Have we become comfortably numb

[Kevin]

Every country in the world has pockets of high crime.

But hey, if you compare the highest crime pocket of Australia with the lowest crime area of the USA then it might be a good argument for you to "prove" more guns = less crime.

You didn't really answer why that part of Australia is a high crime pocket, but looking at news articles on it, it seems that part of Australia has a higher percentage of poor Aboriginals who are more prone to drug and alcohol fueled violence. We have that same situation here in the US. There are parts of the US, mostly rural Western states with different demographics, that have a very low rate of gun deaths, approaching that of Australia as a whole. We also have cities that have very high rates of gun deaths. The majority of our gun related murders occur in the cities where drug and gang related violence is the leading cause. But what are we looking at doing now? We are looking at releasing more non-violent drug dealers from prison. Our murder rate has actually dropped since we got tougher with drug dealing laws, but now we are looking at undoing that. I don't think someone should be in prison for having a bag of weed, we need to get smarter about our drug laws, but I fail to see how releasing more meth, crack and heroin dealers back to streets is a part of the solution to gun violence, when drugs play such a large part in our gun related deaths. Drugs for the most part are illegal in the US, but somehow it's very easy to go to any city and score whatever suits your fancy. Can guns not be smuggled to criminals as well?

Kids had access to guns when I was growing up. The opening day of deer season was counted as a holiday from our school due to the number of young males that weren't going to be at school on that day anyways. So why the school violence now? I would say it's the general lack of parenting, with more kids growing up without attentive parents, and a system that makes it much harder to have someone involuntarily committed. Lawsuits by the ACLU has now made it almost impossible to force treatment on mentally unstable people until they actually do commit a violent act. By the way, Australia seems to have a system that makes it much easier to have someone committed. And you are doing the sick person a favor by making them get the treatment that they need. How many more times to do we need to read about the loner kid with obvious problems and the parents either don't have a clue as to what there kid is doing or just plain don't care?

These mass killings being committed by demented individuals is a tragedy for sure, but it's not one that I fret about for my own daughters safety. Over 3000 young drivers are killed in the US due to texting while driving. How many young people in comparison died from school shootings? I taught my daughter not to touch my guns, and I'll preach and warn her about the dangers of driving when not done responsibly. But then, I was more than a semen donor to my wife, I'm a father with an interest is raising his child.

Due to our demographics, mental health system, drug problems, and other factors, I don't think it's easy to say that if you just do this, you'll be the same like any other country. We produce many more serial killers than any other country, and 80% of the time they kill by other means than a gun. Why is this?

As an owner of about a dozen firearms, I don't look at them as being made to kill people anymore than my vehicles in the driveway. Some were passed onto me from relatives and have never been shot. Some are shotguns of different gauges used for hunting or clay shooting in different situations. Some rifles are used for squirrel hunting, some for deer hunting. I have pistols that are just for plinking at cans and paper. But the last time I purchased a gun, it took me 9 hours to complete the purchase. I went to Bass Pro shops for a single shot 22 rifle called a Crickett, to start teaching my daughter how to shoot. The salesman made the necessary check with the state, and because my name must be similar to someone who is on a black list, I had to wait for a manual check to be done by the state police. I waited for 4 hours, but the salesman said it probably wasn't going to go through that day. I then went to a store more local to me to purchase the rifle, and again had the same issue and had to wait another 5 hours before the check passed me through. I don't see where purchasing a gun is really all that easy, it took me a total of 9 hours to purchase a pea shooter. So now I want more restrictions and checks when I go to purchase a firearm?

In short, as long as criminals with lengthy records are allowed to roam the streets. As long as obviously mentally ill people are allowed to stay untreated and unwatched. As long as drugs are readily available that turn people violent and leave them completely without their senses, I am not inclined to support a law that makes it that much tougher for those of us who are sane, law abiding individuals to protect myself and family.

 

[RonR]

Isn't there some admonition against discussing politics on this audio forum?

 

[Gordon Gray]

Kevin,

I haven't heard anyone, including the President, that wants to make it "tougher" for law abiding citizens to procure a gun. I believe that's a "knee jerk" reaction to a very complex issue and creates unnecessary, unfounded paranoia as seen by the steep rise in ammunition sales post Obama election. It also builds walls and not bridges and is not conducive to having a "consensus building" conversation.

Two items that I believe most folks can agree upon, including many NRA members:

1) Background checks, similar to what occurs at an authorized gun dealer, at gun shows before anyone can purchase a firearm.

2) Banning assault weapons like the ones used in the military that are specifically designed to kill people very quickly.

I fail to see how the two above actions would "burden" law abiding citizens who wish to own firearms for personal protection and / or hunting, target shooting, etc.

3,000 kids dying as a result of "texting". That's their irresponsible choice and very different than innocent people being killed in a mass shooting.

Best,

Gordon

 

[Gordon Gray]

Ron,

Don't think so. That's why there's an "off topic" section.

And everyone has been respectful to date. What's the harm?

GG

 

[RonR]

Cries for more "gun control" have flooded opinion and editorial pages -- and this audio forum -- in the wake of recent school shootings. We in America are entitled to our personal opinions. We on this MLO forum are entitled to our personal political opinions. But the opinion that Americans do not have a right to own firearms, and the assertion that the Constitution does not protect the right of individuals to own firearms, is absolutely factually false and is incorrect as a matter of law.

In 2008, the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use within the home in federal enclaves. In 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. __ (2010), the Supreme Court held that the right of an individual to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. That American citizens have a right to own firearms is conclusive and irrefutable.

People who have an emotional revulsion to firearms in general and who respond to shooting tragedies with well-intentioned proposals to prohibit or restrict law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms must remember that possessing a firearm is not like possessing a boat or a golf club. The possession of boats and golf clubs are not enshrined in our Constitution as fundamental liberties.

The right to own a firearm was considered by both the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 and by the current Supreme Court to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion. These liberties are guaranteed to each of us by the first two amendments to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.

We may grit our teeth when watch the Ku Klux Klan use the rights guaranteed to Americans in the First Amendment to march and to make inflammatory statements with which we disagree. But would we say that because a few kooks use these rights to upset us we should restrict freedom of speech and peaceable assembly for all of the rest of us?

Of course firearms can be used by criminals and the mentally ill to commit crimes and to kill innocent people. But so can knives, cars and hammers. A speeding truck can cause the same mayhem as an illegally fired handgun.

Guns are the most effective way for individuals to protect themselves and their loved ones from attack. So the right question to ask is not whether guns can be used to commit crimes; the right question to ask is: "Are guns used more often to prevent crimes or to commit crimes, and do they save more lives than they take?" The research of John R. Lott and numerous other academics has proven beyond question that crimes are stopped with guns about five times as frequently as crimes are committed with guns. The irrefutable fact is that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. States which allow law-abiding citizens to carry guns experience the lowest rates of violent crimes. Criminals are much less likely to attack people if they fear that their intended victims might be able to defend themselves. Since criminals do not know who is and who is not carrying a concealed handgun, if even only a few citizens actually carry concealed handguns they effectively reduce the likelihood of attack for everyone else.

Would more laws regulating firearms have prevented the killings in Oregon, Arizona or Texas? Do laws prohibiting the sale and possession of illegal drugs prevent drug addicts from buying drugs?

The answer is not to restrict the firearms rights of law-abiding citizens. The answer is that the mentally ill should not be allowed to buy firearms. Mental illness and crime reporting requirements should be tightened. States must diligently submit mental illness and criminal records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System so it can red flag individuals who should not be buying firearms.

Difficult though it may be to understand when we see crimes committed with firearms and the tragic loss of innocent life, we must remember that firearms are not like any of the other things we own. The Founders of America saw fit to place firearms in a highly exalted position in our framework of individual liberties.

As with the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment are not absolute. Some regulations regarding firearms are without doubt Constitutional. As we consider reasonable regulations of firearms we must resist the temptation to abrogate the rights of many due to the illegal actions of a very few.

For example, a law requiring background checks at gun shows, similar to what occurs at an authorized gun dealer, is Constitutional. I would vote for such a law.

Banning so-called “assault rifles” is much more complicated because, unfortunately, most people who use the term “assault rifle” do not know enough about firearms to know what they are talking about. Nothing that is actually an "assault rifle" is legal in America (except under special, very strict rules of the National Firearms Act for Class III firearms and in Nevada). An "assault rifle” is a full-automatic rifle -- a machine gun -- on which if you pull the trigger the rifle keeps firing. Only a machine gun is an assault rifle. Only this kind of rifle is a military weapon.

Rifles legal in America are semi-automatic (one discharge for each discrete pull of the trigger) firearms. Such rifles look "military" because they have pistol grips and they are made of black plastic or black metal. But a pistol grip means nothing in terms of how the gun operates. The cosmetics of a gun mean nothing. Whether a rifle has a wood stock or a plastic stock tells us nothing about how it operates.

I believe that a law banning semi-automatic firearms is unconstitutional. See Ronald S. Resnick, Private Arms as the Palladium of Liberty: The Meaning of the Second Amendment, U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 77 (1999).

 

[Kevin]

Kevin,

I haven't heard anyone, including the President, that wants to make it "tougher" for law abiding citizens to procure a gun. I believe that's a "knee jerk" reaction to a very complex issue and creates unnecessary, unfounded paranoia as seen by the steep rise in ammunition sales post Obama election. It also builds walls and not bridges and is not conducive to having a "consensus building" conversation.

Two items that I believe most folks can agree upon, including many NRA members:

1) Background checks, similar to what occurs at an authorized gun dealer, at gun shows before anyone can purchase a firearm.

2) Banning assault weapons like the ones used in the military that are specifically designed to kill people very quickly.

I fail to see how the two above actions would "burden" law abiding citizens who wish to own firearms for personal protection and / or hunting, target shooting, etc.

3,000 kids dying as a result of "texting". That's their irresponsible choice and very different than innocent people being killed in a mass shooting.

Best,

Gordon

How many of the recent mass shootings would not have occurred if those two things you have suggested were implemented? Having an assault rifle ban would be like having a ban on sport cars. Assault rifles have a different appearance, but do not fire bullets any quicker than any other semi-automatic weapon. Just like you can have a luxury sedan that can be just as quick as a good number of sports cars, so what good would a ban on sports cars really do if you wanted to control people speeding? I would not really be bothered by those two things, it's that those two things aren't going to put a miniscule dent in the problem. If a law is going to be implemented, have one that will actually work, not one that is there just to say we tried "something".

I am not a member of the NRA, and I see some things differently than they do. But honestly, are they truly the problem people make them out to be? I have yet to see data that shows NRA leaders or members are committing mass shootings or other gun related violence. I see Hollywood as perhaps a bigger problem. Many actors and actresses have come out calling for gun control, but look at the movies that they produce, it's full of violence that quite often is glorified. When you have a person who is mentally sick, what does such movies or violent video games play a part in their behavior? I would say it plays just as a big a part in our violent gun culture as anything the NRA is doing.

I disagree that the president hasn't called for making it tougher to purchase a gun. After the shooting he said, "We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it." Well, Great Britain has one of the toughest requirements for a citizen to purchase a firearm, and Australia has quite an involved process as well. It would be "tougher" for me to purchase the guns that I currently own in those countries.

You can say that kids texting and driving is a only a problem for themselves, but when they go skidding across the opposite lane of the highway, anyone is at risk. But I do understand that isn't an apples to apples comparison, I'm merely suggesting that our kids have quite a list of things that put there lives most at danger before you get down to being killed at school. A mass school shooting as tragic as it is, isn't what I focus on in keeping my own daughter safe.

But if I were a lawmaker, I would pass those two things, if and only, I could add a couple of other things that might actually reduce gun violence. First, keep people who are a proven threat in jail. How many crimes do you read about where someone is killed, only to see a lengthy prior rap sheet on the offender? Why is a person given so many chances to do harm to others? Also, make it easier to have people committed for mental health problems. It is not only safer for others, but is safer for them. Our homeless rate went way up when we made it harder to commit people for treatment. But what is more humane, keeping them on the streets without treatment, or forcing them to get treatment that they desperately need, but are too sick to see it for the themselves? Most mentally ill people go about life without being a danger to others, but there is no argument that someone who would shoot at kids in a school is mentally sick. In everyone of these cases, the signs were there but were largely ignored. Isn't that really the problem?

 

[Gordon Gray]

Part of it. 300,000,000 guns might also be part of it but that's just my anecdotal opinion. I know others see no relationship between the number of guns in the USA and gun related fatalities.

But you are correct that there are other problems that exist in our country that can be connected to gun related deaths.

 

[amey01]

You didn't really answer why that part of Australia is a high crime pocket, but looking at news articles on it, it seems that part of Australia has a higher percentage of poor Aboriginals who are more prone to drug and alcohol fueled violence. ........ sane, law abiding individuals to protect myself and family.

Acknowledged your post. I won't reply because we are not talking about drugs, alcohol, criminal gangs, cars in driveways, sending text messages, and every other problem with the world today.

Yes, there are a lot of problems in the world today. And yes - gun control won't solve all of them.

But in this thread, we are talking about guns.

 

[amey01]

How many of the recent mass shootings would not have occurred if those two things you have suggested were implemented?

And how many have been prevented by the 300,000,00 guns being carried around by citizens "just trying to protect themselves"?

 

[amey01]

But if I were a lawmaker, I would pass those two things, if and only, I could add a couple of other things that might actually reduce gun violence. First, keep people who are a proven threat in jail. How many crimes do you read about where someone is killed, only to see a lengthy prior rap sheet on the offender? Why is a person given so many chances to do harm to others? Also, make it easier to have people committed for mental health problems. It is not only safer for others, but is safer for them. Our homeless rate went way up when we made it harder to commit people for treatment. But what is more humane, keeping them on the streets without treatment, or forcing them to get treatment that they desperately need, but are too sick to see it for the themselves? Most mentally ill people go about life without being a danger to others, but there is no argument that someone who would shoot at kids in a school is mentally sick. In everyone of these cases, the signs were there but were largely ignored. Isn't that really the problem?

I agree 101% with you here.........

I for one am incredibly sick of hearing about crimes where the perpetrator was "known to police". If he was so known for his criminal ways, what the bleeping fcuk was he doing out on the streets!!!

 

[Kevin]

Acknowledged your post. I won't reply because we are not talking about drugs, alcohol, criminal gangs, cars in driveways, sending text messages, and every other problem with the world today.

Yes, there are a lot of problems in the world today. And yes - gun control won't solve all of them.

But in this thread, we are talking about guns.

I guess it's hard for me to understand why someone in Australia, would be so dismayed at the gun violence here in America, when you have a territory in your own country that has one of the highest murder rates of anywhere in the world. Does it only matter how a person is killed? Being closer to home, I would think you would be much more dismayed about that. But my point is that there are factors, other than guns themselves, that drive people towards violence. Guns are a tool a person can use, but apparently, those in the Northern Territory are finding plenty of options to kill each other using other means.

This thread was not just about guns, it was about "people" using guns to shoot other "people". Here in America, I don't see how it's possible to talk about gun violence without mentioning drugs, gangs, mental health and other factors that drive the "people" to pull the trigger on someone else. It goes hand in hand in my opinion. Some of the states here in the US, have a very high number of guns per capita, and yet they aren't necessarily the same states with the highest gun related murder rates. Wyoming I believe has by far the highest number of guns per capita of any of our states, and yet has one of the lowest gun murder rates. If the number of guns, by itself, were the main driving force behind the murder rates, how does that compute? It computes because of the makeup of the individuals in that state who own the guns.

 

[Kevin]

And how many have been prevented by the 300,000,00 guns being carried around by citizens "just trying to protect themselves"?

I am by no means under any impression that the 300,000,000 guns are in the hands of people for defense only. But if we want to make a law to limit the number of mass shootings or just gun violence in general, doesn't it make sense to pass a law that actually has a chance to do just that? Almost all of the mass shootings has been done with guns that were legally obtained by someone going through a background check and I think a vast majority didn't use any so called "assault weapons". So the question, in my admittedly imperfect mind, makes sense. We are discussing creating laws that would have had no or very little effect over the mass shootings that we say we need the laws to stop. At least pass a law that brings a closer to our goal.

 

[amey01]

I am by no means under any impression that the 300,000,000 guns are in the hands of people for defense only. But if we want to make a law to limit the number of mass shootings or just gun violence in general, doesn't it make sense to pass a law that actually has a chance to do just that? Almost all of the mass shootings has been done with guns that were legally obtained by someone going through a background check and I think a vast majority didn't use any so called "assault weapons". So the question, in my admittedly imperfect mind, makes sense. We are discussing creating laws that would have had no or very little effect over the mass shootings that we say we need the laws to stop. At least pass a law that brings a closer to our goal.

Yes, there are extraneous reasons that bring people to pull the trigger. But I don't think the USA has any greater problem with drugs, domestic violence, mental health or any other of these extraneous reasons than any other country in the world.

So what's different about the USA? Why do we keep hearing about mass shootings in schools, week after week? Month after month from the USA, but rarely (never?) from any other country in the world?

The only difference between the USA and Australia (or Great Britain or any other civilised country in the world for that matter) is gun laws.

Surely you can see that?

 

[twich54]

Yes, there are extraneous reasons that bring people to pull the trigger. But I don't think the USA has any greater problem with drugs, domestic violence, mental health or any other of these extraneous reasons than any other country in the world.

So what's different about the USA? Why do we keep hearing about mass shootings in schools, week after week? Month after month from the USA, but rarely (never?) from any other country in the world?

The only difference between the USA and Australia (or Great Britain or any other civilised country in the world for that matter) is gun laws.

Surely you can see that?

Adam,

first of, do YOU know how many gun laws (in total) we have in this country ? I doubt you do, for I'd bet we have more than any or most (as you say civilized) countries in the World. The problem with so many of our laws is the pathetic judicial system and loose enforcement of said laws. Do you know what a 'straw purchase is' ? if you don't then you need to understand what problems it creates and in the case of my home state, some of the pathetic prosecution of such crimes.

 

[amey01]

pathetic judicial system and loose enforcement of said laws.

Again - agree 100%

But to add to my previous post - I don't think you can call the judicial system out as the reason for the USA having such a high rate of gun homicide. In fact, the USA's judicial system is probably one of the best in the world. Certainly better than ours from what I can see.

straw purchase

Of course people can illegally obtain weapons. But in the vast majority of cases, they have to exist legally first before people can illegally obtain them!

 

[RonR]

And how many have been prevented by the 300,000,00 guns being carried around by citizens "just trying to protect themselves"?

Dear amey01,

As I wrote above (please see post #105):

1) The number of guns is largely irrelevant. Does it matter if a law-abiding citizen has one firearm or ten firearms? Is an automobile enthusiast who owns seven cars more likely to drive drunk and kill a pedestrian than if he has only two cars?

The logically correct question to ask is not whether guns can be used to commit crimes; the logically correct question to ask is: "Are guns used more often to prevent crimes or to commit crimes, and do they save more lives than they take?" The research of John R. Lott and numerous other academics has proven beyond question that crimes are stopped with guns about five times as frequently as crimes are committed with guns. The irrefutable fact is that states in America with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes.

2) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not primarily about personal self-defense. I know it is difficult and puzzling for citizens who live in countries either with no written constitution (like the UK) or with a written constitution but which does not include explicit limitations on the power of the government over individuals to guarantee the protection of certain enumerated liberties (such as Australia). There is a whole political culture and legislative history in the USA about protecting specific enumerated rights of Americans from infringement by the government. It is a concept which is alien to most nation's political systems and political cultures. But it is one of the main reasons why the USA was founded.

From the point of view of American legislative history and political culture the Second Amendment is not primarily about personal self-defense. It may seem anachronistic in this day and age, but the Second Amendment is about the citizens of America retaining the ability to overthrow an irredeemably tyrannical government which has violated the U.S. Constitution.

I understand why people from other countries do not understand this important American background, but it is disturbing when Americans are so uneducated about their own political heritage.

Ron

 

[amey01]

Anything I say now is just repeating myself so I'll finish off with this:

 

[RonR]

Dear amey01,

I was hoping for a more thoughtful and reflective reply.

 

[slowGEEZR]

I think the 2nd amendment should be reevaluated. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." To me and many others that means that we need a well regulated military force to protect the security of the United States. At the time it was written, we did not have the superior armed forces that we have today and the people were extremely important to the line of defense. We were a brand new country, not nearly as populated as the well established countries in Europe, therefore armed citizenry made survival sense against threats. That is not true today.

 

[RonR]

I think the 2nd amendment should be reevaluated.

You certainly are entitled to your personal opinion. You are free to disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court's declaration as to the meaning of the Second Amendment.

But is your disagreement based on any actual understanding of Constitutional law and the origin of the Second Amendment amendment or the legislative history and political culture behind it, or is your disagreement based simply on your personal opinion, because you know better?

Many Americans today think they would like to re-evaluate the First Amendment. Are there any other guarantees of personal liberties in the Bill of Rights you feel like throwing away?

Fortunately, the Constitution, enforced by the U.S. Supreme Court, protects minority opinions from tyranny by the majority.