Ask Me Help Desk - Gun control past debates

Gun control past debates

Does anyone remember if there were attempts to pass new gun laws after the shootings of John Lennon and Ronald Reagan? I wasn't old enough to remember. I remember a time magazine article from 1989 called Armed America that discussed violent crime and the ease that people could buy guns. I remember the Brady bill and assault weapons ban passed in 1994, but it didn't seem to help much. Even after the Columbine and other school shootings in the late 90s didn't seem to motivate politicians to change gun laws. Neither did the Gabrielle Giffords, or theatre shootings. I hope there will be some change this time, but it doesn't look very promising.

I don't doubt there have been many debates and even bans but the whole process is stillborn in the wake of the second amendment which has locked the nation into this right to bare arms thing which is made to transcend all other rights. The writers of the constitution were very vague, purposefully so, about about what it was really about. They had used a militia to start a war and so had a romantic idea about what a militia could achieve. What you now have is an armed camp

This week here in China a man took a large knife ( sort of looked like a short sword) and stabbed 20 children here.

They don't need guns to kill and cause violence. A crazy person will use the weapon they can get.

Pour gas and set them on fire and so on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

I don't doubt there have been many debates and even bans but the whole process is stillborn in the wake of the second amendment which has locked the nation into this right to bare arms thing which is made to transcend all other rights. The writers of the constitution were very vague, purposefully so, about about what it was really about. they had used a militia to start a war and so had a romantic idea about what a militia could achieve. what you now have is an armed camp

That of course is misleading . American states and local governments have had gun regulations dating back as early as 1813 ;maybe even earlier . Many of the towns in the old West had laws about leaving your guns at the Sheriff's when entering town. The famous gunfight at the OK corral was instigated when Tom McLaury violated that ordinance.

Another misconception is that in the last 20 years ,the rate of gun ownership here has steadily declined. You talk about the militia . Before the Constitution states would store armaments for the militia in public arsenals. That became an issue during the Shays' Rebellion 1787 when Massachusetts resident named Daniel Shays led eleven hundred men in an attempt to capture an arsenal in Springfield. They came real close to capturing the arsenal. Later John Brown did in fact over run the arsenal at Harper's Ferry . It was locals armed with their private weapons that surrounded him . Late to the game was the Federals led by Robert E Lee.

The 2nd Amendment was not about militia. They were already covered in the Constitution .
“to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions,”...“to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress,”
(Article One Sec 8)
The 2nd Amendment is about the right to own guns..
Here is the original version of the amendment drafted by Madison:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Gun law debates have also always followed tragic shootings. In 1963 the ownership of single shot bolt action rifles became a controversy after Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK. In fact ,it used to be the liberals who advocated for the right to own guns. They sided with Malcolm X's statement that carrying a gun for self defense was an American's right.

To answer the question asked .Although gun control regarding "Saturday Night Special" handguns were discussed after Lennon's shooting ,nothing meaningful was passed until the 'Brady Bill. '

There was zero reason to close the previous discussion about this topic . I have to question the power of administrators to close topics on discussion forums without any real cause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

This week here in China a man took a large knife ( sorta looked like a short sword) and stabbed 20 children here.

They don't need guns to kill and cause violence. A crazy person will use the weapon they can get.

Pour gas and set them on fire and so on.

Fr. Chuck, the problem with this example and many other similar examples is that commit the continuum fallacy.

It is implied that the two weapons have little distinction when it comes to carnage. In other words they are so similar in outcomes they don't need to be treated as distinct.

The same fallacy is perpetrated when we say that if we ban guns why not ban the ingredients that make up a Molotov cocktail.

Tut

There have been plenty of fallacies in this debate. For one , gun mass murders are no more lethal than any other type ,and less than many . Guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder. Explosives ? 20.82 per incident .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

There have been plenty of fallacies in this debate. For one , gun mass murders are no more lethal than any other type ,and less than many . Guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder. Explosives ? 20.82 per incident .

Well, you would have to point the others out because I was mainly concentrating on your posts. Shouldn't do that I know, but this time you are responding to my comments.

All I can do is respond in a similar way as I did the last time you posted statistics. That is to say,statistics by themselves don't constitute a fallacy, although you can have statistical fallacies. These usually take the form of 'cherry picking' It all depends on the statistics you use and the conclusions you draw.

As far as your conclusion from the statistics you have posted are concerned - again - I don't know if your conclusion is correct. I would withhold judgement until I see the report.

Tut

Tom, please don't post a study on the topic because we will just being going over the same ground as last time.

I chip you for a fallacy and you respond with a study. The type of fallacies I keep referring to are those that exhibit mistakes in reasoning or inferences drawn. Most studies will contain correct inferences based on the statistics they choose to use. I am highlighting a more immediate problem.

Tut

Hello:

Couple things...

Anybody who DENIES that guns KILL, are designed to KILL, and KILL more than an angry guy with a brick could, are actually NUTS.

Anybody who thinks keeping assault rifles will serve to DEFEND themselves against a government armed with Apache Helicopters and Striker Brigades, is actually NUTS.

NUTS have no place at the table when discussing REAL issues.

excon

PS> Merry Christmas..

But it isn't nutty to conclude that what hasn't worked in the past will work this time.

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

but it isn't nutty to conclude that what hasn't worked in the past will work this time.

If you're saying that prohibition doesn't work, I tend to agree with you..

Excon

If the goal is to keep guns that the army uses off the street and out the hands of homicidal nuts and criminals then ban them and take away access to them. Many countries have done this already and it does seem to work. Then a loon cannot steal, borrow, or buy, a weapon of mass destruction.

Personal defense is one thing, mass murder made easy is another. It may not be the total solution, but a start.

Well I'd counter that with evidence . But Tal doesn't think evidence is relevant. But let's start with the fact that the vast majority of gun deaths in this country are caused by hand guns and not semi-automatic rifles.

Yes but massacres of such we have seen is the subject of debate. The evidence on that has been made starkly clear. The mayors across the nation have said they are victims of loopholes and under regulated laws in other states.

You mean like Mayor Bloomy who walks around with a contingent of security the size of an Army platoon ? The gun used in the latest was purchased legally in one of the most regulated states in the nation . Surely a state so regulated would've had really tough conditions for that purchase .So that argument doesn't really wash. Did such a ban in the 1990s prevent Columbine ? Nope ,and it won't prevent the next .

The last massacre was a loony who stole and murdered the legal owner.

Fact is Tom you don't believe the evidence because you only want to look at evidence from one source. What is obvious is that legal guns kill just as surely and as often than illegal guns. The people who have guns are the problem and the way to stop them is not to allow them to have guns. There are more gun dealers than supermarkets, what does that tell you? It tells me that someone is profiting from the gun trade and death. Go haead Tom keep putting profits before children, like the good capitalist you are. Stop worshipping money Tom

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

There are more gun dealers than supermarkets, what does that tell you?

Well that's just nonsense. Although, you can buy guns and groceries in Walmart. One stop shopping.

Quote:

it tells me that someone is profiting from the gun trade and death. Go haead Tom keep putting profits before children, like the good capitalist you are. Stop worshipping money Tom

I certainly wouldn't be a gun dealer if I couldn't make a profit, but the only issue is rights. We have the right to own guns to protect our property AND our children.

Hello Steve:

Quote:

We have the right to own guns to protect our property AND our children.

If THAT'S what you're doing, I'll BET you don't have a 100 round drum magazine.

Excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Steve:

If THAT'S what you're doing, I'll BET you don't have a 100 round drum magazine.

excon

No, and I'm not letting them 'walk' to Mexico so the bad guys can murder Mexican citizens and US Border Patrol agents either.

Hello again, Steve:

Well, since you ducked THAT issue, I'll bet you'll DUCK this one too...

If the right wing WANTED fewer guns on the street, why are legally required background checks laws ignored in some states? Why aren't those who fail to do so prosecuted?

Could it have to do with the ATF being LEADERLESS??? The Republicans in congress managed to CHANGE the law to REQUIRE that the head of the ATF BE approved by the Senate. Then they proceeded to DENY every single person Obama sent for approval... Some in the agency say the gun INDUSTRY is running the show.

Given the above, it LOOKS like the right wing wants MORE guns in the hands of CRIMINALS and CRAZY people. I have NO idea why they would want that.. But, I have NO idea about ANYTHING they want.

I DO understand why the NRA wants that. They represent arms DEALERS.

excon

That would be the same ATF that ran Fast and Furious. According to the article Obama has only sent one anti-gun guy so I guess "every one" of his would be one. Why would Republicans allow an anti-guy guy to run the gun police? That certainly seems like a no-brainer to me because we do have the right to keep and bear arms.

As for your other contention, that is only in regards to mental illness background checks and is limited to those contained in court records. Otherwise, people still have a right to privacy you know. Or used to... one newspaper doesn't give a damn.

Newspaper sparks outrage for publishing names, addresses of gun permit holders

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

still have a right to privacy you know. Or used to... one newspaper doesn't give a damn.

Yeah, I heard FOX and Friends sniveling about how those poor defenseless gun owners are going to cope, now that criminals know where they live...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

By the way, it would seem to me that if a record is PUBLIC, that nobody's privacy is violated when the record is made PUBLIC. I don't know. Crazy liberal logic, huh?

Excon

PS> (edited) Still watching FOX... They just complained that the paper didn't publish a list of the ILLEGAL gun owners...

??

Like you say, you CAN'T make this stuff up.

There's a difference between PUBLIC and PUBLISH.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

There's a difference between PUBLIC and PUBLISH.

True: One is what a record IS, and the other is what a newspaper does.

Should they have published the list? As a citizen, I'd LIKE to know if my neighbor has a gun. The newspaper DID me a service. That's what they do. I don't blame them at all..

IF there's a bad, it MIGHT be the agency who RELEASED the list. It MIGHT be legislature who made a LAW saying gun ownership records are PUBLIC. It MIGHT be the gun owner who signed a document indicating that he KNEW that his permit would be made public.

I don't know WHO did bad, if anybody, but the newspaper didn't.

Excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

True: One is what a record IS, and the other is what a newspaper does.

Should they have published the list? As a citizen, I'd LIKE to know if my neighbor has a gun. The newspaper DID me a service. That's what they do. I don't blame them at all..

IF there's a bad, it MIGHT be the agency who RELEASED the list. It MIGHT be legislature who made a LAW saying gun ownership records are PUBLIC. It MIGHT be the gun owner who signed a document indicating that he KNEW that his permit would be made public.

I dunno WHO did bad, if anybody, but the newspaper didn't.

excon

It MIGHT also hint at who is NOT protecting their homes with a gun or give some wacko anti-gun zealots a map of who to harass. But I'm not surprised you don't find it troubling that a newspaper would push their agenda without regard to the people it might affect.

Quote:

not surprised you don't find it troubling that a newspaper would push their agenda without regard to the people it might affect.

Would you be as pissed at them if they published a list of sex offenders? That would effect people too. What if they published a list of convicted drunk drivers? Would THAT be something you'd like to know?? What about a list of convicted POT smokers? Would THAT piss you off? It WOULD effect some people.

With all your carping about the First Amendment, you sure don't like PARTS of it.

Excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Would you be as pissed at them if they published a list of sex offenders? That would effect people too. What if they published a list of convicted drunk drivers? Would THAT be something you'd like to know??? What about a list of convicted POT smokers? Would THAT piss you off?? It WOULD effect some people.

With all your carping about the First Amendment, you sure don't like PARTS of it.

excon

I never said it wasn't legal, it is irresponsible. Those people did nothing to deserve that like a convicted sex offender.

But you have no problem with the NRA pushing their agenda and weakening laws in states, and taking advantage of those weak laws, and giving the bad guys, crazies, criminals, and irresponsible people a right to bear arms and make both mass carnage, and local terror.

That has a bad effect on people too.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

Those people did nothing to deserve that like a convicted sex offender.

In this great country of ours, you break the law, you do your time, and you get on with your life.

Doing his time is ALL an offender "deserves". That's the American way... Oh, it's NOT what we're doing... A sex offender does his time in jail, and suffers for the rest of his LIFE on the outside.

Now, if it was ME, and some sex offender was SOOO vicious that he needed to be punished for LIFE, then we shouldn't let him out. But, IF we do, I don't know WHAT we accomplish by letting him out, and then prevent him from EVER living a normal life... It's shooting ourselves in the foot.

Let me ask you this. In the real world, do you feel safer because there's a sex offender registry? Have you EVER consulted one? IF you did, did you BELIEVE it?

So, I dispute your use of the word "deserve".

Excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

But you have no problem with the NRA pushing their agenda and weakening laws in states, and taking advantage of those weak laws, and giving the bad guys, crazies, criminals, and irresponsible people a right to bear arms and make both mass carnage, and local terror.

That has a bad effect on people too.

The NRA doesn't publish addresses of innocent people minding their own business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

In this great country of ours, you break the law, you do your time, and you get on with your life.

Doing his time is ALL an offender "deserves". That's the American way... Oh, it's NOT what we're doing... A sex offender does his time in jail, and suffers for LIFE on the outside.

Now, if it was ME, and some sex offender was SOOO visiouse that he needed to be punished for LIFE, I believe he shouldn't be let out. I dunno WHAT we accomplish by letting him out, but preventing him from EVER living a normal life...

Lemme ask you this. In the real world, do you feel safer because there's a sex offender registry? Have you EVER consulted one? IF you did, did you BELIEVE it?

So, I dispute your use of the word "deserve".

excon

I never said I was in favor of sex offender registries, in fact I objected to a proposed law in my own city this year which would have virtually prohibited a sex offender from living within the city limits. But nice dodge, I guess those evil gun owners had it coming, eh?

So a citizen exercising their 2nd amendment rights are on the same plain of suspicion as a convicted sex offender ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

So a citizen exercising their 2nd amendment rights are on the same plain of suspicion as a convicted sex offender ?

Pretty much.

Amazing how the public is lining up behind that call for gun control. One would think that if there was a threat of a ban ,that the sale of guns would decline. After all ;who wants to own a new gun if they are to be banned and confiscated... right ? Something is telling me that the public is being a bit resistant to the idea.

Perhaps the people are distrustful of their government?

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

So a citizen exercising their 2nd amendment rights are on the same plain of suspicion as a convicted sex offender ?

In this great country of ours, YES. But, of course, your party has been comfortable with second class citizens since it's inception.

Excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

In this great country of ours, YES. But, of course, your party has been comfortable with second class citizens since it's inception.

excon

The insult aside, what exactly are those gun owners suspected of?

While waiting for ex to tell us what law abiding gun owners should be suspected of, here are a few nuggets on the solution.

One college professor in Rhode Island thinks anyone who wants to arm teachers should be "beaten to death." He also wants Wayne LaPierre's "head on a stick."

Author Joyce Carol Oates wonders, "If sizable numbers of NRA members become gun-victims themselves, maybe hope for legislation of firearms?" CSI actress Actress Marg Helgenberger says, "One can only hope."

Yeah, let's shoot and/or beat gun owners to death, that'll stop gun violence.

Hello wingers:

I don't know that ANYBODY said they were suspected of anything. They're gun owners. They had to APPLY for a permit.. The permit is PUBLIC information.

That's it. Ain't nothing more complicated than that.

excon