How do we feel about this?

[Corso]

As for the 'he was found with an unregistered gun so he should go straight to jail for his mandatory 1 year minimum sentence' I'm not in support of that either. Due process IS important. There's been quite a few cases lately of police getting caught planting drugs on people, so...yeah, I'm all for due process.

Ok, I’ll concede the point. Due process is of course paramount.

As some would wish no guns in the USA, I was wishing law breakers would be punished quicker…both fantasy league type thoughts.

So yes, mr scumbag would have to serve after it’s proven in court he broke the law. Except, my core point is that practically NO ONE does any time on that Mandatory law anyway.

FYI: Scumbag did not bother to show up for his MA court date earlier in the same day he killed the Police Officer in Maine. Perhaps if he did go to court when he was supposed to, the Police Officer may be alive.

[jclay]

Common sense would be to get them out of the hands of civilians. Revise/reinterpret the 2nd thusly:

* 100% prohibition against civilian possession of semi and fully automatic firearms.
* Serious restrictions on possession of all other firearms. To me that means licensing, periodic training (with required proficiency standards), mandatory storage in gun safes and severe consequences for infractions. Not severe on the books but severe in real life; for example, your kid gets his hands on one of your firearms and does some damage...you're in jail with him and you're financially liable. Which reminds me, mandatory liability insurance with enormous minimums.
* Similar prohibitions/regulation of other weapons (bows, throwing stars, whatever) and consequences that just don't make it worthwhile
* Decriminalize drug use and treat it as the public health issue that it is. Legalize pot and similar. Not only is that the right thing to do in general, it would free up jail/prison space.

But culturally we aren't able to do common sense on this issue; not yet and probably never or at best long after I'm dust. And we'll continue to risk losing our democracy, not by relinquishing weapons, but by continuing to sell government off to industry.

Given that happy scenario then, sure, optimize and enforce the existing laws to the maximum but own up to the fact that we'll still eclipse other advanced countries in the firearms violence arena, and that one is OK with that....because tacitly we are.

[becomingblue]

Common sense would be to get them out of the hands of civilians. Revise/reinterpret the 2nd thusly:

* 100% prohibition against civilian possession of semi and fully automatic firearms.
* Serious restrictions on possession of all other firearms. To me that means licensing, periodic training (with required proficiency standards), mandatory storage in gun safes and severe consequences for infractions. Not severe on the books but severe in real life; for example, your kid gets his hands on one of your firearms and does some damage...you're in jail with him and you're financially liable. Which reminds me, mandatory liability insurance with enormous minimums.
* Similar prohibitions/regulation of other weapons (bows, throwing stars, whatever) and consequences that just don't make it worthwhile
* Decriminalize drug use and treat it as the public health issue that it is. Legalize pot and similar. Not only is that the right thing to do in general, it would free up jail/prison space.

But culturally we aren't able to do common sense on this issue; not yet and probably never or at best long after I'm dust. And we'll continue to risk losing our democracy, not by relinquishing weapons, but by continuing to sell government off to industry.

Given that happy scenario then, sure, optimize and enforce the existing laws to the maximum but own up to the fact that we'll still eclipse other advanced countries in the firearms violence arena, and that one is OK with that....because tacitly we are.

You are adamant in your outline of your path to eliminate guns, detailing rules, enforcement and penalties. And unless I’m reading too much into it, your goal is to eliminate personal gun possession. But instead of saying it, you’re making the possession of any gun so restrictive that’s it’ll be nearly impossible to comply. And your rules WILL be enforced to achieve that goal.
But later on, you let us know that if we don’t have common sense (which is common sense if one holds your views) we can just enforce the current rules and go down the path to destruction. Isn’t that what Corso is noting? That there are currently many rules related to gun usage, possession, etc., that are not being enforced. Why are you and others not upset about that? Why will future rules be enforced while current ones aren’t. It sounds like the argument has gone from gun regulation to gun elimination.

[woodworker]

I will be blunt. I don't see the need for semi-automatic weapons and I'm pretty skeptical of gun ownership overall. We don't live in the Wild West, and there's really no need for them.

But we do have the Second Amendment, which I think that the Court in a 5-4 decision (Heller, I believe) misinterpreted from militias to individual ownership of guns. We have to live with that, but it allows for many, many restrictions on ownership, and we should implement those.

I don't see how lax enforcement of current laws is an argument against stronger laws. The former doesn't nix the latter or argue against it. Rather, both should occur, and promptly given the daily carnage.

As to the argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people, I'm not buying that one either. By that logic, bombs don't kill people, people kill people. But we still regulate bombs (don't allow them), and relegate them to the field of battle, which is where guns should be.

As a country, we've acted as though we don't understand the phenomenon, and we talk of "tragedies," as though we are all living the Book of Job, and a whimsical god has brought, on a bet, suffering upon us. We do this even though there is data showing that a decrease in guns and assault weapons reduces gun deaths. Go figure.

There are certain issues where I understand the ongoing existence of a divergence that cannot be bridged. On abortion, people can just see things differently--is it just a speck of pre-human protoplasm, or is it a life. I get that. But this is not that difficult. It's not intractable. Let's not act like it is.

BTW, if I just offended anyone, my apologies in advance. Best to all of you.

You are adamant in your outline of your path to eliminate guns, detailing rules, enforcement and penalties. And unless I’m reading too much into it, your goal is to eliminate personal gun possession. But instead of saying it, you’re making the possession of any gun so restrictive that’s it’ll be nearly impossible to comply. And your rules WILL be enforced to achieve that goal.
But later on, you let us know that if we don’t have common sense (which is common sense if one holds your views) we can just enforce the current rules and go down the path to destruction. Isn’t that what Corso is noting? That there are currently many rules related to gun usage, possession, etc., that are not being enforced. Why are you and others not upset about that? Why will future rules be enforced while current ones aren’t. It sounds like the argument has gone from gun regulation to gun elimination.

[Bob Ross]

I don't see how lax enforcement of current laws is an argument against stronger laws. The former doesn't nix the latter or argue against it.

QFT! Thank you.

[taz]

Taz, I simplified the entire story to make it shorter. I’ve never, NEVER said guns for everyone, nor am I an NRA member, nor have I taken a “No gun control” stance. Just my facts. If you gleam anything from my past post, it’s that I believe in following the law. Before name calling and stone throwing, reply to what I type, not what you project on me.

My point - which you have pivoted away from - is this: Since 1975 my state has had a law about unregistered handguns (minimum 1 year jail sentence) and in the 43 years it’s been in place, less than a dozen people have served the year.

So as everyone screams for more gun control, I use Bartley-Fox as an example. Why have the gun law if you don’t enforce the gun law?
And why scream for more gun laws if you don’t enforce the one(s) we have?

Here’s an outdated wikipedia on the law: Bartley-Fox Law - Wikipedia

Googling will get you more info, about how few people actually do time, as the 1 year becomes a bartering tool between lawyers; “tell us what we want and we’ll drop that 1 year”... and a friend of mine who is a Mass Judge, has pretty much said , "yeah, maybe a dozen”. And thousands have been “caught” with illegal hand guns over the years.

Let’s see if the Commonwealth drops the one year, after the State of Maine lock Scumbag up for killing a police officer while he was out on bail.

Now my drift: I find it a bit sad that you came out straight away in defense of the “accused” and his rights--and showed a lack of empathy for the Police officer he murdered:

"As for the family of the fallen police officer, they've suffered a tragedy but it's no more a tragedy than that suffered by families of the wrongly accused/jailed and executed.”

You can apply “but it’s no more a tragedy than” fill in the blank to anything and everything: "Your house burned down, but look at the apartment building that also burned down", “Dog got hit by a car, sad, but no sadder than those dogs abandoned", etc, etc.

I think you know what I’m saying. It’s pretty dismissive.

Tone is difficult online. I don't think I was dismissive of the police officer's family's loss but a premature death, especially a preventable one, is always a tragedy regardless of the circumstances. I don't elevate the life of a police officer over the life of any other innocent victim though. If that makes me callous in your opinion, so be it.

My defense of the 'accused' is a defense of *all of us* and our rights. Without these and the rule of law, there's only a choice of anarchy or totalitarianism, ie a police state.

I can't comment on the state of enforcement of Mass' gun registration law. I only know it's one more *opportunity* to avoid an outcome like your example. In GA, we don't have any registration law and a carry permit is not even required in many circumstances (in a car for instance), so even the opportunity to intervene before a 'scumbag' kills a police officer in a similar scenario doesn't exist here.

The prosecution of crimes, or the lack thereof, is always going to be a case of scarce resources with the prosecutors and courts attempting to achieve the greatest good - and hopefully justice - with limited time and money and jail space. Plea deals are a necessary consequence of the limited resources.

I would also add that the effect of a law is not solely measured by how often violators are prosecuted but also by how many people are deterred from the prohibited behavior.

If I've misrepresented your views on gun rights and gun legislation, I stand corrected.

[BBB]

edit



First and foremost........I would like all driving laws enforced in the USA.

Back to programming.

Weapons involved in several US mass shootings were legally obtained.

Follow Australia.

Australia doesn't have a right to bare arms and hence gun control is much more easily attainable.

Getting guns out of people's hands (whether they have them legally or not) requires you to bin the second amendment. It's horribly antiquated and if an armed militia really wanted to storm the Bastille (so to speak) and get rid of the idiot in chief, the absence of a constitutional right is not going to stop that process.

However, and speaking from an Australian perspective, limiting access to guns is only one part of the equation. Australia, like many western liberal democracies, has all sorts of problems with mental health issues, drug problems and related to this, gang related violence, and serious inequality problems. Unfortunately Governments, particularly around election time, think things like tax cuts and harsh law and order policies will fix all manner of sins. They don't. But, it is very easy for politicians to bang the table and say "you will get an extra $10 a week in your pay and we'll lock the bad guys up". And hence this is what they do and it only exacerbates the problems. There's no long term view; providing tax cuts and at the same time progressively cutting funding to deal with mental health issues will mean there will be people out there who need help but are not getting it. Whether it is someone suffering from depression and choosing to take their own life, or someone with a serious problem who snaps and causes violence on others, in both cases it is our society that gets a collective black eye. So, while limiting access to guns may mean when the person with problems snaps they won't be able to respond by shooting others, it does not fix the underlying issue. Only long term policies that go to the heart of these issues will start to cure the problems. Sadly any fix won't happen during the course of one electoral cycle, but will take many, many years and tax payer funds to sort out. I'm not seeing many politicians out there willing to take a long term view and this is truly a sad state of affairs.

[jclay]

You are adamant in your outline of your path to eliminate guns, detailing rules, enforcement and penalties. And unless I’m reading too much into it, your goal is to eliminate personal gun possession. But instead of saying it, you’re making the possession of any gun so restrictive that’s it’ll be nearly impossible to comply. And your rules WILL be enforced to achieve that goal.
But later on, you let us know that if we don’t have common sense (which is common sense if one holds your views) we can just enforce the current rules and go down the path to destruction. Isn’t that what Corso is noting? That there are currently many rules related to gun usage, possession, etc., that are not being enforced. Why are you and others not upset about that? Why will future rules be enforced while current ones aren’t. It sounds like the argument has gone from gun regulation to gun elimination.

You are indeed reading too much into it. The goal is to reduce per capita firearms violence by a couple orders of magnitude. Based on the data I've seen the correlation between firearms concentration in a population and firearms violence rates is rock solid. More guns = more gun violence. As far as I can tell that's about as certain as F=MA.

Compliance would be just about the same as it is for automobiles though I would like to see the laws in both arenas enforced. In the case of automobiles biased thusly: Hit a pedestrian or cyclist and there had better be an extremely good reason...oh, gee, I didn't see them doesn't cut it. And if speeding is involved you're in a 2x world of hurt. It is (should be) the automobile driver's responsibility to not hit either. Slow down, give way, use your judgement to adjust and avoid. Guns: Leave one unsecured and your kid gets it and causes harm? You and your kid are in a serious world of shit. Shoot someone accidentally while hunting, same. If you aren't absolutely certain of what you're firing at you don't pull the trigger. It's real simple.

All that seems pretty reasonable to me and I don't go around waving the Personal Responsibility flag. Those that do should be all over it.

Example of common sense approaches to problems:
Step 1: Examine how others accomplish what you want to accomplish (Europe, UK, Japan, etc.)
Step 2: Proceed on that basis.

[bigbill]

Example of common sense approaches to problems:
Step 1: Examine how others accomplish what you want to accomplish (Europe, UK, Japan, etc.)
Step 2: Proceed on that basis.

The US is nothing like those countries. Our Constitution has firearm ownership as a right, our culture developed differently as a nation of frontiers, Revolutionary and Civil Wars, and being victorious in the World Wars. The UK and Japan don't have a recent history of gun ownership, their culture behaves differently because of it. I think it's a stretch to say the US culture could change to be like other nations with stricter gun laws. I think you'd have to Constitutional Convention to change the 2nd and that would never fly.

[theflashunc]

The US is nothing like those countries. Our Constitution has firearm ownership as a right, our culture developed differently as a nation of frontiers, Revolutionary and Civil Wars, and being victorious in the World Wars. The UK and Japan don't have a recent history of gun ownership, their culture behaves differently because of it. I think it's a stretch to say the US culture could change to be like other nations with stricter gun laws. I think you'd have to Constitutional Convention to change the 2nd and that would never fly.

The interpretation that law abiding citizens have a right to own handguns in defense of house and home was enshrined as early in our country's history as 2008 with the Heller decision. In a long line of bad decisions from Scalia, this may be his worst. This notion that the 2nd Amendment is a hallowed right to own guns is a new and largely aberrant one in our nation's legal history.

There is a longer established history of a prohibition of weapons of war being sold to civilians for large chunks of the 20th century.

The culture of the US is no different than any other industrialized nation. The only difference is our ready access to firearms. We do not have a monopoly on the angry, the aggreived, the mentally ill, or serial killers or domestic abusers or all the like. The only difference is our laissez faire beliefs in a hackjob interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that makes some folks a lot of money by preying on the fears of some, and leaving a lot of people dealing with a trail of violence and death.

But sure, we've amended and repealed the Constitution before. I'm all in favor of repealing the second. No more guns.

[BBB]

The US is nothing like those countries. Our Constitution has firearm ownership as a right, our culture developed differently as a nation of frontiers, Revolutionary and Civil Wars, and being victorious in the World Wars. The UK and Japan don't have a recent history of gun ownership, their culture behaves differently because of it. I think it's a stretch to say the US culture could change to be like other nations with stricter gun laws. I think you'd have to Constitutional Convention to change the 2nd and that would never fly.

Sure the US is different, but I think the reasons you pose don't really stand up to scrutiny. Take the UK. The right to bear arms that is central to this problem, came from the UK. The UK was wracked by civil war for a long, long time (and hence where the 'right' was found - I'll say invented - when one side at one point in time had their arms taken away) and was either physically fighting in Europe or faced external threats from European nations or groupings of nations. It was the global superpower before two world wars ground it down (despite being on the 'winning' side). So, some of the factors you cite can be applied to other places and yet they do not seem to have the same gun problem.

The so-called 'right' is the problem and to have meaningful reform, the right would need to be removed.

[fiveller]

The US is nothing like those countries. Our Constitution has firearm ownership as a right, our culture developed differently as a nation of frontiers, Revolutionary and Civil Wars, and being victorious in the World Wars. The UK and Japan don't have a recent history of gun ownership, their culture behaves differently because of it. I think it's a stretch to say the US culture could change to be like other nations with stricter gun laws. I think you'd have to Constitutional Convention to change the 2nd and that would never fly.

Our constitution was not sent down from the heavens. Once upon a time, it counted certain persons as only 3/5s of a whole because they were slaves. Another time, it prohibited the sale of alcohol. Today, it has an emoluments clause that is, for all practical purposes, ignored.

But that's okay. Let's keep pretending that we are somehow unique in the world and that all of our gun deaths are caused by video games, the mentally ill, etc which don't exist anywhere else.

Source: U.S. Has 31st Highest Rate Of Gun Violence In The World : Goats and Soda : NPR

[vertical_doug]

As an American living in London, it seems the British still harbor resentment over the war and if you give up your guns, the sneaky Queen will try something. She probably remembers the old stories about crazy King George and wants to set it right.

Lin-Manuel Miranda that great patriot, is trying to warn us about this. That is the point of his musical.

[BBB]

The Australian humorous take...

[sine]

Edit

our culture developed differently as a nation of frontiers, Revolutionary and Civil Wars, and being victorious in the World Wars.

Canada developed much like the USA but diverged when it came to gun ownership.

[mzilliox]

how about this....revolutionary thought...
no one should carry a gun.

you don't need it in your car, your day wont change when you don't have it, no one else will have them and as such there will not be any problems in the case of "I wish I had it with me"

it so simple, yet so difficult.

[mzilliox]

Exactly.

Until a couple of years ago I often wondered what death & maiming rates would be required to get our gun culture folks to agree that guns actually are the problem and that serious firearms control was necessary. Sadly it appears that there isn't one. The empowerment fantasy they provide is simply too strong.

It's quite remarkable; as with universal health care there is a large body of real world data that makes the case for approaches that work. Yet we continue to ignore it.

Surprised? We are the country who eats Mc Donalds knowing its killing us. We are the country who smokes despite all info saying smoking kills you faster. We are a country who seems determined to prove to the rest of the world that science and evidence is bullshit

[mzilliox]

The US is nothing like those countries. Our Constitution has firearm ownership as a right, our culture developed differently as a nation of frontiers, Revolutionary and Civil Wars, and being victorious in the World Wars. The UK and Japan don't have a recent history of gun ownership, their culture behaves differently because of it. I think it's a stretch to say the US culture could change to be like other nations with stricter gun laws. I think you'd have to Constitutional Convention to change the 2nd and that would never fly.

I hate this argument as it is complete an utterly American and false. Our nation is not exceptional in any of these ways. Most nations were born of struggle, with frontiers and revolutionaries, this is how it all started. Whats exceptional about is is how we used these guns to make a lot of money very fast from resources that had been previously held communaly by the local folks. Guns carried by guys, (some would say good guys, most would assume bad guys) took things away from others, sometimes this is called stealing. Then we made some more money, and decided making money was fun, so we built more guns to take more things from more people.

So our "culture" of guns seems to come from a long history of criminals and warmongers. is this something to strive for as a culture? something to hold dear? we are not exceptional, some weird right to own guns does not add to our exceptional status. we are just humans who happen to be here rather than there, how bizarre that this should allow us to think we have a right to as many guns as we please while those elsewhere have mistakenly stomped on their own freedoms (not like kids' freedoms, but grown adults who really really like shooting guns). so weird.

[bigbill]

I hate this argument as it is complete an utterly American and false. Our nation is not exceptional in any of these ways. Most nations were born of struggle, with frontiers and revolutionaries, this is how it all started. Whats exceptional about is is how we used these guns to make a lot of money very fast from resources that had been previously held communaly by the local folks. Guns carried by guys, (some would say good guys, most would assume bad guys) took things away from others, sometimes this is called stealing. Then we made some more money, and decided making money was fun, so we built more guns to take more things from more people.

So our "culture" of guns seems to come from a long history of criminals and warmongers. is this something to strive for as a culture? something to hold dear? we are not exceptional, some weird right to own guns does not add to our exceptional status. we are just humans who happen to be here rather than there, how bizarre that this should allow us to think we have a right to as many guns as we please while those elsewhere have mistakenly stomped on their own freedoms (not like kids' freedoms, but grown adults who really really like shooting guns). so weird.

I'm not trying to defend the history of the US, but it is unique due to size and how it was settled. It's also far from a homogeneous population so much of gun politics is regional. You live in Oregon, it's no different and in some ways even worse than many states when it comes to freedoms. Like all the other states, it exists because of European settlers that exploited resources and forced the people off the land, likely land you live on now. Noble statements about the evils of guns are great, but if they're written in the US, it's highly likely the author is living on land taken by the force or threat of firearms in the last 200 years.

[dgaddis]

Surprised? We are the country who eats Mc Donalds knowing its killing us. We are the country who smokes despite all info saying smoking kills you faster. We are a country who seems determined to prove to the rest of the world that science and evidence is bullshit

Every country does this. When we visited England last year (London especially) it seemed like WAY more people smoked there than here. Smoking, in the US, is very much in decline. Except at country music concerts.