Is it Right to Club Bears?

[xilman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20730717

[ewmayer]

Remember, "Guns don't kill people ... they just make it really *easy* to kill people."

That's how many quasi-random mass shootings in the US this week so far? Three? Four?

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Remember, "Guns don't kill people ... they just make it really *easy* to kill people."

http://www.politifake.org/image/poli...1353372622.jpg

[firejuggler]

oh... let the troll flame war begins!
/!\ Serious troll below

In god, America trust, and the devil has visited this community, right?

Connecticut's Governor accused the "Devil" for this event.
The sad true is that this sod was crazy, and we have no explanation. And the fact that even if he acted like that, he was a human, like any of us. (remember why the joker is so terrifiying in the dark knight? because there is no explanation).

Well the guy mainly killed his father, wanted to marry his mother, and upon rejection, killed her(Oedipus Rex rules!). Well, her and and a few people standing in the way,which were mainly kids.

Three cheers for the right to bear arm, and having bear arm for limb!

[/TROLL]

My condoleance to all the fammilly affected by this event. And I bet that videogames will take a hit again.
Seriously, all familly i know have at least a computer/gaming station... 95% of the gaming population behave normally, 4.999% are fan of a franchise or two, the last 0.001% well... I don't know, never meet them, and don't want to.

[chappy]

Let us not pretend this is a new problem:

Notice that when this was made there was a West Germany.

The real problem is that the talking heads are extremists all. It is impossible to 'ban' handguns. Who would enforce such a rule? Logistically impossible. So why do either side ever bring it up? Because it makes good sound bites.

I'm always of the opinion that 'tragedy does not infer expertise." In other words the father whose daughter is run over by a drunk driver is no better (in fact is probably worse) at coming up with a rational solution to the problem.

In that same vein I don't think that we should let national tragedies determine when or if we take substantive action on a given topic--like gun control.

The problem that we are running into in the US at this time is that gun tragedies are becoming so common (and I'm not talking about the constant level of criminal gun violence, but rather the guy goes nuts and shoots up his workplace/school/random elementary school/theater/etc type of violence) that we can't possibly have a rational discussion about it.

One side's mantra is ever: give people more guns!

The other side's mantra is: take all the guns away!

The first will lead to more gun deaths, the second is impossible.

Can the Pro-gun side really tell me that we need armor piercing bullets? Or to be able to buy ammunition online, without an ID and have it delivered to a PO box or one of those Mailbox stores that hold packages for you?

I want to stress that I don't think we should outlaw guns. But, I do think the NRA would be better off focusing on fighting the kinds of practices that allow mentally unstable people to access large amounts of firearms and ammunition without any trouble at all, because in the long run this will go farther to safeguard the right to harm bears more than anything they've ever done.

[Zeta-Flux]

I want to stress that I don't think we should outlaw guns.

I do, or at least a ban on those types of guns that can fire more than one bullet quickly.

But, as you say, it won't happen. It would take a constitutional amendment, and that just ain't gonna happen.

[Uncwilly]

http://news.yahoo.com/no-rise-mass-k...185700637.html

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

http://news.yahoo.com/no-rise-mass-k...185700637.html

That would be more comforting if there weren't way too many to begin with, i.e. if the historical U.S. baseline weren't so horrifying.

I'm sure "total annual handgun fatalities in the U.S." has not increased significantly above its historically "normal" level of roughly 30,000 per year, either. And hey, most of those are suicides, so no biggie there.

Typically, the 2nd amendment absolutists (while utterly ignoring the "well-regulated militia" framing of the amendment by its authors), like Karl Denninger are arguing that the "solution" is for all schools to be turned into heavily fortified bunkers with armed, kung fu expert teachers. How about a Patriot missile battery on every rooftop while we're at it, Karl?

[tServo]

Although it sure doesn't matter to the victims ( & their families ), it appears that most of the damage inflicted was done by a BushMaster assault rifle. It was stolen from the shooter's mother who had it "for self defense". Against what or whom? Was she afraid that her handguns wouldn't be able to take out a Terminator or a Dalek or ?

[NBtarheel_33]

As I see it, there are three camps that are concerned about their "right" (whatever that has/does/ought to mean) to own guns.

First, you have the sportsmen/women. Generally, they are responsible with their firearms, take pride in them, maintain them properly, etc. They are presumably engaged in ye olde noble pursuit of foraging, hunting, and gathering as we humans have done for thousands of years (we won't get into the meat-consumption debate here). The average hunter has no need for anything that shoots beyond one bullet at a time. Maybe it is nice to be able to clip on 10-12 rounds, but still, if the shooter has any business in the sport, they should be able to get by with one bullet exiting the chamber per go. Obviously, firearms can be tragically misused in sport, too, but it is much less likely. The hunting issue is the one upon which the NRA would like to hang its hat, but at the end of the day, the fact is that hunters do not generally need or want semiautomatic or automatic, assault-type, military-grade weapons. I have no trouble with a trained, licensed sportsperson wanting to own and use firearms (perhaps subject to the constraints below) in line with safety, property, ethical, and legal considerations.

The second group would be those that argue that firearms are necessary for home defense. This is the camp that seemed to contain the CT shooter's mother. I had some first-hand experience this summer that went some distance in at least making me understand the position of the "home defendant". My family was at our second home on the coast of Maine, an extremely rural area, roughly 20 miles from the county seat, in a county that is 2,351 square miles with a population of just over 50,000. The road system in this area is rather meandering and antiquated, so that even the aforementioned 20-mile journey might take 45 minutes to an hour at times. This is an area that is generally considered "safe" and relatively crime-free, but in recent years, they have seen the introduction of a meth/"bath salts" problem that has led to some petty break-ins and burglaries. Long story short, our home's burglar alarm malfunctioned and sounded off at 3am one night, when my mother and I were home alone. The alarm company contacted the police...the only problem was that the SINGLE on-duty county sheriff was about 45 minutes on the other side of the county seat...which pegged him at least 60-75 minutes from our house. We sat in a bedroom closet, afraid to move (not knowing if the alarm was a real problem or not, and thinking it wise to not take a chance on guessing), with the 911 dispatcher making small talk on the phone and the burglar siren wailing in the background. It was almost 5am when the police finally arrived and determined that it had been a false alarm. Had there been a real burglar, perhaps armed and willing to injure or kill, we wouldn't have stood a chance. As a result of this experience, as well as learning from others that typical response times in rural Maine for the police can be in the range of multiple hours, my mother purchased a 12-gauge pump action shotgun and a small quantity of buckshot. Most Mainers have similar weapons at their disposal (indeed, most are avid hunters, so the hunting gun can also serve as the defense gun). We don't really want to own weapons, and we hope to God never to have to load it, let alone shoot it, and you had better believe that it is locked away securely when we are away from the house. But I will admit that it feels a lot better knowing that the pump-action sound alone might be enough to scare away an intruder before they have a chance to become a threat or instigate a hostage situation for the 1-2+ hours that it might take to get law enforcement on the scene. So I can understand someone in a rural area (that perhaps hunts already, anyway) maintaining a firearm for home protection. Again, however, I don't see the need of anything capable of shooting more than one bullet at a time. You won't defend a home with an assault weapon, you'll blast your home apart and probably kill several close neighbors.

The third group of gun ownership proponents would be those who feel that owning guns protects them from some sort of government take-over or confiscation of what they own in some way. There are some people that own guns for eschatological reasons (the Tribulation, Armageddon, Mayan Apocalypse, what have you). This group can be a little more disconcerting, and statistically are more likely to misuse their weapons or potentially allow them to fall into the wrong hands. I also would argue that there is a greater likelihood for potential mental illness/instability (or perhaps, call it "irrationality") among this group. A beautiful, quaint Southern town - Abbeville, South Carolina - fell victim to a family of this sort in 2003. In the linked article, note the excessive quantities and dangerous types of firearms owned and used by that family. Definite warning signs would be those that fancy themselves as members of a "militia", "uprising", or similar group; those that frequently have Dale Gribble-esque worldviews; and those that believe deeply in proximate eschatologically-induced battles. These are the people that are not interested in firing one bullet at a time. They are interested in firing all over the map, without regard for who or what they hit, and at the end of the day, they often truly believe that their survival is a "kill or be killed" proposition. Extremely frightening scenario in which multiple high-powered assault weapons are maintained and ready to use at the drop of a hat. This is the group with regards to which the NRA would like us all to look away and whistle, and think that every gun owner in the world is a responsible member of the first two groups above.

So, with these three groups in mind, how might we proceed with respect to reducing the chances of tragedies like those in Aurora or Sandy Hook? First, we must better track the numbers of firearms that are owned by a single individual. There is a place for collectible pieces (many of which can no longer be shot), but when one individual amasses an arsenal of 20-30 modern, working firearms, it seems as though some authority figure, somewhere, should be asking questions, or at least singling the owner out for more stringent background, criminal, and psychological/psychiatric investigation. There probably ought to be certain criminal behaviors (and indeed, there are now) and medical issues (e.g. severe mental illness history, paranoia...right on down to not being fit enough to withstand the kick of the thing when shooting it!) that preclude gun ownership, just as similar criteria exist that can preclude possessing a driver's license or the right to vote.

If we look back at the three groups of gun owners discussed above, we note that only the "fringe, troubled" (in the South, they'd say "bless their heart") types generally are concerned with automatics, assault weapons, machine guns, etc. Assault weapons were banned under the Clinton administration, and we seemed to get by fine. They ought to be banned again. Hunting and home defense are both quite possible with simple shotguns that shoot one bullet at a time and hold 10-12 rounds max. There is absolutely no need in any civilized society to be able to mow down more than twenty human beings (or even animals, for that matter) in three minutes (perhaps during wartime, but then that is the military's bailiwick). Ban these weapons from civilian sale at once.

From here, we need to change the RIGHT to bear arms to the PRIVILEGE to bear arms (just as driving a car is a privilege, and never a right) that carries grave responsibilities. Set a maximum lifetime ownership limit on firearms (five, ten, twenty?) and require full criminal and medical history investigations with every purchase. Just as we register cars and renew driver's licenses at regular intervals, require gun owners to submit to yearly gun registrations and re-checks of criminal and medical history. Require a full explanation of why the firearm is being purchased, e.g. home defense, hunting bears, Satan crawling in my attic window, etc. If the reason seems like it is irrational, anarchic, or "doomsday"-related, this should be noted in the applicant's file, and there should be provisions for denying further purchases if so warranted. Confiscation provisions should exist for those gun owners whose circumstances change so that they can no longer lawfully or safely own firearms. If Gramps is 95, blind, and can't steady his rifle, he shouldn't own it. If mild-mannered Mr. Smith owns a gun, and one day loses his temper and rings up a domestic violence charge, he shouldn't own it. And so on. Since it is quite possible to live a long, happy, successful life without owning a firearm, it is quite all right to err on the side of public safety, even if the new rules are heavy-handed on a few folks.

(CONTINUED IN SECOND POST BELOW)

[NBtarheel_33]

Last but certainly not least, with this new framework of rules, regulations, and controls in place, the penalties need to be severely increased for failing to keep one's legally owned firearms out of the reach of those who have no business with them. For instance, in the Connecticut case, it is believed that the shooter had mental illness issues. His mother therefore should have never allowed him access to firearms (it has been noted that she took him to the shooting range on several occasions, and encouraged him to fire the guns), especially since (if we adopted the new rules above) he would never be allowed to own them himself with a confirmed diagnosis of mental illness. Similarly, if a child or teenager accesses Dad's .22 and heads off to the garage and injures themselves, or worse, massacres their school, Dad should be held as liable as a parent might be for allowing an underage child to drive a car and commit manslaughter by running over a pedestrian. The penalties here would be harsh, and deliberately so, to send the message of responsibility. In the Connecticut case, I would say that the estate of the shooter's mother should be subject to full attachment by the victims, for instance. Had she lived, she should have been subject to a charge of accessory to 28 counts of manslaughter, if not outright murder. There are many gun owners that have small children, that don't even have the common sense to invest in trigger locks. If losing their child to a gun accident isn't enough to make them take responsibility, then perhaps a decade or two in prison would fit the bill.

The United States is quite different from many smaller nations that have outright banned weapons, just as it is different from other nations in an economic and political sense. This country is incredibly vast and much more heavily populated than many in Europe, for example, so there are going to be times and places (e.g. Maine) where the police simply aren't readily available for every emergency. Therefore, there probably should be an option to maintain a firearm for home defense. Also keep in mind that our neighbors to the south will gladly import as many drugs and guns as our friendly neighborhood criminals would like to have, so completely eliminating guns from American hands will ensure that American victims will end up on the wrong end of guns, banned or not. In the UK, for example, one does not generally hear about the illegal trafficking of weapons from France or Spain, do they? And lastly, let us not forget that even in one of the most peaceful countries on Earth, we are never guaranteed total freedom from violence. So while some would scream "total gun control now!" and others would scream "free guns for all!", the answer is definitely somewhere along the spectrum between the two, a lot closer to the middle, yet leaning ever so slightly towards the "control" side. With our government's seeming inability to compromise on anything, however, one wonders how many more times we will have to witness this kind of horror before someone, somewhere proclaims that enough is enough and takes responsibility before the list of public sanctuaries has gone completely blank, and grade-school children must fear for their lives to simply go to school each day. The thought of little JonBenet Ramsey has been with me this weekend. As tragic as her death was at six years old, now we have JonBenet times 20. I pray that we do not become desensitized too quickly.