Gun Politics

[Remus West]

Full auto rifles and pistols were both regulated. Regulating semi-auto rifles out leaves semi-auto pistols in, which does nothing productive. And you have yet to sell me on the benefits to justify the cost. Four times as many people were beaten to death with or without weapons than were murdered by a rifle. More than 2.5 times as many people were stabbed to death.

And semi-auto is effectively the baseline of firearm technology these days. You're not getting back to the day of single-action revolvers and bolt-action rifles.

How many times did someone go to beat another person to death and accidentally beat the 2 year old next to them instead? There may be more deaths due to beating but there are fewer children (or anyone else) accidentally killed due to beatings meant for another. If someone is intent on murder they will find a way. Why not limit their access to the easiest method?

They and the elderly seem to be safer than anyone else.

The lowest rates are for children younger than 12 and for adults ages 65 and older.

Again, target the biggest problems, not the ones that get the most press or the biggest emotional response.

By age group, 69% of gun homicide victims are ages 18 to 40, a proportion that has changed little since 1993. These groups also have the highest homicide rates: In 2010, there were 10.7 gun homicides per 100,000 people ages 18 to 24, compared with 6.7 among those ages 25 to 40, the next highest rate.
...
Younger adults are disproportionately likely to be firearms homicide victims. In 2010, young adults ages 18 to 24 were 30% of gun homicide victims in 2010, a higher likelihood than their 10% share of the population would suggest. Similarly, in 2010, people ages 25 to 40 accounted for 40% of gun homicide victims, though they were 21% of the population that year.

You completely ignore/miss the point. When was the last time someone set out to beat another person to death and accidentally beat a different innocent person to death by accident regardless of their age. Guns killed many many more people by accident than beatings so your whole "more likely to be beaten to death" scenario is garbage. The two actions are not equivalent even if they have the same ending for the victim. Same with stabbings. Also, where are your statistics to show how many people survived a beating versus how many people survived being shot? Stabbed versus shot?

[Zaxxon]

It's so simple.

(NYT Op-Ed by John Paul Stevens suggesting that all we must do is repeal the second amendment...)

[Blackhawk]

A lot of it, I think, comes down to a point that's been brought up before: Do we want to spend what leverage we may gain to address current perceptions of mass shootings, or reduce shooting deaths?

The use of military-looking semi-auto rifles in shootings is almost like a fashion trend. It's what the cool kids on the news are doing. It's mass-media confirmation bias. The actual breakdown of statistics, though, shows that semi-auto handguns are far more likely to be used in mass shootings, and if you look at shooting deaths overall that becomes overwhelmingly more likely.

The point being that banning semi-auto rifles would take a tremendous effort with very little payoff when it comes to actually achieving what we say we want to achieve.

[PLW]

The point being that banning semi-auto rifles would take a tremendous effort with very little payoff when it comes to actually achieving what we say we want to achieve.

This argument makes sense to me.

[Kurth]

Justice Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

I continue to believe that until the 2nd Amendment is resigned to the scrap heap, meaningful - substantial - gun regulation is next to impossible.

[Zaxxon]

Justice Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

Only 3 posts away...

[Kurth]

Oh. Shit.

[Isgrimnur]

You completely ignore/miss the point. When was the last time someone set out to beat another person to death and accidentally beat a different innocent person to death by accident regardless of their age. Guns killed many many more people by accident than beatings so your whole "more likely to be beaten to death" scenario is garbage. The two actions are not equivalent even if they have the same ending for the victim. Same with stabbings. Also, where are your statistics to show how many people survived a beating versus how many people survived being shot? Stabbed versus shot?

I’ll be happy to review those statistics when you present them.

[malchior]

Hope for repeal of the 2nd amendment is just shy of wishing upon a star. A 2nd civil war is probably more likely. Especially since any sincere effort to repeal the 2nd would lead to that.

[hepcat]

I would tend to agree. That's just not going to happen. At least not in my lifetime.

Although I said the same thing about the country's views on gay marriage, and the majority seems to have come around over the last few years.

...sadly, asshats like Pence are in charge right now.

[hepcat]

Sigh...my far right extremist coworker is filling his Facebook page with nothing but hateful posts about the kids from Parkland the last few days. What a despicable piece of shit. Because he doesn’t agree with him, he’s calling them commies and sheep now.

Unfortunately he’s fucking up his own kids now by filling them with the same hate. I truly feel bad for them.

So now he's posting WW2 era pictures of Hitler Youth and comparing them to the teens protesting. One of the partners in my firm stopped by my desk this morning and told me his wife had unfriended him (he's friended most of his coworkers) as she thinks he's acting unhinged with all this crap. And that he agrees with her that the guy should dial it back.

I doubt they'll say anything, but the schmuck has friended more than a few of our clients over the years. This can't look good for us.

[Blackhawk]

I would tend to agree. That's just not going to happen. At least not in my lifetime.

Although I said the same thing about the country's views on gay marriage, and the majority seems to have come around over the last few years.

...sadly, asshats like Pence are in charge right now.

If not a straight up repeal, an amendment to it that clarifies its limits might be slightly more plausible.

It's still wishing on a star, but it is a slightly closer star.

[El Guapo]

I would tend to agree. That's just not going to happen. At least not in my lifetime.

Although I said the same thing about the country's views on gay marriage, and the majority seems to have come around over the last few years.

...sadly, asshats like Pence are in charge right now.

If not a straight up repeal, an amendment to it that clarifies its limits might be slightly more plausible.

It's still wishing on a star, but it is a slightly closer star.

The more plausible route is to take back the presidency and Senate and appoint judges who take a narrower view of second amendment rights. Repeal will never happen (nor should it, really), but the Heller view of the Second Amendment is a pretty recent one (dating from the past couple decades), so that could easily swing back over time.

[Zaxxon]

The more plausible route is to take back the presidency and Senate and appoint judges who take a narrower view of second amendment rights. Repeal will never happen (nor should it, really), but the Heller view of the Second Amendment is a pretty recent one (dating from the past couple decades), so that could easily swing back over time.

Agreed. The reason I posted the Stephens link is that we have a Supreme Court Justice (!) arguing that repeal is a thing (!!). My initial response was 'I thought he'd know better than to argue for the impossible', and then I remembered that I'm a rube and he's a Justice. Which made me question my assumptions.

[Remus West]

You completely ignore/miss the point. When was the last time someone set out to beat another person to death and accidentally beat a different innocent person to death by accident regardless of their age. Guns killed many many more people by accident than beatings so your whole "more likely to be beaten to death" scenario is garbage. The two actions are not equivalent even if they have the same ending for the victim. Same with stabbings. Also, where are your statistics to show how many people survived a beating versus how many people survived being shot? Stabbed versus shot?

I’ll be happy to review those statistics when you present them.

I'm not even going to take that response seriously. It doesn't deserve it. I am not your search engine. You are mine. Sheesh.

[Rip]

So what does a man who is brother to a liberal anti-gun activist and who himself runs a ministry who was right out front and outspoken at the "March For Our Lives" protest do for an encore? How about participate in the murder a young 23 year old woman with a handgun?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/27/al ... oting.html

[Kurth]

The more plausible route is to take back the presidency and Senate and appoint judges who take a narrower view of second amendment rights. Repeal will never happen (nor should it, really), but the Heller view of the Second Amendment is a pretty recent one (dating from the past couple decades), so that could easily swing back over time.

Agreed. The reason I posted the Stephens link is that we have a Supreme Court Justice (!) arguing that repeal is a thing (!!). My initial response was 'I thought he'd know better than to argue for the impossible', and then I remembered that I'm a rube and he's a Justice. Which made me question my assumptions.

I think we should question our assumptions about this. As pointed out above, there have been seismic shifts in public sentiment over seemingly entrenched positions in the past (gay marriage, civil rights, etc.). An obvious counter to that is that most, if not all, of those have entailed expanding rights, not limiting them, but still . . . it's possible.

I also think it's right and necessary.

It's right because the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism. If ever there were a case for repealing an amendment, it seems like there's a case for repealing this one. If you buy that the right to bear arms is limited by the purpose clause regarding militias, times have clearly changed. We have no such militias today. If you don't buy the militia limitation arguments, then you're left arguing about the definition of "arms," which I believe is an inherently weak argument.

It's necessary because I cannot see how meaningful gun control legislation -- laws enacted to prevent the epidemic of gun violence in this country, not just the sensationalized school shootings -- stand any real chance with the 2nd Amendment as an obstacle.

[Kurth]

So what does a man who is brother to a liberal anti-gun activist and who himself runs a ministry who was right out front and outspoken at the "March For Our Lives" protest do for an encore? How about participate in the murder a young 23 year old woman with a handgun?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/27/al ... oting.html

Good grief, Rip. What is your point? This is just stupid.

[LawBeefaroni]

You completely ignore/miss the point. When was the last time someone set out to beat another person to death and accidentally beat a different innocent person to death by accident regardless of their age. Guns killed many many more people by accident than beatings so your whole "more likely to be beaten to death" scenario is garbage. The two actions are not equivalent even if they have the same ending for the victim. Same with stabbings. Also, where are your statistics to show how many people survived a beating versus how many people survived being shot? Stabbed versus shot?

I don't consider murdering the wrong person an "accident." It is murder.

Accidental gun deaths are negligent discharges and kids getting their hands in an unsecured firearm and shooting themselves or someone else.


How do we stop truly accidental gun deaths? Gun owners being more responsible (or no gun ownership for the irresponsible). How do we stop murder of unintended victims by firearms? Take guns out of the hands of murderers.

That is fact. What is debatable is how to achieve these things.

[El Guapo]

The more plausible route is to take back the presidency and Senate and appoint judges who take a narrower view of second amendment rights. Repeal will never happen (nor should it, really), but the Heller view of the Second Amendment is a pretty recent one (dating from the past couple decades), so that could easily swing back over time.

Agreed. The reason I posted the Stephens link is that we have a Supreme Court Justice (!) arguing that repeal is a thing (!!). My initial response was 'I thought he'd know better than to argue for the impossible', and then I remembered that I'm a rube and he's a Justice. Which made me question my assumptions.

I think we should question our assumptions about this. As pointed out above, there have been seismic shifts in public sentiment over seemingly entrenched positions in the past (gay marriage, civil rights, etc.). An obvious counter to that is that most, if not all, of those have entailed expanding rights, not limiting them, but still . . . it's possible.

I also think it's right and necessary.

It's right because the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism. If ever there were a case for repealing an amendment, it seems like there's a case for repealing this one. If you buy that the right to bear arms is limited by the purpose clause regarding militias, times have clearly changed. We have no such militias today. If you don't buy the militia limitation arguments, then you're left arguing about the definition of "arms," which I believe is an inherently weak argument.

It's necessary because I cannot see how meaningful gun control legislation -- laws enacted to prevent the epidemic of gun violence in this country, not just the sensationalized school shootings -- stand any real chance with the 2nd Amendment as an obstacle.

Well, I really don't think there is any chance of the 2nd amendment ever getting repealed, unless it were part of some broader constitutional convention or the like. That said, everyone should say what they think and the political discussion will evolve from there. I disagree that meaningful gun control legislation is barred by the 2nd amendment, though - if President Biden's judicial nominees (and evolving public sentiment) could drastically change the landscape by 2024, for example.

[Moliere]

"Al Sharpton's brother charged in shooting murder one day after he participated in anti-guns march"

[El Guapo]

"Al Sharpton's brother charged in shooting murder one day after he participated in anti-guns march"

So?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he should not have committed murder. I am opposed to that.

[gilraen]

"Al Sharpton's brother charged in shooting murder one day after he participated in anti-guns march"

Rip, is that you?

[Skinypupy]

So what does a man who is brother to a liberal anti-gun activist and who himself runs a ministry who was right out front and outspoken at the "March For Our Lives" protest do for an encore? How about participate in the murder a young 23 year old woman with a handgun?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/27/al ... oting.html

I'll admit to being a little curious about what point you think this proves.

[Punisher]

"Al Sharpton's brother charged in shooting murder one day after he participated in anti-guns march"

So?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he should not have committed murder. I am opposed to that.

i believe this is to show more proof that gun control is needed when even the anti-gun people are involved in gun crimes..

[Holman]

i believe this is to show more proof that gun control is needed when even the anti-gun people are involved in gun crimes..

No. See, the implication is that even anti-gun people--ALL OF THEM--secretly want to have guns to murder their enemies. They'll do it as soon as they think you're not looking. Therefore all arguments for sensible gun control are invalid. Do the math.

Also: black.

[Skinypupy]

i believe this is to show more proof that gun control is needed when even the anti-gun people are involved in gun crimes..

No. See, the implication is that even anti-gun people--ALL OF THEM--secretly want to have guns to murder their enemies. They'll do it as soon as they think you're not looking. Therefore all arguments for sensible gun control are invalid. Do the math.

Also: black.

Which is doubly amusing, considering how we keep hearing over and over (and over and over) about how completely verboten it is to judge all 2A supporters by the actions of a few lunatics who do bad things.

[Pyperkub]

The singular of anecdotes is data?

[Alefroth]

i believe this is to show more proof that gun control is needed when even the anti-gun people are involved in gun crimes..

No. See, the implication is that even anti-gun people--ALL OF THEM--secretly want to have guns to murder their enemies. They'll do it as soon as they think you're not looking. Therefore all arguments for sensible gun control are invalid. Do the math.

Also: black.

Also: Al Sharpton

[Kurth]

"Al Sharpton's brother charged in shooting murder one day after he participated in anti-guns march"

Good grief, Rip. What is your point? This is just stupid.

[Victoria Raverna]

A lot of it, I think, comes down to a point that's been brought up before: Do we want to spend what leverage we may gain to address current perceptions of mass shootings, or reduce shooting deaths?

The use of military-looking semi-auto rifles in shootings is almost like a fashion trend. It's what the cool kids on the news are doing. It's mass-media confirmation bias. The actual breakdown of statistics, though, shows that semi-auto handguns are far more likely to be used in mass shootings, and if you look at shooting deaths overall that becomes overwhelmingly more likely.

The point being that banning semi-auto rifles would take a tremendous effort with very little payoff when it comes to actually achieving what we say we want to achieve.

The solution is to also ban the semi-auto handgun.

[LawBeefaroni]

A lot of it, I think, comes down to a point that's been brought up before: Do we want to spend what leverage we may gain to address current perceptions of mass shootings, or reduce shooting deaths?

The use of military-looking semi-auto rifles in shootings is almost like a fashion trend. It's what the cool kids on the news are doing. It's mass-media confirmation bias. The actual breakdown of statistics, though, shows that semi-auto handguns are far more likely to be used in mass shootings, and if you look at shooting deaths overall that becomes overwhelmingly more likely.

The point being that banning semi-auto rifles would take a tremendous effort with very little payoff when it comes to actually achieving what we say we want to achieve.

The solution is to also ban the semi-auto handgun.

That's taking the improbable and making it impossible.

[Carpet_pissr]

I wonder how many previous amendments were thought to be impossible before they were passed? I seriously doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but like the death penalty, I think it's on the slow road of being weaned out of modern society. That could just my view through rose-colored, liberal glasses, though.

[Rip]

Repeal all the amendments.

We never really needed them anyways.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/lets-repeal-amendments/

[Isgrimnur]

Repeal all the amendments.

We never really needed them anyways.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/lets-repeal-amendments/

Let's start with the 10th.

[Blackhawk]

The solution is to also ban the semi-auto handgun.

That's taking the improbable and making it impossible.

+1. In order for something to count as a solution to a problem, it has to be practicable. Otherwise, "Make everybody bulletproof" would be an even better answer.

[Moliere]

i believe this is to show more proof that gun control is needed when even the anti-gun people are involved in gun crimes..

No. See, the implication is that even anti-gun people--ALL OF THEM--secretly want to have guns to murder their enemies. They'll do it as soon as they think you're not looking. Therefore all arguments for sensible gun control are invalid. Do the math.

Also: black.

Lighten up, Francis. Irony is funny.

Also: I'm not sure what his melanin has to do with anything.

[Zaxxon]

I'm not sure what his melanin has to do with anything.

Sweet summer child.

[Remus West]

You completely ignore/miss the point. When was the last time someone set out to beat another person to death and accidentally beat a different innocent person to death by accident regardless of their age. Guns killed many many more people by accident than beatings so your whole "more likely to be beaten to death" scenario is garbage. The two actions are not equivalent even if they have the same ending for the victim. Same with stabbings. Also, where are your statistics to show how many people survived a beating versus how many people survived being shot? Stabbed versus shot?

I don't consider murdering the wrong person an "accident." It is murder.

Accidental gun deaths are negligent discharges and kids getting their hands in an unsecured firearm and shooting themselves or someone else.


How do we stop truly accidental gun deaths? Gun owners being more responsible (or no gun ownership for the irresponsible). How do we stop murder of unintended victims by firearms? Take guns out of the hands of murderers.

That is fact. What is debatable is how to achieve these things.

Call it whatever you want it doesn't change the fact that very few people die due to being accidentally beaten by someone trying to murder someone else. Many people die due to being shot when the bullet was intended for someone else. Which leads back to the point that comparing gun related deaths to death by beating is stupid.

[malchior]

You completely ignore/miss the point. When was the last time someone set out to beat another person to death and accidentally beat a different innocent person to death by accident regardless of their age. Guns killed many many more people by accident than beatings so your whole "more likely to be beaten to death" scenario is garbage. The two actions are not equivalent even if they have the same ending for the victim. Same with stabbings. Also, where are your statistics to show how many people survived a beating versus how many people survived being shot? Stabbed versus shot?

I don't consider murdering the wrong person an "accident." It is murder.

Accidental gun deaths are negligent discharges and kids getting their hands in an unsecured firearm and shooting themselves or someone else.


How do we stop truly accidental gun deaths? Gun owners being more responsible (or no gun ownership for the irresponsible). How do we stop murder of unintended victims by firearms? Take guns out of the hands of murderers.

That is fact. What is debatable is how to achieve these things.

Call it whatever you want it doesn't change the fact that very few people die due to being accidentally beaten by someone trying to murder someone else. Many people die due to being shot when the bullet was intended for someone else. Which leads back to the point that comparing gun related deaths to death by beating is stupid.

You mean children don't root around in their parents drawers and accidentally beat themselves to death?