urbanSTL

shimmy wrote:I'd argue direct fire weaponry on par with what an average soldier is issued. I.e. Semiautomatic weapons. People say that citizens don't need "weapons of war", but that is precisely the point of the 2nd Amendment.

If the argument from the right is that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure an armed militia against foreign and domestic foes (which it is - the left even likes to point this out when arguing the "well-regulated militia" point), then a logical line is that they should be armed as militiamen. U.S. Code recognizes two militias, the organized militia (National Guard) and the unorganized militia (composed of the body of the people). In the Army, every soldier is issued a semiautomatic weapon (few are are assigned automatic, but these are allotted by company). The militia, as the law suggests, should be armed in accordance.

I think this is an interesting stance, though as onecity points out, the actual specifications would be needed. But this is certainly a logical stance.

California has the strictest gun laws in the country, to include pretty much everything that the gun control lobby is pushing for. They didn't work. So, there's really two conclusions from that. Either:

A.) Gun control is a failed strategy in America and should be largely scrapped (Pro 2A Answer)

or

B.) Even with these tough restrictions, the gun laws didn't work. So therefore the only logical conclusion is that to have a real impact we need to outlaw certain types (broad category) of guns.

I think A is a is a flawed premise for two reasons.

1. You allude to this with "B," but the restrictions might simply not be the right ones. As evidenced by this discussion, there is enormous pushback for any amount of gun control. Actually, it doesn't matter what the issue is, when one side believes it has the answer to an issue in this country, the other side is sure it is wrong. As a result, when something finally gets passed, it's watered down and rarely likely to be as effective as it could have been. (See also Obamacare.)

What ends up being pushed for is something that is at least remotely feasible. In California it was just feasible enough. In the rest of the country it hasn't been at all. But it's certainly not what anybody really wanted, and so it's not necessarily a good test case.

(By the way, I'm not directly bashing that part of our system. That we're forced to work out compromises is a good thing, at least in theory. But it undeniably weakens potential solutions at times.)

2. California is not the United States. And while the guns in the high profile mass shooting may well have all been purchased in California (I don't know, to be honest), speaking in more general terms, it is significantly easier to buy a gun across state lines than it would be to do so across country borders. So even if California had the "right" combination of gun laws, I think the sample would be corrupted by the rest of the states that do not have them.

It's the unfortunate situation where state by state regulation is most likely, but federal regulation is most likely to be effective.

jstriebel wrote: But I want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. (And probably replace it with an amendment that is more specific about what rights we have about gun ownership and what justifies having them.)

And I know that is so gosh darn unrealistic, but I want to make a point to say it for the same reasons MarkHaversham has continued to make his points. I'm more than entitled to that viewpoint, and I don't believe in censorship by unpopularity. That's how reasonable beliefs become completely unrealistic.

I agree that this is going about it the right way. And there's no "probably" about it. You'd have to replace the amendment with one that specifically outlines the government's power to regulate weapons.

My question is, why don't more people who believe so strongly in gun control think a change of the constitution is an option? If you believe you have enough critical mass, then the long and difficult road of a constitutional convention and ratification is certainly no longer or more difficult than endless constitutional challenges to legislation.

People in this country are more "gun crazy," not less, than they were decades before. As a whole, we're not going to let infringing legislation stand. A change of the constitution is the only way to go. Those averse to the concept simply want a 'quick hit' to say they're "doing something." If you want to have a national conversation about guns, this is the only way to go.

So, this might even get the far right all fired up, particularly to NRA members. Why don't we go into the top 20 gun crime areas in the US. go door to door and see what people have legally and illegally. Let's actually round up guns in PROBLEM AREAS. almost everyone owns a gun in north/south Dakota and Maine but they clearly have no gun death issues. Let's go "get the guns" as Michael Douglas says in the movie, "The American President", in the actual problem neighborhoods. If that's illegal, lets pursue any household that has felons residing in it.
A few observations, and i'm somewhat torn on both sides:
-clearly more guns (300 million in USA) equate to far more deaths nationally than any other industrialized nation
-people who oppose guns still get the benefit of the doubt about their house potentially having one. Please post "gun free household" signs if you're so adamantly opposed to weapons. I'd love to see which houses get burglarized first.
-why would only the second amendment pertain to a group of people versus an individual? All other rights pertain to the individual.
-This concept of "god given rights" to own guns is hilarious and borderline scary. Why anyone needs an AK-47, etc, is beyond me. why not a tank then?
-I suppose this sounds crazy this day in age, but guns in the hands of the people is one of the differences of our country versus any other. For all those complaining on the left of the police "militarized state", don't we want power in peoples/citizens hands? yes, again seems absurd, but is it?

We can debate the pros and cons of gun control until the cows come home, but I think there isn't all that much utility in it until we address the underlying factors that cause much of our violent crime. I've brought that up before, and I think people largely shrugged it off as deflection since I'm personally opposed to gun control.

I think we are quickly nearing a technological era when guns will be accessible to those who want them, outside of any regulatory bounds. While people have always been able to manufacture guns at home, they largely fell into two categories: crude "zip" guns made in a garage out of pipes and nails bought at a hardware store and "real" machined firearms made on metalworking equipment. The former is hardly suitable for criminal activity or mass shootings, while the later requires experience, know-how and many thousands of dollars worth of equipment. With modern technology though, that is all changing. With a sub-$1000 machine, you can already one-click print an AR-15 receiver. Companies like Defense Distributed (disclaimer - I'm a donor and supporter of their work) are pioneering this sort of technology.

Being able to manufacture a real, fully working firearm almost as simply as printing a PDF from your computer changes the equation significantly. And short of incredibly drastic or foolish measures (like a Donald Trump "get Bill Gates to shut down the internet") approach to regulation, there's very literally nothing that can stop it.

Mandate that, like inkjet printers and money, the software be modified to not allow printing of firearms? Sorry - the code is open source.

Force the code to be taken down or made illegal? The government already tried that once during the 90's (google "Crypto Wars" for context) and got slapped down by the courts - source code was ruled to be speech, and thus due first amendment protections.

Ban all 3d printers and lathes? That seems awful drastic....

Naturally, you could make possession of the firearm itself illegal, but if you want to commit a crime (gang violence, mass shooting, who knows what) are you going to say "well, I was going to commit a mass shooting, but its illegal to print this thing, so I guess I'll call the whole thing off." I don't think so.

Anyways, the point is, in the not distant future, if a criminal wants a gun, they will be able to get one, regardless of any laws that are passed or anyone's feeling on gun control. So the question becomes, how do we stop this violence? I think the only way to do it is to address the underlying issues that cause much of the violence. Things like disparities in economic opportunity and access to education, drug laws that break up families and have uneven and violent enforcement and economic policies that lead to higher structural unemployment.

Fixing those things is much harder, and requires a much longer timeline than just banning some or all types of guns, but I think its the only way to really reduce violence long term. Banning guns likely would drop crime in the short term, but its at best a stopgap.

jcity wrote:So, this might even get the far right all fired up, particularly to NRA members. Why don't we go into the top 20 gun crime areas in the US. go door to door and see what people have legally and illegally. Let's actually round up guns in PROBLEM AREAS. almost everyone owns a gun in north/south Dakota and Maine but they clearly have no gun death issues.

I'm quite far from the "far right," and am not an NRA member, but I'm pretty sure that's blatantly unconstitutional. Something about the fourth amendment.

jcity wrote:So, this might even get the far right all fired up, particularly to NRA members. Why don't we go into the top 20 gun crime areas in the US. go door to door and see what people have legally and illegally. Let's actually round up guns in PROBLEM AREAS. almost everyone owns a gun in north/south Dakota and Maine but they clearly have no gun death issues. Let's go "get the guns" as Michael Douglas says in the movie, "The American President", in the actual problem neighborhoods. If that's illegal, lets pursue any household that has felons residing in it.
A few observations, and i'm somewhat torn on both sides:
-clearly more guns (300 million in USA) equate to far more deaths nationally than any other industrialized nation
-people who oppose guns still get the benefit of the doubt about their house potentially having one. Please post "gun free household" signs if you're so adamantly opposed to weapons. I'd love to see which houses get burglarized first.
-why would only the second amendment pertain to a group of people versus an individual? All other rights pertain to the individual.
-This concept of "god given rights" to own guns is hilarious and borderline scary. Why anyone needs an AK-47, etc, is beyond me. why not a tank then?
-I suppose this sounds crazy this day in age, but guns in the hands of the people is one of the differences of our country versus any other. For all those complaining on the left of the police "militarized state", don't we want power in peoples/citizens hands? yes, again seems absurd, but is it?

I think you'd be surprised on the burglary comment. Most burglaries that take place when the owner isn't home the burglar is looking for guns.

It would actually be unwise to place a sign that your house is protected by a firearm. Get a dog. They work better.

bprop wrote:

jcity wrote:So, this might even get the far right all fired up, particularly to NRA members. Why don't we go into the top 20 gun crime areas in the US. go door to door and see what people have legally and illegally. Let's actually round up guns in PROBLEM AREAS. almost everyone owns a gun in north/south Dakota and Maine but they clearly have no gun death issues.

Seems reasonable to me. Enough of that though, and people will consider exercising their well regulated 2nd amendment militia rights.

jcity wrote: -I suppose this sounds crazy this day in age, but guns in the hands of the people is one of the differences of our country versus any other. For all those complaining on the left of the police "militarized state", don't we want power in peoples/citizens hands? yes, again seems absurd, but is it?

We already ban "the people" from having sufficient military hardware to defend themselves against "the state".

http://www.kmov.com/story/30734479/vict ... t-downtown

So if the guy was not shot downtown then why dose it say he was in the title or right kmov loves to build the notation downtown is scary

Your right and KMOV is wrong.

Email them. comments@kmov.com

Comprehensive Plan Video

We have a plan...

And no comments here.

Are people all "crimed" out?

I know I am.

Can't get enough of that clip.... <hic>

NY Times looks at Missouri gun problems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/22/healt ... .html?_r=0

Yep. More guns, more shootings.

Great article. I especially likes this...

Research by Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, found that in the first six years after the state repealed the requirement for comprehensive background checks and purchase permits, the gun homicide rate rose by 16 percent, compared with the six years before. In contrast, the national rate declined by 11 percent over the same period. After Professor Webster controlled for poverty and other factors that could influence the homicide rate, and took into account homicide rates in other states, the result was slightly higher, rising by 18 percent in Missouri.

In 1995 Connecticut enacted a law similar to the one Missouri repealed, and gun homicides declined by 40 percent in the 10 years that followed, he found.

Good stuff. I wonder how the Connecticut decline compared to the nation as a whole during that period. Overall, that was a significant period of improvement for the country, so the 40% might not be that impressive.

FWIW Daniel Webster is faculty at the Bloomberg funded Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, so its about as far from an unbiased or scientifically rigorous source as the article's author could find. Here's a counter-argument from admittedly just as biased of a source:

Even though there are 19 states in the union with universal background checks or similar laws, researchers in the study chose only one state to look at, covering only one point-in-time, addressing murder rates alone, he said. “Simply looking at whether murder rates were higher after the law was rescinded than before misses much of what was going on.”

In the five-year period after the law was enacted, the murder rate went up faster in Missouri than it did in other states, but in the five-year period before the law was enacted the murder rate was going up even faster, said Lott. “Missouri was on an ominous path before the law was ended.”

“It is obvious to anyone who has looked at the national data that the study’s lead author Daniel W. Webster, who is the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, picked Missouri because it was the one state that gave him the result that he wanted.”