Royal Gossip
June 21, 2018, 11:01:11 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Gun Debate In The USA  (Read 5872 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« on: December 18, 2012, 06:32:35 pm »

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

Quote
Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws?

Quote
For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”
Quote
The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find “clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.” The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outré constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/assault-weapons-nra_b_2312102.html

Quote
It may take the slaughter of small children to finally prompt true minutemen to separate themselves from gun extremists. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that gun ownership is guaranteed by the Constitution and an estimated 300 million guns of various kinds are at large in the nation. It is not realistic to expect a gun-less America.

But, whatever else the Second Amendment may or may not mean, it is posited on a "well-regulated militia," a militia mentioned three times in the Constitution. Most hunters and gun owners do not own nor wish to own military assault weapons. They see no need for them. They do not want them. They do not believe such weapons fulfill any perceived need for home security or hunting.

The National Rifle Association, which claims to speak for America's gun owners, makes only one argument for assault weapons: if "they" take away our assault weapons, then "they" will come for our sporting guns. Never mind that the mysterious "they," purposely left vague to serve the needs of paranoia, is the government of the United States whose president and members of Congress are all elected by a majority of American citizens.







Logged
berlin
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1985



« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2012, 05:49:27 am »

I think people should be allowed to use guns for hunting, and I assume those guns are not as semi-automatics or automatics.
Logged
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2012, 12:49:54 am »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/guns-deaths-sandy-hook-shooting_n_2325706.html
Quote
Making and selling guns and ammunition is a lucrative business for U.S. firearms companies, which will earn nearly $1 billion in profit this year, according to the market research firm IBISWorld. But for the public, the prevalence of guns in American life comes at a steep price -- more than 30,000 deaths a year that cost the health care system and the economy tens of billions of dollars, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show.

Quote
Two years ago, 30,470 people died from homicides or suicides using firearms, according to data compiled by the CDC. Guns were the most common means of homicides and suicides, the latter of which accounted for nearly two-thirds of the deaths. Suicide by firearm was the leading cause of violence-related injury deaths in 2010, followed by homicides with firearms, the CDC reported. Together, they made up 57 percent of violent deaths.

Gun-related fatalities are on pace to surpass deaths from automobile collisions by 2015, Bloomberg News reported Wednesday.

The CDC attempts to put a price tag on gun violence in an earlier report. Combining the direct medical costs of treating fatal gun injuries with the economic damage of lost lives, firearms-related deaths cost the United States $37 billion in 2005, the most recent year for which a CDC estimate is available. Non-fatal gun injuries cost an additional $3.7 billion that year, according to the agency.

Quote
Unlike for other major causes of death -- heart disease, cancer and and lung disease, for example -- federal medical research agencies are forbidden by law to finance studies that aim to reduce the harm from guns or, as the law phrases it, "advocate or promote gun control."
Logged
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2012, 06:51:35 am »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-the-solution-to-gun-violence-is-clear/2012/12/19/110a6f82-4a15-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html

Quote
To understand how staggeringly high this number is, compare it to the rate in other rich countries. England and Wales have about 50 gun homicides a year — 3 percent of our rate per 100,000 people. Many people believe that America is simply a more violent, individualistic society. But again, the data clarify. For most crimes — theft, burglary, robbery, assault — the United States is within the range of other advanced countries. The category in which the U.S. rate is magnitudes higher is gun homicides.

The U.S. gun homicide rate is 30 times that of France or Australia, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, and 12 times higher than the average for other developed countries.
Logged
berlin
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1985



« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2012, 08:29:21 pm »

This is a good point:

Quote
And none of the massacres in the US are done by hillybillie hunting gun-toting men. Most are from well to do neighborhoods, and blue states, not the poor, under-educated, South. Both Columbine Killers, James Holmes, and now this guy in CT, were from upper class families, with good grades, and above average intelligence, but extremely troubled and disturbed.
- Ayla, Somewhere, 20/12/2012 10:59


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250765/Bath-Massacre-Survivors-Americas-deadliest-school-violence-solidarity-people-Newtown.html#ixzz2Fct8DFoZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

And I never knew about this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250765/Bath-Massacre-Survivors-Americas-deadliest-school-violence-solidarity-people-Newtown.html
Logged
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2012, 09:59:45 pm »

Maybe the massacre's aren't done by hillbilly gun toting men but the Murders of two people in my family were.


Hillbilly's weapon of choice is not the assault weapon though, they are correct in that assumption.
Logged
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2012, 10:11:02 pm »

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/lessons-in-politics-and-fine-print-in-assault-weapons-ban-of-90s.html?hp&_r=1&

Quote
In January 1989, a troubled drifter in his 20s opened fire with a semiautomatic rifle on a California elementary school yard packed with students. Five children, ages 6 to 9, were killed in the fusillade of bullets; 29 others were wounded, along with one teacher.

The resulting national shock and outrage plunged Congress into a debate over whether to ban military-style assault weapons.

“The American people are fed up with the death and violence brought on by these assault weapons,” Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum, an Ohio Democrat, declared on the Senate floor. “They demand action.”

Action, however, would take time. The gun lobby put up roadblocks. The politics, just as today, were fraught. It took five years of legislative slogging to pass a federal assault weapons ban that finally took effect in 1994. But the price of passage was a host of compromises — most painfully for supporters, a sunset provision added late in the legislative wrangling that paved the way for the measure to expire in 2004.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/20/no-lobby-is-more-powerful-than-the-people.html

Quote
Douglas Anthony Cooper recounts the heartbreaking saga of Tom Mauser, whose son was killed at Columbine. Mauser was arrested for trespassing when he went to protest at the NRA headquarters in Virginia, and despite his best efforts, he never received a reply to a letter he wrote Charlton Heston. Cooper, while angered, suggests the American people cannot remain cowed by lobby groups that would treat grieving parents with such callous indifference.

Will we act the same way towards the parents of the children murdered on December 14 -- two weeks before Christmas -- by an assault weapon whose casual availability is the fault of the National Rifle Association? Or will we perhaps do something about it?

Much can be done. No lobby, however wealthy and well-armed, is more powerful than the American people. Democracy works this way: it has non-violent means of purging malignant elements. Sometimes violence is necessary -- the end of slavery could not have been achieved by anything less than war -- but America has generally conquered evil in its midst by careful and deliberate due process.

The Civil War was an anomaly. McCarthyism was the norm: a threat to democracy laid to rest by the legislative branch of the American government. The NRA is certainly less of an evil than slavery, but is it really less ugly than McCarthyism? How many lives did Joseph McCarthy take? Let's count the innocent children, to be precise, slaughtered as a result of Senator McCarthy's policies. Now weigh that number (which -- unless I'm mistaken -- is zero) against the bloody, miserable body count which is a direct consequence of the policies shoveled onto the nation by the NRA.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 10:15:32 pm by Snokitty » Logged
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2012, 06:20:13 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/nra-calls-armed-police-officer-every-school-162851713.html

Quote
The nation's largest gun-rights lobby called Friday for armed police officers to be posted in every American school to stop the next killer "waiting in the wings."

The National Rifle Association broke its silence on last week's shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school that left 26 children and staff dead.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," the group's top lobbyist, Wayne LaPierre, said at a Washington news conference.

LaPierre said "the next Adam Lanza," the man responsible for last week's mayhem, is planning an attack on another school.

Idiots, so the NRA still can not see that the real problem is the type of guns put in someone's hands.

Hey idiot a guard with a pistol is not going to stop a mass murderer with an automatic or semi-automatic weapon. What planet do you live on LaPierre?

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm
Quote
Jefferson County Sheriff’s Deputy Neil Gardner soon would complete his second year as the uniformed community resource officer assigned to Columbine High School.  Gardner, a 15-year veteran of the Sheriff’s Office

An armed guard didn't stop the Columbine massacre.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2012, 06:31:29 pm by Snokitty » Logged
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2012, 09:58:58 pm »

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/21/if-the-nra-wants-an-armed-guard-at-every-school-they-should-pay-for-it
Quote
Hmm. Let's see. There are about 100,000 public K-12 schools in the nation, but since this is a public safety expense, not an educational one, we should probably protect children at the 30,000 or so private schools as well. So LaPierre's proposal would require hiring an additional 130,000 police officers. At least. Some large campuses would probably require more than one officer. So let's round up to 150,000 armed police officers, just to be safe.

What would this cost? According to the US Department of Justice, the national average annual cost of employing a police officer was $116,500 in 2007. Rounding up to $120,000 to account for inflation, that's $120,000 times 150,000 officers: LaPierre's proposal would cost taxpayers about $18 billion a year.

But budgets are tight—how to pay for it? Well, as the NRA likes to remind us, freedom isn't free, and who better to pay this cost than the gun owners themselves? Various estimates place the number of civilian firearms in the US at about 250 million. So, $18 billion divided by 250 million guns: An annual license fee of about $75 per gun should adequately cover the expense of the NRA's proposal to put armed police officers at every K-12 school in the US.
Logged
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2012, 08:04:46 pm »

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A-vWzhjCYAACldu.png:large

All gun deaths in the USA since the Sandy Hook Massacre   sob
Logged
YooperModerator
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14145



« Reply #10 on: December 24, 2012, 12:01:56 pm »

That's a depressing thought especially around this time of the year! sob
You know I don't have a problem with hunting rifles like shot guns or even a small calibre hand gun (like a .45 colt with a mag of 7 rounds, a beretta 15 round mag, or a glock 17 round mag) being legal for private ownership, although I think any weapon with a 10+ round mag should have a special permit for private use, only police and security ppl should carry those bigger round hand weapons
If you only have free access to a small round mag you will have to reload quicker and chances of killing more then ten ppl at a time are lessened dramatically at least that's what my logic mind comes up with! dontknow
If you have a permit and all the paperwork legit and keep it safely locked separated from the ammo, so that no minors can get to it, don't care if you have weapons in your house.
I might think twice on coming by for dinner or p*ssing you of but hey noting personal, I just have a big sense of self preservation and guns scare the big bejezes out of me so.. tehe
But dang it those kalashnikov style weapons should be illegal for any other the military use!
It's insane that civilians can buy these things without so much as a background check done! blink
Logged


\\\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\\\"  Thomas Jefferson
berlin
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1985



« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2012, 05:55:31 am »

I think people should be allowed to hunt.  I really don't know anything about guns, but I agree there needs to be a serious curtailment on the types of guns available to the public.  Even though there's a gun ban in the UK, people in rural areas still have guns to hunt.
Logged
RedRabbit
royal watcher

Offline Offline

Posts: 37


Harryite #28


« Reply #12 on: December 30, 2012, 10:32:47 am »

I don't have a problem with those who need to hunt or live in very rural areas where the nearest police station is two hours away, but no one should own assault rifles or most handguns or anything besides a basic rifle.  There is no reason to have a gun that blows a human body into unrecognizable chunks of meat with bullets that go three times the speed of sound.  They certainly shouldn't have clips or drums that can hold 100 or even 30 rounds.  They don't need more than one or two guns; no one should be allowed to stockpile.

I can buy an assault rifle and unlimited amounts of ammo on the internet.  Legally.  That's insane.  The NRA has blocked all efforts to establish a national gun registry so tracking the proper owner can range from difficult to impossible. 

I think they should have accountability laws - if an owner lets a gun slip from their possession they should be charged as accessories to any crime that gun is involved in.  That goes for gun sellers as well.

If someone can't bag a deer with a simple rifle and 10 rounds, find a new hobby.  If they want to belong to a "well-regulated militia" as described in the 2nd amendment, join the National Guard.

Their right to own a gun should not be more important than the right to not be shot by one.
Logged

If you resort to personal attacks, name-calling, and other forms of abuse against me, you are admitting you have lost the argument and have nothing worthwhile to say. 

Not joining in with your starry-eyed hero worship does not make me delusional, it means I have no interest in drinking your poisoned Kool-Aid. 

Have a nice day.
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #13 on: December 30, 2012, 03:24:42 pm »

Very well stated and I totally agree with one exception.

If someone burglarizes your home, steals your gun then shoots someone you should not be held liable for that.
Logged
RedRabbit
royal watcher

Offline Offline

Posts: 37


Harryite #28


« Reply #14 on: December 31, 2012, 12:37:49 am »

Thank you, though I respectfully disagree with your exception.  If someone is going to take the heavy responsibility of owning a firearm they need to make damn sure it's hidden, locked up and secure so someone can't steal it.  If it can be stolen it wasn't locked up appropriately enough in the first place and the owner should be held liable.     
Logged

If you resort to personal attacks, name-calling, and other forms of abuse against me, you are admitting you have lost the argument and have nothing worthwhile to say. 

Not joining in with your starry-eyed hero worship does not make me delusional, it means I have no interest in drinking your poisoned Kool-Aid. 

Have a nice day.
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2012, 02:00:45 am »

I see so essentially you believe it is someone's own fault that they get burglarized.
Logged
RedRabbit
royal watcher

Offline Offline

Posts: 37


Harryite #28


« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2012, 03:54:52 am »

No.  

I'm saying if someone is going to willingly assume the risk of having a very deadly weapon in the home they need to take extraordinary precautions to have it secured.  That should be part of the responsibility of having a gun.  If someone can't completely secure it they shouldn't have one.

Some countries already have laws like this.  I think it's Australia that requires a gun owner to have a special safe to keep their gun.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2012, 03:59:10 am by RedRabbit » Logged

If you resort to personal attacks, name-calling, and other forms of abuse against me, you are admitting you have lost the argument and have nothing worthwhile to say. 

Not joining in with your starry-eyed hero worship does not make me delusional, it means I have no interest in drinking your poisoned Kool-Aid. 

Have a nice day.
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #17 on: December 31, 2012, 05:40:50 am »

Well if someone is going to go through the trouble to ransack your home then the safe can be taken and opened later. It is a good idea to have a weapon secured but to make someone liable no matter what is like forcing a woman to have her rapists baby IMO because each circumstance may be different.

If they leave the gun out in the open I could see them getting some kind of punishment but as I said each circumstance should be treated individually.

The USA will never get rid of all the guns but certain ones should be off limits and ammunition should be regulated. When you purchase a gun you should also have to take a safety course and have a psychological evaluation. I don't think the politicians will go that far though.
Logged
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #18 on: December 31, 2012, 05:59:11 am »

...

...  I think it's Australia that requires a gun owner to have a special safe to keep their gun.

That is incorrect. In any event, like all matters criminal, or potentially criminal, in the first instance, it is a state matter. Of course, we have the federal criminal act, but that is for more wide reaching matters. Our courts operate on this basis also.

You are correct in that any firearm must be kept in a secure place. But a 'safe' is not a requirement of that.

Logged
RedRabbit
royal watcher

Offline Offline

Posts: 37


Harryite #28


« Reply #19 on: December 31, 2012, 08:35:29 am »

Quote
to make someone liable no matter what is like forcing a woman to have her rapists baby IMO because each circumstance may be different.

I disagree with that analogy.  Buying and storing a gun is an active choice one makes to specifically bring a deadly weapon into the home that could kill a lot of people.  A woman doesn't ask to be raped, no matter how she behaves or what she wears.  No woman should be punished or forced to carry a rapist's baby because she was assaulted.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2012, 08:39:30 am by RedRabbit » Logged

If you resort to personal attacks, name-calling, and other forms of abuse against me, you are admitting you have lost the argument and have nothing worthwhile to say. 

Not joining in with your starry-eyed hero worship does not make me delusional, it means I have no interest in drinking your poisoned Kool-Aid. 

Have a nice day.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!