It may be a sign of the times that news of a new school shooting in Littleton, Colorado, seems to be making no splash at all on the blogosphere. No one was killed, fortunately, but still, you’d think some blogger would mention it. I haven’t even seen any rightie bloggers try to claim the shooter was a liberal.
Anyway, guns are in the news. Ian Urbina reports for the New York Times that states are tossing out what’s left of firearm regulations in anticipation of the Great Obama Gun Grab that’s supposed to begin any minute now.
President Obama has never indicated he intends to try to confiscate firearms, and last year he signed bills that allows firearms to be carried in national parks and on Amtrak trains. But that just shows how diabolically clever he is. As soon as gun owners relax their guard, agents from ACORN will show up at their doors to confiscate their firearms.
Some states have passed laws saying that firearms manufactured, purchased and used entirely within their states are not subject to any federal regulation. Which is to say, if you think the U.S. Congress is a waste of protoplasm, you probably don’t want to look at your state legislature real hard.
I read this week that the Indiana legislature is debating a bill that would deny employers the right to ban firearms from their property. Gun owners want to be able to store their guns in their cars while parked in the company parking lot.
Employers complain that the bill interferes with their property rights. The National Rifle Association says that the right to self-defense trumps property rights. I guess if there’s a hold-up in your workplace, you could tell the bandit to wait until you fetch the rifle from your car.
It’s crazy out there, people.
Just in case this post attracts some firearm, um, enthusiasts, let me say that I do not oppose personal firearm ownership per se. I have never owned a gun, but if I lived in a remote mountain cabin in Montana, I might keep a loaded shotgun on the wall. I don’t even oppose hunting, even though I am a Buddhist. I wouldn’t go hunting myself, but I wouldn’t stop other people from hunting as long as they know what they’re doing and follow state laws and hunting safety rules and, most of all, stay sober.
I also think there’s some truth in the slogan “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” As Michael Moore pointed out in Bowling for Columbine, there are other nations, notably Canada, in which lots of people own guns and which don’t have anywhere near the level of gun violence you find in America.
The cause of gun violence is not guns alone, but a combination of guns plus people who are (a) paranoid, (b) angry, (c) paranoid and angry, (d) criminal, (e) psychotic, or (e) all of the above. Unfortunately, that list describes a large portion of the American public.
And, unfortunately, the people who are most hysterical about keeping their right to bear arms are the same people you’d least likely trust to use a firearm responsibly. (See list in previous paragraph.) The NY Times article pretty much backs me up on that.
The current stampede to reverse state firearms regulations is part of an ongoing trend. Although it hasn’t been updated since 2006, this animated graphic shows changes in right-to-carry laws nationwide. This is supposed to make us safer from criminals carrying guns, a claim demolished pretty well on this website.
And Steve M. has data showing how Virginia’s gun laws impact crime in New York City. New York City? Virginia is the primary supplier of guns used in crimes in NYC. Years ago criminals could drive down to Virginia, legally purchase a carload of firearms, and drive them back to NYC. In 1993, Virginia passed a law restricting citizens to one firearm purchase a month, which contributed to a dramatic drop in violent crime in NYC.
Well, guess what, folks? Virginia just voted to repeal the law. Because, you know, purchasing one gun per month isn’t good enough to keep law-abiding citizens self-protected.
There are more than twice as many registered guns in the US. v. Canada. And this doesn’t address illegal firearms, especially assault rifles and handguns.
I think handgun licensing should be very, very tough and expensive.
Ban assault weapons but you can own all the sporting rifles/shotguns you can afford.
There are more than twice as many registered guns in the US. v. Canada.
Yes, but there are a lot more people in the U.S. than in Canada. It’s not the number, but the rate, you want to look at.
Maha:
Chalk it up to the “The news doesn’t report all the houses that DIDN’T burn down today.” The potential massacre was stopped by people on the scene before it ever turned into a massacre, so it’s not as newsworthy as it would be if 15 children had been killed and there was a 2 hr standoff before the shooter offed himself.
No, he hasn’t—but do you think that things like â€Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban†wouldn’t give gun owners any reason for concern? And the fact that Obama supported Illinois’ handgun ban (that’s a “ban’), and that he supports banning â€the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons†(semi-auto, mind you, not machine guns) doesn’t make gun owners “paranoid†for thinking that perhaps Obama doesn’t see eye to eye with them on this issue.
I voted for Obama, despite my concerns about his position on guns, because I took the view that there was so much for him to fix and limited political capital for which to do it that he’d never bother to touch the gun issue, and I was right. But gun owners were not “paranoid†for thinking that there was a possibility he’d push for a ban on handguns, semi-autos, or sporting rifles (so-called “assault rifles) because he has publicly supported all of those things.
That’s great an all, but I don’t live in Montana, and I’m vegan so I don’t hunt. I’ve never had to defend myself in any rural areas, I’ve only had to defend myself and had my house broken into while I was living in a city.
The majority of gun homicides occur in poor urban areas (mostly D on your list, with a little bit of A & E sprinkled in). But that’s not the CAUSE of gun violence, it’s a symptom. The causes of gun violence are mostly culture and economics in my opinion. Most firearm crime is drug and/or gang related, not paranoid crazy people. And “the people who are most hysterical about keeping their right to bear arms” are not the ones doing the shooting or the dying.
That website doesn’t demolish the claim, it merely points out that correlation is not causation—which we should already know—and points out that there is no evidence to support the claim that increased concealed carry lowers crime rates. I agree completely—I don’t think firearm availability has a positive or negative effect on crime rates, because I think crime rates are influenced by entirely different factors (as I said above). What’s clear, however, is that increased concealed carry certainly does not INCREASE crime rates, which is what gun control advocates always say is going to happen (there will be blood in the streets, it’ll be the Wild West, etc).
GoingLikeSixty:
Why ban what you call “assault rifles”? That’s not what people use to commit the vast majority of firearm crimes—they use handguns. And what you are referring to are, in actuality, modern sporting rifles.
If by sporting rifles you mean hunting rifles—which are far more powerful and accurate than those scary-looking “assault rifles”—I would just point out that the school shooter in Littleton used a bolt action hunting rifle. If there were no restrictions on hunting rifles or shotguns, and that’s all that was available, criminals would just get ahold of those.
Look, ALL guns are dangerous, especially in the hands of someone with the intent to to do ill with it. The only way do away with gun violence is to do away with the things that make people willing to use violence. It’s a cultural and socio-economic problem, and that is where the solution lies.
The hysterical over-reaction described in the NY Times article is proof of the paranoia.
That website doesn’t demolish the claim, it merely points out that correlation is not causation—which we should already know—and points out that there is no evidence to support the claim that increased concealed carry lowers crime rates.
“points out that there is no evidence to support the claim that increased concealed carry lowers crime rates” IS demolishing the claim that increased concealed doesn’t lower crime rates.
You’re an idiot. Don’t come back.
Guns are part of the American culture and probably always will be… the Minutemen, Teddy, wild west… all of that. And the more recent urban gangster thing too I suppose.
I’ve known a few gun nuts in my time. The responsible ones are usually pretty mature and intelligent about their use and display. But I’d say most of the certified nuts are a couple balls short of real manhood. Guns are instant machismo.
When I ask em: “What good are guns against a totalitarian government armed with spy satellites, tanks and missile drones?â€, I’ll get the usual “cold dead fingers†bit. Apparently lots of guns and ammo magically turns your average fast food ‘n beer couch potato into Clint Eastwood. I guess I’d have to add “psychological compensation†into American gun culture.
The problem with these people can be summarized in the immortal words of, the sadly still not mortal, Phil Gramm (supply your own stroke victim-like heavy Texas drawl):
Aaaah Heeaaave mowehr guuhns thaaann Aaaah neeiehd, buht nowaht ahhs maaaahny guuhns aaahs Ah wawaahnt!
If you hunt, and eat what you hunt, I have NO problem with you.
My problem isn’t hunting rifles, it’s handguns and assualt weapons.
Jesus Bubba, how many guns do you need?
What, are “The 300” going to come to you house tonight for a hold-up?
Is every crazy N!$$@h in the state comin’ to pull the triggah at your house tomorrow?
Then what? The 82nd Airborne parachuting out of black helicoptors on Friday, just for the Hell of it?
Where does this madness stop? On the plus side for the rest of us, the most likely people they’re going to shoot/wound/kill is themselves, and sadly, their families.
My brother is a gun ‘nut’ and a rightie. He’s also extremely well trained – a marksman and a level head. He’s gonna hit what he’s aiming at, not bystanders, and he KNOWS as a mater of education, discussion and practice WHEN he’s justified in pulling the trigger. And yeah, he’s almost always carying.
This isn’t an issue much different from sex education. If you are going to *copulate* then you need to know about pregnancy, paternity rights and obligations, STD’s. The only difference is that you are born with your sexual organs and have to decide how you will use them (or not). Gun ownership is optional. Everybody ignores education. If you are going to own a car, you have to demonstrate proficiancy.
When the founders spoke of gun ownership as a right, they never conceived of a society where fathers would not teach their sons (and daughters if you check American history) how to use a gun. I taught my sons – as my Dad taught me. Not just marksmanship, but safety, ethics and the law if you are going to own a weapon.
While I may be accused of smoking cheap weed, I wish Obama would sit down with represntatives of the NRA, law enforcement, gun manufacturers and ask for cooperative input into responsible gun ownership – with education the cornerstone of the proposal.
The paranoia on the right when it comes to guns is no different than all the other paranoid delusional behavior they exhibit. As a gun nut liberal myself (yes I have handguns as well) I have never heard or seen any signs that Obama is gonna grab my guns. It is just more dimwitted teabagger imaginary scary Blackman fever!
Guav:
Your claim that Obama supports
â€the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weaponsâ€
has, as its source: Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
Which, strangely, does not source the information in a way that allows you to assert that this represents Obama’s views. When he has talked, specifically, about his views, he has never said anything about a desire for such a ban.
Now, a claim that his explicitly spoken words, carefully made and carefully chosen, to answer a specific question, do not represent his true feelings, and that he’s actually concealing his true feelings, because there are other things (possibly filled out by staffers – a perfectly reasonable explanation) is, in fact, a paranoid claim. “No! He may *say* this! He may *act* like this! But I know – Oh, I *know* that there’s a threat! I know it! Even if other people don’t realize it, *I* do!”
Maha:
I gotta say, this is the one issue that bugs me more than anything about the NRA. I supported the NRA at one point – the notion that “you have nothing to fear from a responsible gun owner” was a good notion to spread. “I don’t want to shoot anyone; why the fuck would I shoot someone? I mean, do *you* want to shoot someone? Is the only reason you don’t own a gun so you don’t get tempted to shoot someone? I don’t think so!”
But now, what I’m hearing from the gun-lovers is “if you deprive us of guns, even for a brief time (at work/in church/in a bar/in school) you’re putting us at risk!” And to take that argument seriously requires one adopt a scary vision of the world, one where you have to constantly be on your guard against dangerous people who might hurt or kill you.
That’s not a healthy attitude.
LongHairedWeirdo — I know what you mean. I’ve known lots of people who owned guns who were perfectly rational and sensible people. Some of them are even liberals. It’s just that in the U.S. there seems to be some kind of mass cult that focuses on guns as the answer to all of life’s problems, and it’s genuinely disturbing. Put another way, it’s not guns but the fanatical attachment to guns that’s the real problem.
Emeline Gudmundsson…Take it elsewhere! I’m not a prude, but I do like to keep a clear separation on my online links. I don’t think you’re welcome here!
Emeline’s spam deleted.
Thanks Maha… She caused me to sin, and now Jesus is going to be real disappointed in me!