Gun Talk

[ClearedHot]

Good thing that the DC handgun ban was found unconstitutional then.

But how long was an unconstitutional law held over the heads of the citizens? 1976-2008

Some interesting facts about gun bans. Every time gun bans have been tried anywhere, murder rates have risen. Whether one looks at Ireland, Jamaica or England and Wales, the experience has been the same. Not only did murder rates fail to decline as promised, but the rates actually increased following gun bans.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, murders spiked as Washington, like many other cities, was hit by the crack epidemic. By 1991, the number of homicides reached 479, or 81 deaths per 100,000 people, earning the city status as the nation's murder capital. Washington did not generate a decline in gun murders. In fact, the number of killings rose by 156 percent at a time when murders nationally increased by just 32 percent. The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city’s murder rate plummeted 25 percent.

There is an interesting report out this morning that says President Obama will also propose federal funds for schools to provide armed police security...I thought that was a NRA suggestion that was immediately dismissed as lunacy?

[nsplayr]

Obama's on camera now addressing what he plans to do. Says he'll sign 23 EOs immediately after he's done talking on a variety of issues (mental health, gun violence research, school security etc.). Will be interesting to read them once they're posted.

Also calling on Congress to implement universal background checks, renew the AWB and limit magazines to 10 rounds, and confirm a permanent director for the BATF. Those last proposals require Congressional action so we'll see if any of them have legs beyond today.

[ClearedHot]

President Obama Gun "Safety" Proposals

1. "Universal background check for all persons trying to buy a gun."

2. "Congress should ban military assault weapons AND magazines with more than a 10 round capacity."

3. "Congress needs to help rather than hinder law enforcement."

"These reforms have the support of the majority of the American People."

[HossHarris]

This is not a universally held way to view the Second Amendment. It's a valid POV, just realize not everyone agrees, including some of those who make policy and interpret the Constitution for a living.

The history and purpose of the 2nd Ammendment is not a matter of OPINION.

The facts, deliberation, justification, and debate is a matter of record.

WHY the 2nd was originally written into the constitution is not a matter of OPINION, it is a matter of FACT.

[nsplayr]

The history and purpose of the 2nd Ammendment is not a matter of OPINION. The facts, deliberation, justification, and debate is a matter of record.

The purpose of the Amendment at its passage is indeed important if you are a strict constructionist or origionalist and based on the political atmosphere of the time, defense against a tyrannical government was an important reason to keep an armed citizenry and a well-regulated militia.

If you're not a strict constructionist or origionalist, the value of laws are interpreted based on their present value and meaning. The deliberations surrounding laws original passage are important and provide precedent, but they not prescriptive for the indefinite future.

Those are two different legal mindsets WRT Constitutional law in particular and both (as well as others) exist on the highest court in the land as well as in the legislature and all the lower courts.

Edited January 16, 2013 by nsplayr

[ClearedHot]

The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Ignored violence in movies and entertainment.

Ignored violence in video games.

Edited January 16, 2013 by ClearedHot

[tac airlifter]

I disagree. Cops face more frequent threats that may require firearms to deal with and on top of that, are required by their job to undertake dangerous tasks WRT those threats that are not required of average citizens. Therefore, I have no problem with exempting LEOs from firearms restrictions in a state that chooses to ban "assault weapons" or high-cap magazines.

This is not a universally held way to view the Second Amendment. It's a valid POV, just realize not everyone agrees, including some of those who make policy and interpret the Constitution for a living.

My question isn't really related to my position on the debate...I'm not one supporting AWBs or magazine limits (other than maybe 30+ for pistols, the stuipd 100-round drums for ARs, etc.) Limiting the number of rounds in a firearm that was legitimately designed to hold more (i.e. 17 for a 9mm pistol, 30 for a standard AR mag), etc. doesn't make sense to me either. The question though was trying to "prove" the point that if you ARE gonna design a law that limits types of weapons and magazine capacities, it still does make sense to exempt your LEOs from those provisions due to their profession. Doing so doesn't make those people "above the law," there is a legitimate purpose to arm LEOs (and soldiers for that matter) more robustly than you would allow a private citizen to arm himself.

You are expert at twisting words to gain the apperance of winning an argument. The only cop to speak in this thread so far has 100% disagreed with your premise that he (as a now private citizen) should be limited in what he can carry while active LEO's should not. And your premise has actually changed and evolved in this debate.... you started by flat out saying cops don't face the same threat we do, which is what I have asserted all along. Fact: police face the same threat citizens do. Just becasue an LEO faces thugs daily, why is that justification to have a 30 round magazine but my unlikely encouter is not justification for a 30 round magazine? A single encouter = need for an unknown number of bullets, but more is better when misses outnumber hits. You and I are at a logical impasse. Please explain to me, in simple terms as I'm a simplton, what threat an LEO faces that justifies them having an M-4 with 30 rounds that is not a possible threat for me to face? And why should I be denied the best tool for the job of self defense?

And yes the DC ban was ruled unconstitutional..... 30 years too late for a lot of victims though, as CH pointed out.

i won't even touch the argument about the reasoning behind the second amendment. You say constitutional scholars disagree.... well i dont care what people who word fuck for a living think, the amendament plus copious letters and papers from the founding fathers themselves make this a very clear cut issue to me. There's no point in arguing that one as there's no way you can convice me otherwise, or me you, so why bother? But I think if you examine the logic I can get a sharp kid like you to understand that in the 1% chance someone kicks your door in tonight you'd feel better with an AR & 30 rounds than a bolt action rifle or 7 shot revolver.... and it's just as likely for that to happen to you as a cop, and far more likely for it to happen to either of you than the gov of NY.

[nsplayr]

You are expert at twisting words to gain the apperance of winning an argument.

Thank you?

The only cop to speak in this thread so far has 100% disagreed with your premise that he (as a now private citizen) should be limited in what he can carry while active LEO's should not.

That's not what I was arguing. I'm not backing AWBs or magazine limits. He DID agree that he faced more frequent threats while on duty than as a private citizen, but also that he didn't really care. And neither do I...it was simply a construct to show why magazine-limit backers would have no qualms about exempting LEOs. The whole debate over cops vs citizens WRT who gets the most bullets in their magazine should be directed toward someone who wants to limit one or the other or both i.e. not me.

And yes the DC ban was ruled unconstitutional..... 30 years too late for a lot of victims though, as CH pointed out.

Justice take a long time sometimes unfortunately. Take up your complaints with the judicial system...I'm not sure if there is a better balance between careful deliberation and due process, perhaps there is.

I won't even touch the argument about the reasoning behind the second amendment. You say constitutional scholars disagree.... well i dont care what people who word fuck for a living think, the amendament plus copious letters and papers from the founding fathers themselves make this a very clear cut issue to me. There's no point in arguing that one as there's no way you can convice me otherwise, or me you, so why bother?

And you have every right to have that opinion, it seems to be at least somewhat shared by a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court so you're probably on stable legal ground. All I was pointing out was that this opinion, no matter how well-grounded, is but one of many possible opinions and that since it is a matter of interpretation, there can be no "fact." It is a fact that the other 4 members of the Supreme Court think otherwise (at least WRT the Heller case). Regardless of your opinion of those 4 justices, I don't think it can be argued that they are not qualified and well-versed in Constitutional interpretation. And you should care what those "word fuckers" think because clearly it affects all our lives...those "word fuckers" were in fact created by the Constitution itself, by people who were some of history's best and brightest "word fuckers."

Don't resort to ignorance or unbridled hatred of the other side; open your mind at least to the idea that your ideological opponents are not simply being wrong out of hand and/or crazy/stupid/purposefully destructive.

But I think if you examine the logic I can get a sharp kid like you to understand that in the 1% chance someone kicks your door in tonight you'd feel better with an AR & 30 rounds than a bolt action rifle or 7 shot revolver.... and it's just as likely for that to happen to you as a cop, and far more likely for it to happen to either of you than the gov of NY.

I fully support private ownership of firearms for personal defense, hunting, sport shooting, etc. There is no need to convince me of this idea, although I would not personally choose an AR for my home defense situation just as a matter of preference.

Edited January 16, 2013 by nsplayr

[tac airlifter]

That's not what I was arguing. I'm not backing AWBs or magazine limits. He DID agree that he faced more frequent threats while on duty than as a private citizen, but also that he didn't really care. And neither do I...it was simply a construct to show why magazine-limit backers would have no qualms about exempting LEOs. The whole debate over cops vs citizens WRT who gets the most bullets in their magazine should be directed toward someone who wants to limit one or the other or both i.e. not me.

Again, frequency of exposure is irrelevant when the outcome is death. If I'm attacked only once in my life, but the attacker bashes my head with a crow bar and kills me, I'm going to wish I had the best tool available to prevent that outcome. If a police officer faces the same threat 30 times in his life, how is that an argument for him having better PDW's than me? He might need it more often than I do, but the tool we need is the same. Because the threat is the same.

I guess my main confusion is with your last statement; I don't make a habit of arguing for things I'm actually against. Apparently you do; either that or I've convinced you of the rightness of my POV, which was faster & easier than I thought!

[FreudianSlip]

I fully support private ownership of firearms for personal defense, hunting, sport shooting, etc. There is no need to convince me of this idea, although I would not personally choose an AR for my home defense situation just as a matter of preference.

I would be curious as to why? You have a greater risk of over penetration from a 9mm than a .223 round. That is why all those fancy swat units dropped the MP5 9mm and went with ARs for house breaching. People thought, "oh a rifle round....it will just keep going and going and going." But what they found was the 9mm kept going and going and going and the 223/556 hit something, tumbled and stopped. I don't have kids in the house but I'll take my 16" middy with a light and aimpoint over my FNX9 for HD any day (unless I want to shoot through the door/wall).

Edited January 16, 2013 by FreudianSlip

[nsplayr]

I guess my main confusion is with your last statement; I don't make a habit of arguing for things I'm actually against.

A) Arguing the opposite POV is enlightening and every good lawyer/debater/pursuader can and should practice that skill.

B) I'm not actually arguing for something I don't support. IF you already have laws that restrict regular Joes from having more than X rounds in a magazine, I fully support LEOs being exempt from that restriction.

The question was not, "Do you support magazine capacity limits?" because that's already been answered and agreed upon.

I would be curious as to why? You have a greater risk of over penetration from a 9mm than a .223 round. That is why all those fancy swat units dropped the MP5 9mm and went with ARs for house breaching. People thought, "oh a rifle round....it will just keep going and going and going." But what they found was the 9mm kept going and going and going and the 223/556 hit something, tumbled and stopped. I don't have kids in the house but I'll take my 16" middy with a light and aimpoint over my FNX9 for HD any day (unless I want to shoot through the door/wall).

I prefer a pistol over a rifle because I shoot pistol more often and am more proficient, and also for ease of quick access. I'm not super-knowledgable on ballistics but good food for thought on 9mm vs .223.

Edited January 16, 2013 by nsplayr

[M2]

More details from the White House Press Secretary...

Now Is the Time: The President’s Plan to Protect our Children and our Communities by Reducing Gun Violence

[nsplayr]

Ignored violence in movies and entertainment. Ignored violence in video games.

From M2's link.

And the Administration is calling on Congress to provide $10 million for the CDC to conduct further research, including investigating the relationship between video games, media images, and violence.

Wonder if the factions who want to address the "societal" issues like violent movies and video games actually wanna pony up the money to study the relationship between those things and actual violence...

Edited January 16, 2013 by nsplayr

[M2]

$500M from a goverment on the brink of financial collapse.

It's almost laughable.

[nsplayr]

$500M from a goverment on the brink of financial collapse. It's almost laughable.

Even the proposals the NRA backed take money...is that small amount of money not worth potentially improving safety to prevent simliar violence? Putting armed guards in schools takes money. Regulating or even studying violence in video games and movies takes money. Training teachers in the use of firearms takes money.

So do we just do nothing?? I just don't get it...

[Stretch]

For a chuckle/sigh: One man's summary of the EO's (A bit much to cut and paste):

https://phelps.donotremove.net/2013/01/obamas-new-executive-orders/

[spaceman]

So do we just do nothing?? I just don't get it...

'Do nothing' is always an option... that's like engineering/business school 101!

[brickhistory]

For a chuckle/sigh: One man's summary of the EO's (A bit much to cut and paste):

https://phelps.donotr...ecutive-orders/

:beer:

[M2]

Even the proposals the NRA backed take money...is that small amount of money not worth potentially improving safety to prevent simliar violence? Putting armed guards in schools takes money. Regulating or even studying violence in video games and movies takes money. Training teachers in the use of firearms takes money.

So do we just do nothing?? I just don't get it...

Wait, that's right, it's "for the children!"

Anyone can see this is just more eyewash from Obama. Much like his "stimulus" program, a lot of money will be flushed down the toilet and nothing will be gained from it. He passed the buck on to Congress because he knows he can blame them later if they don't support his proposals.

And having those kids around him during the speech, it's sad that he still continues to use such antics to preserve his own image.

At least Biden knows everything thinks he's an asshole, Obama still believes people think he's the second coming of Christ!

[nsplayr]

So would you support the government spending money to enact the proposals the NRA pitched? Obama's proposals included some of those very same things. Putting more "good guys with a gun" in schools takes money, plain and simple. Where do you stand? Or is it not worth the money?

Is it really about the money (faux outrage at small-potatoes spending) or is it really that you just don't support the policies. Would you spend $500 million on effective gun safety/school safety/mental health policies you did support?

Edited January 16, 2013 by nsplayr

[FreudianSlip]

Even the proposals the NRA backed take money...is that small amount of money not worth potentially improving safety to prevent simliar violence? Putting armed guards in schools takes money. Regulating or even studying violence in video games and movies takes money. Training teachers in the use of firearms takes money.

So do we just do nothing?? I just don't get it...

Well School District 20, Colorado Springs has armed security for several years now. They used to be CCW now they are open carry. I know, pure lunacy right?? My father in law, retired sheriff with 20+ years, works as a security guard for one the high schools.

Loves the gig. Banker hours, summers off, great supplemental paycheck to his retirement. His partner at the school....retired MSgt USAF SP, looking for the same thing. They make mid-teens/hour paycheck and enjoy the work. They also have two patrol cars and a small dispatch center than can roll the unit to a particular school if they need more support-searching lockers, bringing in the drug dog etc etc. The more junior folks are those in mid twenties that are trying to pad their resume and get into a LEO agency. Very common to do that at hospitals or other security gigs. Our local LEO like it because they know the retired guys and can ask about if they would make a good cop. From what I know, the district security chief usually pairs up the junior guy with two experienced/retired folks.

While D-20 has more $$$ than others, it doesn't need to be a TSA affair.

IMHO-should be a national model on how to do things.

OBTW-he has had a lot of parents recently talk with him and all thank him for what he does. A few even asked if they could pay for more ammo. (kinda odd....I know)

Edited January 16, 2013 by FreudianSlip

[Fuzz]

So would you support the government spending money to enact the proposals the NRA pitched? Obama's proposals included some of those very same things. Putting more "good guys with a gun" in schools takes money, plain and simple. Where do you stand? Or is it not worth the money?

Is it really about the money (faux outrage at small-potatoes spending) or is it really that you just don't support the policies. Would you spend $500 million on effective gun safety/school safety/mental health policies you did support?

Allowing CCW would cost next to nothing.

[SocialD]

So would you support the government spending money to enact the proposals the NRA pitched? Obama's proposals included some of those very same things. Putting more "good guys with a gun" in schools takes money, plain and simple. Where do you stand? Or is it not worth the money?

Is it really about the money (faux outrage at small-potatoes spending) or is it really that you just don't support the policies. Would you spend $500 million on effective gun safety/school safety/mental health policies you did support?

Make a program similar to the FFDO program. If there is no $$$$ for a FFDO type program then there are tons of programs that teachers could attend at their cost...I'm certain there are plenty of people who would gladly do this. If the school can't afford full time security (which a majority can not, and our government certainly can't either) this is the best option. We already have teachers/admin carrying weapons in schools with no problems.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/1220/In-Texas-a-town-where-the-teachers-carry-guns-video

Edit: found this link entertaining...standard if you're not LEO and own a gun your a gun crazy/ guns are bad, style article.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/opinion/granderson-guns-in-schools/index.html

Edited January 16, 2013 by SocialD

[raimius]

?? Laws don't need SCOTUS precedent. They can be challenged in the appropriate court after they are enacted and that's been done many times recently WRT gun rights. Saying what you said is a little back-aswards way to think about how our process works.

Keep in mind that once again, I don't support all the new NY laws, but if you're gonna critique the process try to get it right.

Yes, I know. Unfortunately, many lower courts will say the Heller case defined the "core" of the 2nd Amendment right to be defense in the home. Then, they will determine that the law they are examining is not part of that "core right," and apply a lesser standard of review (often rational basis by another name). Thus, they can say they are following the Heller decision while still infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. If there was a stronger set of pro 2nd Amendment precedent at the SCOTUS level, we might not see such decisions. (Sadly, I'm not sure the current court is eager to strongly protect the 2nd Amendment, given the 5-4 nature of Heller and MacDonald.)

[nsplayr]

Well School District 20, Colorado Springs has armed security for several years now...

Sounds like a good program. The high school I attended had a full-time Resource Officer who was in uniform and open carried a duty pistol every day on the job. He also had an AR in the trunk of his patrol car which was parked prominently in front of the school during school hours.

I 100% support the very same thing existing in every school across the country, and recognizing that such a program costs money, support Congress funding it. I see it as hypocritical to say you support Resource Officers in schools but don't support giving states and local school districts the money to actually implement it.

Make a program similar to the FFDO program. If there is no $$$$ for a FFDO type program then there are tons of programs that teachers could attend at their cost...I'm certain there are plenty of people who would gladly do this. If the school can't afford full time security (which a majority can not, and our government certainly can't either) this is the best option. We already have teachers/admin carrying weapons in schools with no problems.

That may work and if there can be programs setup that allow teachers to get training then great, I'm all for it. On the other hand, I agree that it is not the best option, and I for one am willing to pay for the best option when it comes to protecting kids in schools. Security certainly isn't free.

Thus, they can say they are following the Heller decision while still infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

That may be true, but what's your basis for saying that such decisions would be actual infringements? If a lower court rules that certain restrictions on gun and ammunition or CCW or whatever are permissible, and a higher court does not overturn the decision, that decision is Constitutional no matter what you or I may think. That's kind of how the system works and what the various courts exist to do (in part).

By all means continue to fight for decisions like that to be overturned if you really think they are unconstitutional but I find it hard to take people seriously who believe they alone are the sole judge of what is and is not simpatico with the Constitution and in turn will "refuse to follow or enforce" laws that don't meet their own standard, court decisions and legislation be damned. Not saying you're one of those people and honestly no offense intended, it's just I've debated with those types of people before quite extensively.