The gun control issue will never be resolved until we admit the 2nd Amendment is flawed and start negotiating with empathy and understanding.
Daddy was right. Ain't no use in talking about religion, politics, whether that dress makes yer wife look fat, or guns... unless you're sitting among a bunch of hunters all dressed up in their "out-to-kill" finery, oiling stocks and cutting cross-hatches into their bullet points.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - The Duck
Good thing they don't have a gun culture in England, as gun crime is said to be out of control, with 10 people being shot everyday.
And hey it's an island & they cannot keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys how would they ever do it in the US of A?
77 - Clavos
I'm wondering...
How many people on this thread have actually killed another human being with a weapon.
In my experience, most who have done so (like the police, and many combat veterans), while usually not eager to ban weapons, are equally reluctant to allow just any jerkoff to carry them around town, which is pretty much the way it is these days; particularly here in Florida.
78 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Mark!!
Here I thought you were snoozing under an empty booze bottle! Welcome back.
Guess I was as stupid as everybody else here, talking about guns instead of rationality.
As to the second amendment, it was written this way for a reason, just like all law. In this instance, it was put there to reflect the political reality of needing something to deal with the idea of a state militia and making sure that citizens had some right to bear arms.
In today's world, it makes no sense at all. But, as I said in my irrational comment, better to have an armed populace than a dictatorship....
79 - Nancy
When I WAS carrying a gun on a regular basis as law enforcement, I spent a good deal of time being awfully nervous, because carrying a gun legally in that manner seemed to me to be a direct invitation for every macho shithead & coked-up asshole & wannabe Whatever to try to see if he (invariably it was a 'he') was better/faster/more aggressive than the other person with the gun. It was like a goad or an irritant or a pheromone to them.
At the same time, until there's some way to control gun ownership, yet ensure the government can't step in & appropriate them in some vague, self-proclaimed "emergency" such as BushCo would be apt to do, I oppose gun control or banning them. I myself can't see a way to do both, however, kind of like the universal ID: you either become subject to Big Brother, or you leave the cracks wide open for the cockroaches to slip in.
80 - Angela
I only have one thing to say..
" Guns don't kill people!!!!! People kill people!!"
It takes 'someone' to pull a trigger.
81 - Dave Nalle
Whether or not guns save lives, they could be sensibly regulated without the constitution being jeopardized.
Now Handy, when did I say that guns couldn't be regulated?
Unless, of course:
"The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is not in doubt."
Eminent legal scholars may still disagree on this point.
Any disagreement on this on a constitutional basis would be pure bullshit. They may disagre with the amendment and the idea of gun ownership and they may have many fine arguments, but Constitutionally there's nothing to support them.
But for Dave, it's all settled.
In this as in so many other matters, Dave is all-knowing and favors this sort of discussion-ending statement. Those who hold other opinions than his own are simply irrelevant fools. It's just possibly not the optimal stance for an editor of a web site about opinions.
I can fully support your right to hold an opinion and to express it no matter how foolish and unfounded it may be without that having any impact on my role as editor.
An article like this is an opportunity for those who are better informed to come to the site and disabuse the gun control nuts yet again of their erroneous claims.
The fear of guns is irrational and directly counter to the best interests of individuals and the nation as a whole. The facts are o√erwhelming as is the legal and constitutional history of the issue. I don't mean to shut down conversation on the subject, but is there really anything new to say?
The gun-grabbers are fanatics and can only back their position with emotional arguments and statements which are patently false. We've seen that demonstrated here and many times before. Going through the same dance yet again is fine with me, but doesn't it seem awfully futile?
Dave
82 - Clavos
" Guns don't kill people!!!!! People kill people!!"
EXACTLY!!
So people should be outlawed; not guns.
Now there's an idea with some real merit.
83 - Travis Lee
Mark, nice of you to show up.
Since you kicked this off with your misreading of the Second Amendment, and your stated desire to trash it, I think the burden is upon YOU to justify it.
It is up to YOU to explain how "the people" in the Second Amendment is entirely different than in the First, fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.
It is not for me to justify my right to my property, or my right to self defense, but it is up to YOU and YOUR side to justify your attack on it.
It is up to you to explain why a woman who has to walk dangerous streets at night should not be "allowed" to use a pistol against a rapist twice her mass, or hunting in packs.
It's up to you to explain why individuals should not be "allowed" effective self defense against gangs of human predators.
I've seen your kind lie, distort, and prevericate in order to hoax the fence sitters into thinking that gun control is about crime.
Your side reached your high water mark with the Clinton ban and the Brady Act.
The Clinton Ban expired 3 years ago, and now 38 states have shall issue concealed carry laws, and Vermont and Alaska have no license requirements at all.
It will take years, but we will take our rights back, just the way your side stole them. One law at a time, one state at a time, one election, and one politician at a time.
And if your side should happen to luck into legislative majorities, and repeal the Bill of Rights.... Well, you'll just have fight in Congress and statehouses every step of the way.
On the day that you make me an outlaw, not for anything that I have done, but for my possession of things.
Come and take them.
If you think you can.
84 - Nancy
Clavvie, don't get macho. I can't see Handy or anybody else trying to wrestle your guns away from you. Now if it were your yachts....
85 - Christopher Rose
Dave, as I imagine you know but are choosing to ignore, statistics are just like photographs, they just capture an aspect of a particular place at a particular time.
Your continued use of them to support your case this way and to do your typical elitist pig flipoff of those with whom you disagree yet again makes a mockery of your frequent bleating about being impartial.
There is no direct relationship between disliking guns and wanting them controlled.
I really like guns but want to see them controlled because I am not persuaded that the vast majority of people can conduct themselves responsibly at all times. Soldiers can't do it, policemen can't do it, so why should we think that the less disciplined and trained population at large can?
86 - Clavos
Hmmm,
I guess there are aren't any cops or combat vets on this thread; at least, not any willing to disclose they've killed someone, however legally it was done.
Too bad. Their perspective could add a new (and much more realistic, as opposed to theoretical) element to the discussion.
87 - Paul
"I really like guns but want to see them controlled because I am not persuaded that the vast majority of people can conduct themselves responsibly at all times. Soldiers can't do it, policemen can't do it, so why should we think that the less disciplined and trained population at large can?"
I think you mean there have been instances where soldiers didn't do it, or policemen didn't do it, however they like the general population of people who do own guns very much conduct themselves reponsibly at ALL times. Like anything else on the planet there are those few who will abuse anything. It bothers me to think you truly believe cops shouldn't have guns?
88 - Clavos
Nancy #84,
What????
89 - Christopher Rose
Paul, it bothers me far more that people like you, who presumably owns weapons, have such poor reasoning abilities.
I didn't say that I think the cops (in the USA) shouldn't have guns, it's way too late for that.
I did say that professionals can't conduct themselves appropriately at all times so why should we imagine that the population at large should be able to.
What concerns me is that people will make errors of judgement and weapons will be deployed inappropriately. The fact that you, for example, can't even follow the written word properly doesn't make me feel confident that you could properly assess a real life situation happening in real time.
I can say that again in shorter words if you need more time to process the information...
90 - Paul
I do own several guns, and other weapons. I've never found an occasion to use them other than practice. However the kind of situation that would require me to respond with deadly force is one anyone can recognize. It happens to people all over the world by the second. Everyday, all day and all night. I'm here only to offer my opinion on such things, not to play word games. Were you to be in a situation that required you to use deadly force in order to save yourself, or your loved ones, could you respond? Would you be successful? I don't know the answer myself were if posed to me, I would respond: I have the proper equipment, and training, and practice to properly defend me and mine. Can you say the same?
91 - Al Barger
Nancy [comment 79] sez: When I WAS carrying a gun on a regular basis as law enforcement, I spent a good deal of time being awfully nervous, because carrying a gun legally in that manner seemed to me to be a direct invitation for every macho shithead & coked-up asshole & wannabe
Really? Now, I'll be inclined to take your word regarding your personal experience, but this seems highly counterintuitive to me. My conventional wisdom would be the exact opposite of that, as summed up by the famous Robert Heinlein quote that "An armed society is a polite society." I would generally expect most folks to take someone having a gun as a sign that they shouldn't be getting stupid.
Ponder a bit perhaps on how much of that "seems" was anything real, versus your subjective perception. Were fools actually more aggressive for having a gun? It would seem more likely that some folk would screw with just on general principles of you being some kind of cop.
I for one am more worried about Big Brother than cockroaches. But of course, even if you accept Big Brother and try to ban guns, the cockroaches will still have them.
92 - Christopher Rose
Paul, I take it you had no answer to my previous point so let's see what there is to consider in your new one.
There is very little in common with training situations and real life so you can't assume that you will be able to respond in the way you presume. I don't think anyone can.
Al, Robert Heinlein wrote some fine novels but not every line of his was on the money. People act like assholes all the time and i fully believe and am not at all surprised by what Nancy wrote. It seems entirely intuitive to me.
As I've remarked previously, there's a need to sort out the policing and social issues in the USA before things get far worse than they are already. The country risks tearing itself apart.
93 - Clavos
Chris points out:
"There is very little in common with training situations and real life so you can't assume that you will be able to respond in the way you presume. I don't think anyone can."
True, and the basis for my question as to whether anyone on the thread has actually killed with a weapon.
Otherwise, it's all conjecture and theory, which isn't worth a spent shell casing when the bullets start flying.
94 - Paul
#92-I'm not sure you live in the same world the rest of us do. Training and practice is the only way to prepare for any situtation. I mentioned I didn't know the answer to the question I posed to you "Were you to be in a situation that required you to use deadly force in order to save yourself, or your loved ones, could you respond? Would you be successful?" But I am as prepared as I can be. You refused to answer the question at all. As far as your "sorting out" statement, you offer no real problem, or solution.
I choose to ignore your vague reference to some obscure author who believes everyone behaves as.....
95 - Clavos
Robert Heinlein an "obscure author???"
Bwwwaaaahaaahaahhaaa!!
96 - Jack Burton
I sometimes think that the only way we're ever going to decide what the intent of the 2nd Amendment really is would be to appoint some venerable and pedantic old judge from the backwoods of Nepal, who's never heard of the United States or its Constitution, to take a good old look and give us his considered, untainted legal opinion as to what the hell it actually means. And then abide by his decision.
How odd. I prefer to go by the educated opinion
of the leading expert on the English language.
Do you want a backwoods Nepalese operating on your wife in a major life or death situation also?
97 - Kevin
I'll consider "compromise" and "consider the other side" when we cross out the existing 20-something-thousand current laws and start over. Until then, you get no cooperation or support from me to pass any more gun control laws OF ANY KIND, IN ANY MEASURE.
98 - Jack Burton
The solution is simple, get the police to do their jobs properly and disarm the criminals and the gangs which are taking over ever larger tranches of the USA.
The "proper" job of the police is coming out and taking a nice crime report after the event is over. They might even solve it.
But "prevent" it? Dream on...
99 - Jack Burton
a significant proportion of pro gun types see threats where there are none, are dangerously intolerant and not very skilled at understanding what is happening right in front of them. These are all good reasons for disarming them...
It's a real mess alright. That's why here, in Indiana where we have almost 300,000 CCW holders, there are just dozens of dead bodies laying around town every day. Draped over cars, laying in the streets, even littering the lawns.
And the worse thing of all is that the police don't seem to want to do a thing about it. Even the newspaper won't report on it. Why, when was the last time you saw any story about the tens of thousands of killer CCW holders rampaging thru our streets?
It's a conspiracy I tell you... but it's a good thing we have people like Mr. Rose who can cut thru the fog and tell us the truth about what is what.
100 - Jack Burton
It may be true that a high percentage of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, but, unless stolen, those guns were obtained legally in the first place so again, some degree of improved gun control would help.
How? Be specific. Give details.
101 - Clavos
Umm, Jack,
You left out part of that qualification of "the leading expert in the English language" quote, it actually says:
"...the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. (emphasis added)
Since the "expert" is such in the context of a government school system in the USA (even in what is arguably the best one in the country), that's not much of a credential.
But, in any case, he is not "the" leading expert, but "a" leading expert.
102 - Clavos
Jack,
As you know, my comments in #101 apply to A.C. Brocki, not Professor Copperud.
However, Copperud's credentials are in the field of style and usage of American English in journalism.
I would think the interpretation of the meaning of the second Amendment would best be left up to a constitutional scholar, not a journalism teacher.
103 - Jack Burton
lack of some system that ensures those with criminal records don't have access to guns or at least, can't buy them as easily as they do now;
And you say you're former law enforcement? And you've never heard of the background checks that everyone must go thru to buy a gun from a dealer?
Ohhh... you know that "criminals" buy their guns off the streets. So what "system" do you propose that is going to keep a criminal from doing a criminal act? Make it double illegal?
lack of punishment for those who DO supply miscreants with guns, legally or illegally;
And you're going to point us to a cite that shows that no one has ever gone to jail for gun running, eh?
the increasing aquisition of such stuff as Uzis & shoulder-fired mortars (?!) by private citizens -
You got a cite on that? Nope, didn't think so.
most of whom, frankly, I wouldn't want to trust to walk & chew gum at the same time, let alone trust with the judgement to handle a gun correctly or intelligently;
Typical cop arrogance. We know better than you stupid citizens and know what's good for you. Betcha that's why you became a cop in the first place... so you could lord it over your inferiors.
and most of all to the utter lack of any cohesive requirements anywhere on any level for those wanting guns to have training & be certified as knowing how to handle them, which IMO is a certain recipe for disaster, especially when mixed with lack of intelligence or common sense - which is WHY most gun accidents happen in the first place: sheer stupidity.
Indiana requires NO training to own a gun, NO training or certification to carry one. Our rate of problems with gun and CCW owners is virtually identical with the other states that require hours of training and testing.
Why is that?
And frankly I can't see a need for ANYBODY anywhere to have automatics or such items as Uzis or launchers in their private arsenals at all for any reason.
There's been two (2) incidents since 1934 where a legally owned fully automatic weapon has been used in a crime.
So what's your beef with people owning one. Be specific.
Hunting firearms should be subject to the same strictures as handguns: you have to have a license, & you have to have training to show you know how to handle the damned things. Hunters should also have training,
Virtually every state in the union requires training before issuing a hunting license. Please try to keep up.
On the other hand, how else do you ensure the owner is trained & responsible, & that illicit guns aren't being provided to inappropriate/illegal persons?
How else do you provide that the people are trained and responsible before letting them write a news story for the paper unless they are licensed by the government. Look at the large number of liars and palagerists we've had in the press just the past few years.
They just plain make up stories from thin air and pass them off as "true news."
Nope... we need the government to ensure that the journalists, and even the amateur letter-to-the-editor writers are sufficiently trained enough to do the job correctly.
104 - Jack Burton
Gangs can effectively control whole neighbourhoods with a comparatively small number of people by getting bodies on the street where they belong, something the police ought to be doing.
Well, well, well. That's an idea that I never thought of before.
Let's control crime by turning our police into "our" version of a vicious thug gang that ignores the whole concept of the BOR and people's rights.
That's just how gangs "control" their neighborhoods, eh?
105 - Dr Dreadful
Fine, Jack. I'm aware of the wording and the intent.
In modern colloquial usage, we would probably write it, "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary..." (The rest of it would be about the same, except maybe with a few less commas.)
My wry comment had more to do with its continuing relevance. As Chris has pointed out, in a fight between a determined and disciplined federal army with all its modern weaponry and a citizen militia armed with rifles and handguns, the result is something of a foregone conclusion. (Bearing in mind how things have panned out in Iraq, I dunno though...)
Did you leave your sense of humor in the backwoods of Nepal, perchance?
106 - Dr Dreadful
Fine, Jack. I'm aware of the wording and the intent.
In modern colloquial usage, we would probably write it, "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary..." (The rest of it would be about the same, except maybe with a few less commas.)
My wry comment had more to do with its continuing relevance. As Chris has pointed out, in a fight between a determined and disciplined federal army with all its modern weaponry and a citizen militia armed with rifles and handguns, the result is something of a foregone conclusion. (Bearing in mind how things have panned out in Iraq, I dunno though...)
Did you leave your sense of humor in the backwoods of Nepal, perchance?
107 - Clavos
"Did you leave your sense of humor in the backwoods of Nepal, perchance?"
Jeez, Doc, what's wrong with you?
This is much too important an issue into which to inject humor!
108 - Jack Burton
The pro-gun people who've been commenting on this thread don't even want to acknowledge the other side may have legitimate concerns.
No, of course we don't. It's never our kids, our wives, our siblings, our parents, our neighbors, our friends who get victimized by people who misuse guns for harm.
It's only the anti-gun people who have that problem happening to them. So we just don't care about the harm done since it doesn't affect us at all.
Or... maybe it's that while we "acknowledge" the concerns we understand quite well that an emotional response and answer is not going to solve the problem, and will probably make it even worse.
109 - Jack Burton
That Al "Twitchy" Barger should be the first to go. Not only does he think that a bunch of lightly armed civilians could keep a professional army in line
Hmmmm. I'd like to know your credentials on overcoming insurrections and rebellions. How many years in the military did you put in studying the topic?
and that determining the meaning of the people who wrote the constitution centuries ago through the prism of contemporary thinking is possible,
I think it's the gun bigots who are trying to look thru "comtemporary" lenses at the Constitution.
110 - Dr Dreadful
Jack, who are you responding to in your comment #103?
111 - Christopher Rose
Jack, you've made three things clear and three only.
1. Talking about weapons with you is like talking about religion with a faithist.
2. The answer to the question posed by the author is no.
3. There is no point at all in talking to someone who thinks they're a smartarse, particularly when they're not.
112 - Jack Burton
Americans have far more guns than in any other rich Western democracy. Yet paranoia about their being taken away remains rampant.
You don't live in Chicago, do you? Or in Washington D.C.? Or in San Francisco where they just voted to "take away" all the handguns from legal owners.
Or in Illinois where they are just a few votes away from "taking away" virtually every single semi-auto rifle, shotgun, and handgun from every owner.
Sheesh. At least learn about something before you expose your ignorance to the world.
Should someone tentatively suggest government regulation of, say, military-style automatic weapons, they are immediately accused of being unconstitutional, anti-American, and threatening the very existence of all gun owners.
Don't know much about "military-style automatic weapons" either, do you. Do everyone a favor and go up a few posts and read my essay specifically written to cure your ignorance.
113 - Clavos
You do your cause more harm than good by adopting that arrogant asshole persona in your responses, Jack.
Remember, all these people you're copping a 'tude with are voters.
114 - Jack Burton
Just my experience, of course, but what do I know?
Well, you claim to be a former cop but then again you didn't know quite a bit about guns, such as that automatics are not bought down at Walmart, and that criminals can't buy them at gunstores because they have to go thru a background check.
So, yes, one could take what you "know" about .22s with a grain of salt.
115 - Clavos
What about private sales and sales at gun shows, Jack?
How many "background checks" (which are perfunctory at best) are performed in conjunction with those sales?
A lot of bravado and posturing in this thread, but not much real world experience.
116 - Jack Burton
so yes I'm against gun control, but only unreasonable gun control.
So what are you going to do with your Springfield when you move to Chicago? YOU may call their ban undreasonable but THEY find it plenty reasonable. And what's your argument? The Second Amendment?
Tough. You already abandoned it.
117 - Ray Ellis
This so-called debate gets more ridiculous every time it's brought up. It's not even a debate, or even an argument--just a series of contradictions. The buzzphrases are tiresome-- "law-abiding citizens protecting themselves"--against whom? Themselves? It's not as if there are roving bands of killers preying on suburban neighborhoods.
See, what happens is law-abiding citizens become criminals every day once they pull that trigger. And it's not in self-defense most of the time. It's usually domestic, or a bar fight, or any set of silly things. Here in Dallas, I wake up every morning to hear about four or five overnight shootings--and very rarely are any of them self defense.
Don't get me wrong--I think all you guys should pack heat, get loaded and blow away somebody close to you. We need to weed out the population anyway,and guns as penile extensions seems as good a way as any.
118 - Jack Burton
In my experience, most who have done so (like the police, and many combat veterans), while usually not eager to ban weapons, are equally reluctant to allow just any jerkoff to carry them around town, which is pretty much the way it is these days; particularly here in Florida.
The National Association of Chiefs of Police released its 17th Annual Survey of Police Chiefs and Sheriffs and some of the survey findings are surprising and compelling.
NACOP asserts that the public perception of how police view certain issues is based on media coverage, which is not necessarily accurate. When police chiefs and sheriffs are allowed to respond to poll questions anonymously, the politics may be removed from their answers.
Gun Control: With regard to private citizens owning firearms for sport or self-defense, 93.6 percent of the respondents supported civilian gun-ownership rights. Ninety-six percent of the police chiefs and sheriffs believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources and 92.2 percent revealed they hadn't arrested anyone for violation of the so-called "waiting period" laws. When asked if citizens concealed-weapons permits would reduce violent crime, 63.1 percent said yes.
119 - Ray Ellis
You can read surveys, or you can actually interview cops. I prefer the latter.
120 - Jack Burton
I really like guns but want to see them controlled because I am not persuaded that the vast majority of people can conduct themselves responsibly at all times. Soldiers can't do it, policemen can't do it, so why should we think that the less disciplined and trained population at large can?
270 million guns in American hands by some counts.
270 MILLION...
If just ten percent of them were misused each year we'd have 27 MILLION gun crimes.
But we don't.
If only ONE PERCENT of them were misused each year we'd have 2.7 MILLION gun crimes.
But we don't.
We have far, far less than one million gun crimes a year... but that is a good round number so let's use it.
That means that Chris, who is persuaded that the "vast majority" of people can't control themselves is left to explain WHY 99.7 percent of ALL GUNS are kept in safe hands.
Why do you say this, Chris? Be specific. Give details. Step up to the plate.
121 - Jack Burton
What concerns me is that people will make errors of judgement and weapons will be deployed inappropriately.
But you do say that professionals make errors in judgement, right? And that they use guns inappropriately, right? That's a plain face reading of your text.
So what is your solution to that?
122 - Jack Burton
I would think the interpretation of the meaning of the second Amendment would best be left up to a constitutional scholar, not a journalism teacher.
The Constitution was written for the people, not scholars.
And my "expert" certainly trumps some backwoods Nepalese shaman. :-)
123 - Dr Dreadful
Jeez, Doc, what's wrong with you?
This is much too important an issue into which to inject humor!
It's starting to look like we should break out the beer and beach chairs though.
124 - Clavos
"The Constitution was written for the people, not scholars."
So why did you cite a scholar???
125 - Dr Dreadful
And my hypothetical impartial expert is not a shaman, he's a very experienced judge, educated at the Royal College of Law and well-versed in legal principles including Blackstone. He would have to come from somewhere like rural Nepal to ensure that he was not familiar with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and didn't have any preconceived notions about it.
Does such a person exist in reality? Probably not. But you're clearly alarmed by him anyway.