Today, the amazing thing about the reaction to the Giffords shooting is that virtually all the discussion about how to prevent a recurrence has been focusing on improving the tone of our political discourse. That would certainly be great. But you do not hear much about the fact that Jared Loughner came to Giffords’s sweet gathering with a semiautomatic weapon that he was able to buy legally because the law restricting their sale expired in 2004 and Congress did not have the guts to face up to the National Rifle Association and extend it. (My emphasis)
If Loughner had gone to the Safeway carrying a regular pistol, the kind most Americans think of when they think of the right to bear arms, Giffords would probably still have been shot and we would still be having that conversation about whether it was a sane idea to put her Congressional district in the cross hairs of a rifle on the Internet.
But we might not have lost a federal judge, a 76-year-old church volunteer, two elderly women, Giffords’s 30-year-old constituent services director and a 9-year-old girl who had recently been elected to the student council at her school and went to the event because she wanted to see how democracy worked.
Even if you accept that we are all militia, as the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled, and we all have the right to bear arms according to the 2nd Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, what about regulation of automatic weapons? That in certain areas, there are no laws against the purchase of automatic weapons seems insane to me. What citizen needs an automatic weapon for self-protection? But our Congress stands immobilized by fear of the N.R.A. As Collins says:
Most politicians won’t talk about it because they’re afraid of the N.R.A., whose agenda is driven by the people who sell guns and want the right to sell as many as possible.
Doesn’t it seem like the least we can do?
From a country where there is no right to carry arms at all the whole thing looks insane whatever gun you have.
ReplyDelete"Sir", to those on the outside, I'm sure the whole damn country seems insane on the subject of guns, and I can't blame them.
ReplyDeleteThis is a time I have to respectfully disagree, Mimi.
ReplyDeleteI own a 9mm Glock myself--with a 10 shot magazine. It is far and away the most accurate and trouble-free of the pistols I keep for self-protection. Living in a remote rural area, where a 911 call *might* get me results in 20-40 minutes, it does have a purpose.
It's also not an automatic, it's a semi-automatic. You have to pull the trigger each time to shoot it. A true automatic weapon, a single trigger press held down continues to shoot. It is illegal for a U.S. citizen in 99% of ordinary circumstances to own an automatic weapon.
It's confusing when phrases like "9mm auto" or ".45 auto" are used. That doesn't really refer to an automatic weapon. It refers to a semi-auto.
That said, where I differ from most pro 2nd amendment folks is I would not have a problem with more stringent requirements to own one.
These days, a person is just as likely to be a bomber as a shooter, honestly. No gun law is going to fix that.
Truthfully, I'd love to live in a world where I could give up my 9mm Glock. But until criminals can't have one, I'm afraid I'll be pretty dead set on keeping mine as a legal, law-abiding gun owner.
I realize we will just have to disagree on that one. Love ya.
Kirke, then we respectfully disagree. Nothing you've said causes me to rethink my position, but obviously you have the right to your Glock.
ReplyDeleteWe agree that the laws for owning guns should be more stringent.
I concur with Mimi, and with KE as far as stricter regulations -- that this young man could be kicked out of school for failing to obtain a psychiatric o.k. but could buy a lethal weapon of any kind (auto or semi) without one demonstrates to me a skewed value system. The right to bear arms does not trump the right of the citizenship to live in safety -- and it has been argued that the right to bear arms is only intended to be in support of that right to live in safety! So ensuring the safe conduct of those bearing arms is completely within the ambit of the Constitution, it seems to me...
ReplyDeleteAustralia has remote rural areas where people are very isolated and doesn't seem to feel the need for the same gun laws. Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Kirke, I just can't accept the "where I live" rationalization. [Each and every American wanting a Glock could/would make the same "my area is special" claim!]
ReplyDeleteHowever, I CAN DEMAND a mental illness disqualification!
Loughner had ALREADY been kicked out of community college for Teh (Threatening) Krazy (and we can surmise something like that kept him out of the Army). WHY IN THE WORLD is that information not SHARED w/ law enforcement, to prevent a Glock sale to him? WTF???
I'm willing to see how an EFFECTIVE mental illness gun-screening works, first.
If Glocks STILL kill people, then it's time to talk about banning semi-automatics (again. How did you survive from 1994-2004 then, Kirke? When they were illegal?)
If I had a gun for self-protection, I'd probably shoot myself by accident. I hate guns.
ReplyDeleteTwo reasons not to have a gun in the house (for me): children and the fact I would then be keeping a weapon that cannot be used to effectively hurt someone without killing them. The level of stress that I would feel on a daily basis if I had a gun in the house would not be worth the ostensible projection it would give me. Also, (and this is where my gun-ignorance might show) if you store a gun safely as recommended when you have children in a house, what are the real chances that you are going to be able to get to it, load it, and be able to use it if an intruder does attack? Add to that the possibility of accidentally shooting a family member and I just don't see guns in the house (for protection) as a good risk/reward proposition.
ReplyDeleteThere are good reasons to own guns. I have several, and I've used them.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with keeping them around for self-protection. That's my opinion, Kirk has hers. We're allowed to do that in the US.
I think that a better solution is to require marksman and gun safety training before purchase. That makes it difficult enough to weed out the true nutters, while protecting the rights of those of us who need and use guns responsibly. I doubt even the NRA would object to that.
kehf, I'm with you.
ReplyDeleteLindy, Grandpère hunts, so we have guns around the house, too many for my taste, but I eat and enjoy the game, so I may appear somewhat hypocritical. To tell the truth, I feel better about eating game killed by a responsible hunter than the plastic-wrapped meat from the market, because the game ran free until they were shot.
When I lived in the Arctic I owned four hunting rifles and used them regularly. I had to pass a test and get a Firearms Acquisition Certificate from the RCMP before I could buy them. Today the requirements are much stricter. Obviously I am not against the ownership of guns.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would simply observe (in response to Kirke) that your right to own semi-automatic weapons in the USA has not in fact protected you from criminals. You live in one of the countries in the western world where you are most likely to be killed in a firearms-related incident. According to table 1 here (admittedly somewhat dated, but I suspect there hasn't been much improvement) you are twelve times more likely to be murdered with a firearm in the USA than in Canada. Owning guns isn't making it safer for you.
Tim, thanks. Since our grandchildren visit frequently, the hunting guns must be locked away. There would be a time gap in getting to the guns for the purpose of self-protection, therefore I don't see them as being helpful for that purpose.
ReplyDeleteThe hodge-podge of state laws and the weak federal laws that apply to gun ownership are a national shame.
Yes, it's part of the firearms law here in Canada that guns must be properly stored at all times in a locked cabinet. So there would indeed be a delay in getting to them for self-protection purposes.
ReplyDeleteThis does not seem to have made us any less safe, statistically, than areas of the world where there is no such law!
Tobias and I are also in agreement with the mental illness disqualification. I also wonder how divorces would fare in this country if,as part of the conditions for divorce, neither party would be allowed to own a firearm for a year, or if the law were called on a domestic dispute, both parties would lose their right to own firearms for a specified time.
ReplyDeleteKirke, I don't understand the connection you make between gun ownership and divorce.
ReplyDelete@JCF: You are speaking out of ignorance regarding the Federal Weapons assault ban from 1994-2004. That only banned CERTAIN semi-auto pistols with two or more ofthe following characteristics:
ReplyDelete* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
So to answer your question, I owned my Glock--legally--during that time. A legal semi-auto pistol is simply a pistol with a magazine in the grip, that shoots every time you pull the trigger and reloads the next shell in the chamber. Period. That is ALL a Glock pistol is. It is not an assault weapon. Look on the hip of any police officer and you are liable to see one.
Please don't snark at me when you are the one ignorant of the types of firearms.
I have no problem with toughening up gun ownership laws in this country. Honestly, it makes no sense I have to buy a license to shoot a squirrel; I have to buy a license to own a dog, but I don't have to have a license to own a handgun. This is where the NRA political types and I differ.
The flaw in gun registration in this country is basically, most guns, long guns and handguns, are lost to the world after the first owner unless the gun ends up being re-sold in a gun store. There is an NCIS check when purchasing a firearm in a store or a new firearm, and that owner is recorded. When one buys a handgun in Missouri, there is an additional registration at the Sheriff's office and a three day waiting period.
However...if I go to an estate auction and buy a used long gun, I can take possession immediately and take it home that very day. Handguns will still have to be registered at the sheriff's office.
But handguns escape the system when people (illegally) sell them to each other or someone inherits one.
Stolen handguns are often not reported when the owner owned it illegally.
I would be the first to tell you there are plenty of loopholes that need closing. I would have no problem with that.
I'm not a big one - despite my own ranting, at times - for the "simple answer" to anything.
ReplyDeleteAll guns all the time is no answer.
No guns, nuh-uh, never no how isn't the answer.
People will always find ways to kill each other. Guns are not actually terribly efficient at that unless in the hands of a very skilled marksman. I couldn't hit the broadside of a barn - but anyone with a bottle, some gasoline, a lighter, a rag and a convenient window to smash can devastate a whole house full of people. It's way easier to cut a throat than hit a vital spot at a distance.
I find guns unnecessary and inefficient tools with a very limited use and don't understand why anyone would risk one against a moving target for self-protection, but taking away guns won't take away murder, not even, I think, the ease with which it's accomplished.
Mimi, it's about gun ownership and domestic violence, really. Abused domestic partners are at greater risk of lethal domestic violence in the first year following their divorce.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see a much stronger connection between gun ownership and history of domestic violence or stalking.
I'm not advocating a ban on gun ownership. I want stricter laws about what type of guns are permitted to private individuals and more stringent requirements for a license to own firearms.
ReplyDeleteKirke, thanks for your explanation.
I would suggest laws something like these.
ReplyDeleteTim, the laws seem reasonable to me.
ReplyDelete