It’s guns that kill people — and many when there’s no debate

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3735263.ece


As shooting incidents recur and the death toll mounts, will the American political leadership have the courage to take up gun control regulation?

That famous Homer-Simpson-esque bumper sticker of the U.S. National Rifle Association, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” would appear to have run its course after two deadly gun rampages in less than three weeks left 19 people dead and many injured, some critically.

Puzzling though it may seem to many outsiders, that may however not be the case, as both the nation’s President and the Presidential-hopeful maintain a stony silence on gun control laws and the U.S. government did little to stop the recent collapse of a much-needed arms control treaty supported by the United Nations.

The latest round of bloodshed, marked with the crimson shade of a hate crime, reportedly saw a tall, white, balding man — some said an Army veteran — sporting tattoos relating to the 9/11 terror attacks, target worshippers at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, a gurdwara in the sleepy suburb of Oak Creek, near Milwaukee.

Meanwhile James Eagan Holmes, a student at the University of Colorado, is currently in prison facing charges of killing 12 individuals and wounding many more at the screening of the latest Batman movie in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20.

At the scene of the crime in Oak Creek, which sent shockwaves through the Sikh community and indeed the entire nation, an incriminating piece of evidence was discovered — a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, a weapon that the state of Wisconsin allows its residents to carry freely.

While the outbreak of violence reopened a welcome debate on religious-ethnic stereotypes, in particular the vector of violence consistently inflicted upon Sikhs and Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11, both the government and the public discourse have refused to bring up the need for tighter regulations governing the purchase of handguns and semi-automatic weapons.
Wisconsin’s lax standards

And Wisconsin is the perfect example of a state that has not only adopted historically lax standards for gun ownership and gun-carrying — the current administration under Republican Governor Scott Walker has sought to further relax these standards.

Since November 1, 2011, Wisconsin residents were told they could apply for a concealed weapons permit through the Wisconsin Department of Justice, making their state the 49th in the nation that was allowed “concealed carry” of firearms.

The irony in this case was that a number of residents may well not feel the need to apply for such a licence given that Wisconsin has long been an “open carry” state, or one in which no licence is required to carry a gun in plain sight.

According to reports, there are 12 states nationwide that permit open carry of a handgun without licence requirements; 13 states call for some form of licence, often a single permit for open and concealed carry; and 17 states do not prohibit open carry in general but either do not pre-empt local laws or law enforcement policies or have material restrictions carrying such as banning anyone with a past felony.

While it is going to be too late for victims in the Sikh community and their families in Oak Creek, the extent to which Wisconsin has gone to protect the Second Amendment on the right to bear arms may be questioned in the weeks and months ahead.

For not only has Governor Walker’s government pressed forward with its NRA-supported concealed carry law, but the 2011 codification of that provision added a sub-section to the Wisconsin Disorderly Conduct statute that further tied the arms of law enforcement officials who may seek to challenge an individual carrying a concealed weapon.

Under Statute 947.01, subsection 2 notes: “Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed or openly carried.”
Requirement

The only persons who may be denied the right to purchase a handgun or firearm in Wisconsin, according to a note provided by the NRA, is anyone who fails a background check for criminal history, involuntary commitment, or domestic violence. There is a requirement that 48 hours must elapse from the time the dealer receives a confirmation, that the buyer has passed a background check, before a transfer may occur.

This, then, is where the great state of Wisconsin stands with regard to its residents’ appetite for gun-carrying: so long as you have not committed a serious crime or have not been committed to a mental health facility in the past, you can possess and carry a weapon openly, and the law has been designed to tie the hands of any police officer who may seek to question your behaviour in public.

The worrying aspect of this law for most gun control activists is the fact that most individuals who are likely to embark on a killing spree of the sort witnessed in Oak Creek may be first-time offenders. This means that Wisconsin’s gun laws are in effect heavily tilted in favour of all such deviant cases.

While President Barack Obama and his rival Mitt Romney may hope avoid mentioning gun laws until November fearing the influence that the pro-gun lobbies such as the NRA wield nationally, it is the victims of gun violence, and their friends and families suffering lifelong scars, who will pay the greatest price for the silence of America’s political leadership on this burning issue.

The Declaration of Independence talks about certain inalienable rights, the first of which is the right to life. Thanks to the NRA, that right is increasingly being subordinated to the Second Amendment right to bear arms (which arguably is connected to the right to liberty, as mentioned in the Declaration).

You are more likely to die of gun violence than a civilian in Iraq or Afghanistan, but you have the right to carry a gun as long as you live.

panini press wrote:The Declaration of Independence talks about certain inalienable rights, the first of which is the right to life. Thanks to the NRA, that right is increasingly being subordinated to the Second Amendment right to bear arms (which arguably is connected to the right to liberty, as mentioned in the Declaration).

You are more likely to die of gun violence than a civilian in Iraq or Afghanistan, but you have the right to carry a gun as long as you live.

Yes and damn those carcinogenics that are interfering with the right to life too!

Hellsangel wrote:

panini press wrote:The Declaration of Independence talks about certain inalienable rights, the first of which is the right to life. Thanks to the NRA, that right is increasingly being subordinated to the Second Amendment right to bear arms (which arguably is connected to the right to liberty, as mentioned in the Declaration).

You are more likely to die of gun violence than a civilian in Iraq or Afghanistan, but you have the right to carry a gun as long as you live.

Yes and damn those carcinogenics that are interfering with the right to life too!

Yes, we should have a new amendment that stops the government from doing anything about those carcinogens. Carcinogens don't kill people, people kill people.

i've already donated twice to the campaign this year. when i got my usual morning email from them asking for even more money, i wrote back saying i'll have to hear far more robust statements on gun control than we've been hearing (basically nothing), and assurances that the administration will work on reinstating the assault weapon ban. until i hear what i want to hear, no dice.

Hellsangel wrote:

panini press wrote:The Declaration of Independence talks about certain inalienable rights, the first of which is the right to life. Thanks to the NRA, that right is increasingly being subordinated to the Second Amendment right to bear arms (which arguably is connected to the right to liberty, as mentioned in the Declaration).

You are more likely to die of gun violence than a civilian in Iraq or Afghanistan, but you have the right to carry a gun as long as you live.

Yes and damn those carcinogenics that are interfering with the right to life too!

hellsu can you explain to me without dodging the question and going off on a tangent, what use a civilian could have for an assault weapon?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

hellsu can you explain to me without dodging the question and going off on a tangent, what use a civilian could have for an assault weapon?

Can you define what you mean by the part in bold?

i'd like to use the definition that was used in the original law that banned them, but for this discussion how about we use it to refer to the shootings in arizona and colorado? i am not yet sure of what the latest nutcase used.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i'd like to use the definition that was used in the original law that banned them, but for this discussion how about we use it to refer to the shootings in arizona and colorado? i am not yet sure of what the latest nutcase used.

There is no point in having this debate. Neither of us will convert the other. You are, of course, free to pursue your efforts.

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i'd like to use the definition that was used in the original law that banned them, but for this discussion how about we use it to refer to the shootings in arizona and colorado? i am not yet sure of what the latest nutcase used.

There is no point in having this debate. Neither of us will convert the other. You are, of course, free to pursue your efforts.

Now, I am curious. What legitimate use do you really think Aurora-style weapons have for law-abiding civilians? I am not expecting you to convert me, nor am I expecting to convert you. I am just curious why you might believe such weapons should be accessible to civilians.

panini press wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i'd like to use the definition that was used in the original law that banned them, but for this discussion how about we use it to refer to the shootings in arizona and colorado? i am not yet sure of what the latest nutcase used.

There is no point in having this debate. Neither of us will convert the other. You are, of course, free to pursue your efforts.

Now, I am curious. What legitimate use do you really think Aurora-style weapons have for law-abiding civilians? I am not expecting you to convert me, nor am I expecting to convert you. I am just curious why you might believe such weapons should be accessible to civilians.

hellsu and others who have similar views about guns: even from my wimpy, tambrahminical, pusillanimous, wussy (add whatever insulting emasculating adjective you'd like to use to describe my viewpoint) vantage point, i'm willing to concede that there is a place in american society for the use of guns in hunting and as an accessory to sporting activities, but i have the hardest time wrapping my head around things that can discharge tens of rounds without reloading.

twenty more years will have to go by before anyone in america discusses the real, underlying reason for these inexplicable murders.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:twenty more years will have to go by before anyone in america discusses the real, underlying reason for these inexplicable murders.

you may be right given the total apathy of mainstream publications, radio, and television. there is simply no appetite for a robust debate at all. even tom ashbrook, the fellow who runs the onpoint NPR radio talk show, who i consider to be a left leaning progressive was only talking about white supremacist groups, sikhs and sikhism. nary a word about gun control!

here's something else that continues to perplex me. look at this comment made by someone the NYT interviewed in the aftermath of the colorado shooting:(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/us/politics/polls-find-opposition-to-stricter-gun-laws.html?_r=1&ref=guncontrol):

“I honestly believe that criminals can get guns no matter where or when or how,” Phyllis Everitt, 65, of Aurora, Colo., said in a follow-up interview. “I realize this man purchased them legally, but if he hadn’t and he was determined to do this, he probably would have gotten them illegally,” she said, referring to James Holmes, who has been charged with killing 12 people and wounding 58 in an Aurora movie theater last month.

i don't get this train of logic. it's difficult to achieve perfection (eliminating the possibility of guns getting into murderers' hands), so let's not do anything seems to the predominant position of the folks opposed to more gun control. how about making things difficult for people? there are always going to be people who find their way around any legal barricade, but why make it easy for them? i am not sure the phyllis everitts of the world have thought this through at all.

to use an automobile analogy, since dumbass automobile analogies are preferred by the NRA thugs, it's always possible for someone to get behind the wheel of a vehicle without a license, so let's just eliminate the licensing process altogether.

I can't keep up with you debating champions but here's my way of thinking on why Americans feel strongly against gun control:

America's character is a unique mix of individual expression of freedom to pursue what you want, coupled with relentless frontier expansionism. Guns play a major part in both and no ppl will give up something thats such an integral part of their identity, despite strong exhortations from bicoastal ivory towers. The more incidents of mass murder occur, the more they feel under siege from ppl wanting to take away their last form of protection since they don't subscribe to the notion that individual should turn belly up and play the victim in the face of aggression. Whether that's a sound position or not depends on one's fundamental belief system..the libbies on this forum are for govt intervention in everything except where a man puts his dick. That position diametrically opposite to what America has been about and the twain shall never meet. Your own wonderful, under achieving messiah will never do anything that will screw up his chances of reelection so good luck.

My opinion is Mass murderers don't strike places that are likely to be armed to the teeth...how many incidents of mass murder happen at airports, police stations etc compared to schools, malls, movie theaters etc where ppl aren't likely to be armed?

Also there are stats proving that guns are Used in self defense between tens of thousands upto 2 million times a year...typically these stats aren't likely to make news and are downplayed by the gun control crowd coz it interferes with their narrative.

Either way the two positions will never meet so no use in emotional bellyaching IMO.

Propagandhi711 wrote:I can't keep up with you debating champions but here's my way of thinking on why Americans feel strongly against gun control:

America's character is a unique mix of individual expression of freedom to pursue what you want, coupled with relentless frontier expansionism. Guns play a major part in both and no ppl will give up something thats such an integral part of their identity, despite strong exhortations from bicoastal ivory towers. The more incidents of mass murder occur, the more they feel under siege from ppl wanting to take away their last form of protection since they don't subscribe to the notion that individual should turn belly up and play the victim in the face of aggression. Whether that's a sound position or not depends on one's fundamental belief system..the libbies on this forum are for govt intervention in everything except where a man puts his dick. That position diametrically opposite to what America has been about and the twain shall never meet. Your own wonderful, under achieving messiah will never do anything that will screw up his chances of reelection so good luck.

My opinion is Mass murderers don't strike places that are likely to be armed to the teeth...how many incidents of mass murder happen at airports, police stations etc compared to schools, malls, movie theaters etc where ppl aren't likely to be armed?

Also there are stats proving that guns are Used in self defense between tens of thousands upto 2 million times a year...typically these stats aren't likely to make news and are downplayed by the gun control crowd coz it interferes with their narrative.

Either way the two positions will never meet so no use in emotional bellyaching IMO.

none of this still answers the question about the logic of allowing weapons that empty tens of rounds without reloading. how many rounds does it take to scare away or kill an intruder in your house?

and please humor me. i understand the frontier mentality quite well having lived here for some time, but do you personally support this view? america is also a nation of immigrants old AND new. we too are allowed to have a position and i am curious to know yours.

Propagandhi711 wrote:America's character is a unique mix of individual expression of freedom to pursue what you want, coupled with relentless frontier expansionism. Guns play a major part in both and no ppl will give up something thats such an integral part of their identity, despite strong exhortations from bicoastal ivory towers.

Last I checked, there have been no frontiers to expand for at least a hundred years now. So America just needs to grow up and make some changes. What was appropriate for the 19th century is not appropriate for the 21st century. If the assault weapons of today were available in the 19th century, the handgun would not have been an instrument for leveling the playing field and a tool of self-defense, and the west would have became more lawless than today's Mexico. The law needs to keep up with the technology that it applies to.

and about the bellyaching, nobody bellyaches who already have things the way they want it.

I read your rapids fire responses dripping with irony and glib answers such as there are no frontiers to expand so turn in your weapons as belying your lack of understanding of American gun culture..I am trying to explain something you don't seem to comprehend but i see you have all the answers you need. I don't like to argue with ppl whose mind is made up.

Propagandhi711 wrote:
I read your rapids fire responses dripping with irony and glib answers such as there are no frontiers to expand so turn in your weapons as belying your lack of understanding of American gun culture..I am trying to explain something you don't seem to comprehend but i see you have all the answers you need. I don't like to argue with ppl whose mind is made up.

I have read enough of the arguments for unfettered gun ownership to understand the gun culture you speak of. I just don't buy the arguments advanced in defense of today's gun policies. Sure, individual gun ownership played a big role in the 19th century. So did slavery and the transcontinental railroad. Doesn't mean we put them on a pedestal and refuse any change in those matters.

merrily we
roll along

on deaf ears..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/22/colorado-shooting-gun-columbine-father?INTCMP=SRCH

wonder what tom mauser's position was on guns before columbine. while the question may seem heartless, it's an important one, because it shouldn't take personal tragedy for a person to do the right thing.