we want that though? What people who advocate significant gun restrictions fail to address is that very question. I'll be trite and quote good ole' Benny Franklin
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Until gun restriction advocates begin to ponder that question and serious engage it - they will never, ever get anywhere with there crime reduction argument.
- caelum
October 3, 2009 2:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The point is quite missed...
The point is that a GOP senator, out of context, is drawing a clear line, singling out accidents and gund deaths .
It's typical for politicians the days to only cite facts when it convenient, and its not hard to find a sponsor for any spin of statistics.
But the blatant hypocrisy of using this point against universal health care is staggering.
I am not entirely convinced that gun laws can or can not have an effect on general criminal use, but it seems obvious that some laws can easily prevent accidents, negligence, and crimes of passion.
Most people with an opinion seem to be unable of objectivity, as well. For instance, wether you call Europe a continent (which is not a scientific term anyway) or a country, which is fair in some senses, it has a great deal less gun death's each year than our nation, especially in the case of the EU proper, which is the sense most reasonable for calling it a country.
- Submariner October 4, 2009 11:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You're wrong too.
Europe as a whole has far more gun deaths than the U.S. Over 6 times more per year. Call it a Nation, a Country, a Continent. I don't care what you call it. He's wrong any way you slice it.
- LagerHead
October 6, 2009 10:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Help me find this then...
I can find almost no date that is not over a decade old, except WHO reports.
They show 31k deaths to some 6.4k US to Europe (even including some former Eastern Block nations).
So, what are you talking about?
- Submariner October 6, 2009 5:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Apologies.
I committed a cardinal sin and looked at the data with my head up my fourth point of contact. The real stat is that there are several countries with a higher rate of gun deaths (per 100,000 people). the total is not more, but there are several countries in Europe that are more violent than the U.S.
My apologies.
- LagerHead
October 7, 2009 9:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I don't follow
Why ration this on population? Is there some sociology behind this I don't get?
We had nearly 5 times as many gun deaths . If rationing this on population just shows that countries such as Switzerland that have increased private ownership have gotten worse over time.
I agree some countries are more violent - just being in Scotland for Soccer season demonstrates that.
But this is gun death. And context is people dieing in our country. I mean, is the corrolary that socialized health care encourages or discourages gun death?
It's just a weird road to go down.
- Submariner October 7, 2009 9:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh, I don't know.
Maybe it's because just about every study on crime and mortality rates is based on population. It doesn't make sense to compare a country with 1/10 the population of the U.S. as if they're the same, does it? If a country had only 100 people and 50 of them were killed in car accidents, but 40,000 were killed in the U.S., does that make the U.S. worse drivers? I don't think so. Not with a population about 40,000 times the size of the fictional country above.
My point is there are countries with worse gun problems than the U.S. despite the picture some people try to paint. That's why anti-gun folks never compare the U.S. to Africa, or the Middle East. Some will of course argue that you can't compare places with such vastly different cultures. Well then you also can't make such blanket statements as pass more gun laws and you will reduce crime, either. (Notwithstanding the fact that it has been shown to be a false statement over and over again.)
Speaking of weird roads to go down; what does socialized health care have to do with gun control at all?
- LagerHead
October 8, 2009 8:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ah, so. But...
This context is about total deaths , not how violent Americans are. It's about total cost , not expensiveness.
It's not that Africa or the Middle East or SE Asia are different cultures (actually, these area's are full of many differing cultures) it's that they are largely impoverished, have ongoing wars (not appropriate for crime statistics), and/or do not have general access to weapons for self defense.
More importantly, there is 499,747,211 people in the EU and 304,059,724 in the USA. The ratio's you are stating and the reasoning you provide are opposite of this comparison.
Further, Finland and Switzerland seem to have the most liberal private ownership, and they lead the EU for gun death and violence.
Further, still, Germany and Japan have some of the tightest controls and despite high population and population density, have very little crime and gun death. Japan particularly is extremely dense and has extremely little gun violence .
Digging down even further, you will note that Germany and Japan are two of the most socialized first world nations on Earth, and I submit that this has more to do with the crime and violence statistics than anything else, including the availability of guns .
Senator Ensign has inadvertantly put into focus a perfect storm of social factors contrary to the GOP position.
It should be eidfying, but I expect most of the polarized types (Political Ions? hehe) to just change the subject or equivocate principles and practices some more...
- Submariner October 8, 2009 1:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
et cetera
There's two arguments: Should there be prolific private gun ownership at all, and Should local, county, state and national governance be allowed to limit it variously.
The former seems more principled than not. I am not impressed by any arguments aiming to establish firearm ownership as a personal right as important as any other in the DoI, Constitution, or its amendments. But that's mostly because however slight the margin of innocent lives lost to accidents, negligence, or misuse by legal owners, its still too much to pay for the abstract value a gun represents for deterence or militia value. Personally, I think it's pragmatic to allow most adult's to own and carry pistols, but not because of important rights or universal justification.
The second argument is the one that involves all the statistics, and around the world I think this one ends up going to the gun control side for utilitarian reasons, but even so, it is not feasible to get rid of all the extant guns . So no fiat prohibition of them will work.
It's just something we will have to mature out of, someday. And the comparison to Germany is poor. It's closer to Georgia's size, but has millions of people, while Montanna is HUGE and has almost no one.
- Submariner October 5, 2009 12:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Then I offer you this one.
"I am not impressed by any arguments aiming to establish firearm ownership as a personal right as important as any other in the DoI, Constitution, or its amendments."
This is because you refuse to understand or unable to understand the Framers' intent and mindset. They wanted to create a nation wherein liberty was sacrosanct. They knew from experience what lack of liberty felt like in a way most Americans can only read about. They came to America and started their own country /because/ of a lack of liberty. They knew what powers to deny the government , and what rights to protect. Freedom of speech , freedom from government sanctioned religion , freedom to spread ideas, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. They also knew, as documented in many papers, quotes, and arguments, that if the People were to keep the power, they had to have the ability to do so. Enter guns . They were used to grant liberty and they are used to ensure it.
The real reason for the Second Amendment is not for hunting or sport- shooting , but for overthrowing the government should it become oppressive beyond suffering.
This is the bottom line. The Second Amendment guarantees that the rest of them will not be trampled upon.
- SolarSanitizer
October 7, 2009 9:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I understand it fine.
It's no longer relevant.
Our government has enough conventional weaponry to end the world, and then a few hundred times more with CBR weapons.
The framers intent is often full of inner conflict, compromise, and other anachronisms. It's not really practical to rely on it.
Today, it just does not seem as important as Freedom of Speech or Due Process, etc.
- Submariner October 7, 2009 5:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
In my mind, it is relevant.
There is an active fight between those who want to abridge the 2nd and those who want to preserve it. As long as it is being preserved, we will not need it. If it is finally rendered moot by mountains of unconstitutional laws often mislabeled as "common sense laws" then there are no protections for the ones you like, Freedom of Speech, Due Process, the Fifth Amendment etc.
The second prevents those others from being taken. I'd call that quite important.
Why don't you think it is important? Because it is old?
- SolarSanitizer
October 7, 2009 6:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It is somewhat important to me
So, some days I sit down with my boys and talk about what I would like from them and for them when they go out on their own. When I think of what things are gonna be like then and later, it makes me more fond of the 2nd Amendment, for the reasons stated.
But, if the rest of our egalitarian, utilitarian, and populist ideals can be maintained without use or threat of violence, then this is certainly preferable to violent overthrow of the government .
I mean, sentimentally I agree that governments should fear their people, but seriously, WE the People are supposed to be our government. If we can find the right representatives and protect them from the undue influences out there, we should be able to get back on track.
- Submariner October 7, 2009 9:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If the only guaranteed means by which a population
Can prevent a government from oppressing the population is legislated away, what stops the government from becoming more and more oppressive? Is it good sense to block the proverbial fire escape because we hope the government doesn't take more power than it deserves?
Remember that there are only 9 Justices standing in the way of the other two branches and preventing them from violating the constitution . The consent of the people is where the government derives its power. How is it a good idea to give up the only manner by which the population can revoke consent?
- SolarSanitizer
October 8, 2009 12:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Plan B might be morally desirable
Back away from the Orwell!
Nah, seriously, our government might get away with a lot of nonsense while the parties and big business keep us distracted and at each others throats, but they still need us.
For instance, our military is completely volunteer and drawn from the general populace. They are the least of threats to the American way of life, in my opinion (though I am obviously biased). If anything the US military would mutiny in the interest of the public should the government get too froggy.
For another, America's current economic might is based on American services and consumption. As problematic as that is, it's something you can not fake. Hell even without alreting that much our economic operators managed to nearly self destruct the US economy .
So, what if they had a hidden clone army and a hundred Fort Knoxes in reserve to buy off the rest of the world?
Well, then we would have even more reason to not try to fight it out with the Government, based on my original premise of being extremely outgunned.
- Submariner October 8, 2009 1:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Which is it?
If it's not practical to rely on the framers' intent, then why are other parts of it more important? And is it practical to rely on their intent with regards to those other parts, but just not for the 2nd Amendment?
In my opinion, and the opinion of many, the framers' intent is the most important part of the constitution . Their intent was to create a nation where individual liberty was sacred. Any laws limiting individual liberty must therefore be made either with a clear view to prevent crime . And so far, no gun control laws have been shown to do that.
"Today, it just does not seem as important as Freedom of Speech or Due Process, etc."
Why is freedom of speech more important that the right to bear arms? To me, they are equally important expressions of the liberties we are all meant to enjoy. Since you obviously have some kind of ranking system, maybe you could number the Bill Of Rights in order of importance. I'd be interested to see which of your rights you're willing to give up first. Personally, you're going to have to take every single one from me by force. Too many have fought and died to ensure I have these rights for me to just hand them over.
- LagerHead
October 8, 2009 12:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It is one.
The right to bear arms is by intent and interpretation important to protect the other rights. If life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness were existentially guarunteed I see no reason to believe the framers would have considered self armament even a trifle.
It's really not that complicated. I don't rely on the Framers for any of my beliefs, especially after a good read of some of their actual agendas and beliefs. We like to pretend like their life was so simple and they were not political creatures back then, but it's false.
I rely on the Framers for the work they did. In creating a living document that is inherently mutable, we should be able to adapt it to our needs as we evolve. We might not be ready to put down all of our caveman tools yet, but we will never be done with free speech and expression, or equal and fair treatment under the law .
So I have no rank. Just an understanding that some of these ideas are becomming vestigial organs of sorts. Like the quartering of troops bit, ya know? Other's are not even mutable themselves, such as 9 and 10, that just express intent of the amendments in general.
I mean, all of these rights are based on rule of law . If through due process we change the law, our rights change. It's not about being willing to give them up. They are not property in any sense.
Here you use lots of flavor text and passionate phrases, but let's be clear. A nation is contrary to a state of sacred individual liberty. Responsibility is an existential fact of freedom, but in law, it has to be delineated. When a people unify into nation and submit to rule of law, they by definition sacrifice some individual liberties for the utilitarian good.
The framers were not trying to cheat this philosophy - it's a fundamental of modern liberalism. They wanted to ensure that this idea was not exploited to produce another authoritarian government under a different name. But the world was no less political and no less gritty.
I do not think there is any risk of the USA evolving to the point that Freedom of Speech, the Press, redress, and assembly are no longer part of a health democracy , or to the point when a legal system is not beholden to the people for equitable practices.
It really is not hard to see how we can maintain our borders or democratic processes without private ownership of 'arms'. We have done it for 150 years. If anything populist violence has been quelled by the government forces in spite of the 2nd Amendment such as (Kent State would be contrary, except the students were not armed - and hippies). I think their use during the Civil War is hard to explain in this context, since we were killing ourselves.
I have spent a lot of time in harms way mostly because of my appreciation of these liberty's.
- Submariner October 8, 2009 3:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
und so weiter
Either way, guns do not cause crime , but neither do they prevent it as much as they aggravate it. I firmly believe we should find a way to provide for each person and family a living wage, a fair shot at a place to live and a livelihood, and the basic civil services of modern society if we really want to end most of the crime in America. Too bad crime is such a big business in this country, or we might have had a chance at this. As is, it's too much to hope for universal health care , a living wage standard, and an end to the war on poor people, in my lifetime...
- Submariner October 5, 2009 12:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree with part of this.
"Either way, guns do not cause crime , but neither do they prevent it as much as they aggravate it."
True, guns do not cause crime, just like spoons do not cause obesity .
If they aggravated crime, why do Peace Officers wear them? To aggravate crime? I contend that they are worn to help the officers protect themselves and others. It is easily argued that this tool is very effective in the hands of someone who knows how, /and when/, to use it.
- SolarSanitizer
October 7, 2009 9:30AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not all crime
All that white collar stuff no one get's in trouble for since Dubya took office, they don't use guns , for instance.
But any crime going on will be made more dangerous, more damaging, and seductively easier to conduct.
I used a rifle to rescue a racoon once. You can use a pistol as a flowpot if you really want to.
But peace officers wear them in response to an escalation of force, and, to a lesser degree, as a deterrent. They do it to unaggravate the situation.
- Submariner October 7, 2009 9:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm with you on this.
"But any crime going on will be made more dangerous, more damaging, and seductively easier to conduct."
I agree.
"But peace officers wear them in response to an escalation of force, and, to a lesser degree, as a deterrent. They do it to unaggravate the situation."
Is it really that much of a stretch to see that even in a citizen's hands a firearm can deescalate a situation?
Setting: Bar-
Guy A punches guy B in the nose.
Guy B pulls a knife.
Bartender racks the slide of a pump shotgun, shouts at guy B to drop it. He does. Bartender calls the cops. The jukebox plays in the background but nobody seems to hear it...
Situation defused.
- SolarSanitizer
October 8, 2009 7:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Possible.
Probable?
My Grandma's tended bar in Texas for some 50+ years and all she's ever needed was a holler and a stern look.
Ideally, society will evolve to a point where not only will violence be an unacceptable means of accomplishing things, but also we will have conditions that mitigate the social factors of crime and level of awareness and selfcontrol that eliminates crimes of passion.
I don't offer this as a reason for gun control or not, but an obvious but often ignored alternative to the rugged each-for-his-own pragmatism that is usually the basis for the "need" for private gun ownership.
In other words, our goal is not the proper balance of weapon distribution, but a society where they are irrelevant in most if not all settings.
- Submariner October 8, 2009 12:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Until then?
This may never occur. When we get to that bridge, I'll cross it with you, but the facts on the ground are mighty different now and for the foreseeable future.
- SolarSanitizer
October 8, 2009 12:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Lay low, I guess.
I suppose I should be more proactive, being in the military , but I am torn.
For instance, as Gen Powell has declared, the US battle plan should always be to blitz with overwhelming numbers of the highest trained personnel armed with with superior technology . This should ensure minimal time and resource commitment and minimal allied casualties. I think this is ideal (in context of war) and certainly feasible ( we have the numbers, training, and weapons).
But we keep screwing it up anyway. So even from the tip of the spear, military isolation is looking much better, and not just in hindsight.
This allegory does not describe a view of intercitizen ROE. It's just my attitude on what the better of all options seem to be when cornered by pragmatism and compromised ideals.
- Submariner October 8, 2009 1:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.