They had more in common than unleashing carnage _ nearly every gunman in this monthlong series of mass killings was legally entitled to fire his weapons.
So what does that say about the state of gun control laws in this country?
The answer is obvious. The state of gun control laws in this country is poor. As much as the gun enthusiasts lament all the gun laws, there doesn't seem to be much difficulty for anyone who wants guns to get them.
Ms. Hastings lists many of the attempts currently in play to lessen the restrictions including the fact that last month, 65 House Democrats said they would block any attempt to resurrect an expired federal ban against assault weapons. In Texas and Arkansas, for example, legislation is pending to loosen gun restrictions.
Jeffrey Chamberlain, a former Rochester prosecutor and chief counsel to the New York State Police says, the answer to gun violence lies not in stricter regulations, but in answering the question, "Why are we so tolerant of having guns in this country? The answer to that is historical. We've had guns for a very long time."
"I can't think of any sweeping law change that would address that."
The answer to why atrocities happen in places such as Binghamton, and before that Washington state and Santa Clara, Calif., lies in sheer numbers.
The number 280 million, to be precise, the estimated total of every gun in this country.
"When you have that many guns, those guns are going to be used in horrific ways," Vogel said. "There's just too many. Inevitably, somehow, some way, those weapons are going to be used in an egregious way."
Now we're talking. Now we're talking about the real problem: too many guns. I've been saying it for months, and it seems I'm not the only one. But, what of the solution? Is there no legislation that could address this problem? Mr. Chamberlain's comment is that no sweeping laws can answer the question why are we so tolerant of having guns in this country?
Could the answer lie in the fact that the NRA and the pro-gun lobby are extremely powerful and block every attempt at improving the situation as far as gun violence goes? Could it be that gun owners individually resist such ideas as "gun flow" contributing to the problem, "gun availability" being key in many incidents and in the much-maligned idea of their sharing in the responsibility for this violence?
If the gun owners are wrong, and the anti-gun folks are right, why doesn't the situation resolve itself naturally? Well, I have a theory about that. A very high percentage of gun owners are passionate about gun rights. A very low percentage of folks who don't own guns are passionate about the debate. The results are apparent on any google search you can think of. The proportion of pro-gun to anti-gun comments on such blogs as my own also tells the tale.
Unfortunately for the pro-gun crowd, having the greater visible numbers on the internet, just like incessant repetition of their claims, does not mean they're right.
I say there are too many guns and something must be done about it. If that means taking another look at the 2nd Amendment and how we interpret it, then good, if that is what's necessary before we can have the types of federal restrictions that would reduce the total numbers.
What's your opinion? Do you think the gun lobby is too strong in America? Do you think in spite of the incredible number mentioned, 280,000,000, the pro-gun folks represent only a minority? Which direction do you see it moving, towards increased gun restrictions or away?
Please leave a comment.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteAs much as the gun enthusiasts lament all the gun laws, there doesn't seem to be much difficulty for anyone who wants guns to get them.
Why should there be a difficulty in getting firearms if you aren't a prohibited person?
Is there any difficulties in getting a computer and a camera?
Nope, less difficulty getting the implements of child porn then getting a firearm.
Are you willing to put the same restrictions on those pieces of equipment to prevent that horrible crime?
Texas is trying to loosen the restrictions and those attempts make sense.
One of them is if a bar does not display the proper signage, telling people it makes 51% or more of its money from the sale of alcohol - making it a prohibited place -- people can still be arrested for carrying concealed there. How exactly, as a customer walking in the door, am I to know how they make their money?
Others is letting CHL holders carry on campus. Can you honestly say that someone who has a CHL is likely to cause a problem on campus?
Now we're talking about the real problem: too many guns. I've been saying it for months, and it seems I'm not the only one.
Then why are there more deaths attributed to CARS and Alcohol then there are to firearms?
It isn't the gun, it is the people using them. We've covered this before, you are now just repeating your say tired unsupported opinion.
It's hard to believe that the two usual pro-gunners have not yet dropped their load here.
ReplyDeleteOn my blog I was accused of being a Typical anti-freedom, pro-ignorance crowd behavior. Folding when faced with facts and truth.
Funny stuff, always a hoot on the right side of life.
is the ACLU too strong in America too Mike? The NRA merely lobbies in defense of a Constitutional Right. You act as if defense of the BOR is a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteAs far as your claim that we should change or at least "reinterpret" the 2nd Amendment so that it may be meaningless and we can go ahead and disarm American citizens (which is what you want) I only have one thing to say to that.
Repealing the 2nd Amendment doesn’t make it go away anymore than repealing the rest of the Bill of Rights would allow the government to kick in my door and rob, beat, imprison and torture me with impunity. The 2nd Amendment is inherent and inalienable just like the rest of the Bill of Rights. Words on ink & parchment don't "grant" me the right to keep & bear arms, they merely codify a pre-existing right. My rights, all of them, exist independent of the Constitution.
By the way Mike, CA and NY have lower rates of gun ownership (per capita) than many other states with lax gun laws. If the number of guns is the problem shouldn't states like CA and NY, with stricter laws and fewer gun owners have lower violent crime rates?
We've made coherent arguments against all these tired claims. We've cited laws, stats, and studies.
ReplyDeleteCan you stop posting this same old logical fallacies and just give up now, Mike?
You're wrong, the people you cite are wrong, and you all know better.
Hmm, Mud wonders why the pro-gunners haven't commented yet, but I have commented here and MikeB hasn't approved it.
ReplyDeleteHasn't approved several other comments either.
Wonder why that is Mike?
"My rights, all of them, exist independent of the Constitution."
ReplyDeleteThis is a refreshing departure from the typical conservative claim that federal courts should only recognize rights found "in" the Constitution.
Kinda neat how the comments appear when he's called on it.
ReplyDeleteLike Magic!
Notice the order in which the comments appear also.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that my comment was made approximately 30 minutes prior to Mud's comment that added nothing to the discussion, was a personal attack on individuals and definitely wasn't respectful.
Now, compare and contrast that with my comment.
Perhaps Mike you could inform me what was disrespectful, impolite or otherwise causing a non-approval of my comment?
But Muddy and Micro are lefties, so they get priority seating!
ReplyDelete"Some Animals are more equal than others" -George Orwell
I think it's a question of interpretation. Does the 2nd Amendment right mean that everyone who wants to should be able to buy a gun? I think that causes too many problems, like the ones we've been seeing in the news lately. Don't you think the federal government should be able to do something through legislation?
ReplyDeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteDoes the 2nd Amendment right mean that everyone who wants to should be able to buy a gun?
Short answer is yes. Longer answer is yes UNLESS a person's behavior or mental status prohibits them. Frankly I'm of the opinion that if a person can't be trusted with a firearm, they shouldn't be trusted to be in general society, age appropriate guidelines apply.
I think that causes too many problems, like the ones we've been seeing in the news lately.
You think, but can't provide any evidence that it "causes too many problems".
In the meantime, we've done the math, REPEATEDLY, showing that the problems related to firearms are a very minor percentage of the total crime rate.
Should our rights be dependent on the misdeeds of a few?
That is what the basic question boils down to, doesn't it?
If there are 12,000 firearm related homicides a year, that is still only 0.0039344% of the population using a firearm to murder someone.
12,000 homicides is too many, but there is NO PROOF that removing firearms would reduce that number. It is an matter of social, economic and moral cultural issues instead of firearm availability.
For thousands of years, firearms weren't available....Now do you think the murder rate was higher or lower in the time of Genghis Khan? The middle ages, the crusades?
It is a simply fallacy to assume that people will become law abiding, respectful NON-VIOLENT citizens if you remove firearms. England, as much as you deny it is a perfect example.
Don't you think the federal government should be able to do something through legislation?
Hey, I have any idea...let's make it DOUBLE ILLEGAL TO KILL SOMEONE WITH A FIREARM.
Let's make it more illlegal to rob somoeone with a firearm.
Let's make it illegal to go crazy and kill people because you don't speak the language very well.
Here is a clue....we already have federal legislation. How well are the crooks observing those laws?
What law, short of a complete ban and confiscation, can be passed that will stop people from raping, assaulting, and murdering each other with firearms?
"Don't you think the federal government should be able to do something through legislation?"
ReplyDeleteYou can't be this dumb mike! Please tell me you're not serious? A myriad of laws already in place, numerous laws broken, and your solution is MORE LAWS.
That is INSANE Mike.
Jesus Mike, we've been over this dozens of times before.
ReplyDeleteWhy badger with issues that have long been put to bed?
I mean besides your desire to make the populous MORE ignorant on this issue.
Weer'd asked why keep talking about "issues that have long been put to bed?
ReplyDeleteYour arguments, although you keep repeating them, are not convincing. Just because I haven't resorted to calling you names and rebutting every single point you make does not mean I have been convinced.
So, the issues have not been put to bed. Where did you ever get the idea that they had?
Gee Mike,
ReplyDeleteMore fun with the comments eh?
What was in my response to you that was unacceptable?
Was I rude? Was I disrespectful?
You asked a question but can't seem to stand the answer and let people see the response.
That is sad.