Why didn't Sandy Hook change anything?

bnw wrote:

If the world you wish to work towards sanctions government murdering citizens without trial,
and disappearing any citizen they want without,
getting a warrant,
without informing anyone,
for as long as the government wants, including
sending the citizen to foreign nations,
to be tortured or worse,
then that world is much closer than you know.

Would a .22 take care of that problem, or should I *shoot for a higher caliber?

*pun intended.

TSRF wrote:

I (and you, and PA, and VW, and X) can’t get our heads wrapped around why a ban on assault rifles is so controversial, so

Went through this before in the ’90s. Assault weapons are full auto. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It looks like one. What you want is a ban on semi-automatics which will never happen. Even the federal government sells semi-auto rifles to the public.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 3 months ago by bnw.

canadaram wrote:

bnw wrote:

You were the one that interjected the word ‘debate’ into this thread. You did so twice. You also did so early in the thread while I was responding to TSRF. A few months ago a gunman killed a canadian soldier then ran into the Canadian parliament right past the room in which the prime minister was in attendance. So much for saner canadian gun control.

No one in Canada would ever argue that our gun laws prevent all gun violence carried out by the insane. We know that there are ways that people with bad intentions can get guns. That said, the vast majority of us are comfortable in the knowledge that our laws mean such incidences happen less frequently here than down south.

Good because I’m going to be around the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

People are just as tired losing loved ones to auto accidents. Don’t expect autos to be legislated away any time soon. The spirit in which the 2nd Amendment was written definitely includes the semi-automatic AR-15 as it does the fully automatic weapons of today. When it was written the intent was to allow the citizen to arm himself with the technology of the day. Those militias were comprised of citizens. Some of whom owned cannons and gunships.

If you wish to surrender your 2nd Amendment right that is your personal choice.

But who is a member of a “well-regulated militia?”

Only National Guard members, as far as I know.

I don’t see where the right to bear arms extends beyond that framework. In other words, if you aren’t part of a well-regulated militia, I don’t see where the 2nd amendment protects your right to “keep and bear arms.”

If someone is interested in who is a well regulated militia it is obvious the founding fathers meant citizen soldiers who comprised the militia at that time. Citizens who brought their weapons with them to join the militia. Citizens who as members of the militia were free to leave whenever they wanted. Militia that proved vital to the war effort. Provisions for hunting and personal protection were not written in to the amendment because it never occurred to them that it would ever be questioned. Much like not writing that someone should brush their teeth at least once every day would be for today. Or cautioning against licking an energized circuit. The National Guard is not an appropriate example of a militia since those who serve can not leave at will.

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

People are just as tired losing loved ones to auto accidents. Don’t expect autos to be legislated away any time soon. The spirit in which the 2nd Amendment was written definitely includes the semi-automatic AR-15 as it does the fully automatic weapons of today. When it was written the intent was to allow the citizen to arm himself with the technology of the day. Those militias were comprised of citizens. Some of whom owned cannons and gunships.

If you wish to surrender your 2nd Amendment right that is your personal choice.

But who is a member of a “well-regulated militia?”

Only National Guard members, as far as I know.

I don’t see where the right to bear arms extends beyond that framework. In other words, if you aren’t part of a well-regulated militia, I don’t see where the 2nd amendment protects your right to “keep and bear arms.”

If someone is interested in who is a well regulated militia it is obvious the founding fathers meant citizen soldiers who comprised the militia at that time. Citizens who brought their weapons with them to join the militia. Citizens who as members of the militia were free to leave whenever they wanted. Militia that proved vital to the war effort. Provisions for hunting and personal protection were not written in to the amendment because it never occurred to them that it would ever be questioned. Much like not writing that someone should brush their teeth at least once every day would be for today. Or cautioning against licking an energized circuit. The National Guard is not an appropriate example of a militia since those who serve can not leave at will.

How do you feel about some kind of compulsory training, some kind of license. You have to have a license to drive a car. And a different license for a motorcycle. How do you feel about licensing/training as a prerequisite for various firearms?

Some shooters are covered by a hunter education course which I think is required by every state in order to get a hunting license. Law enforcement and military are likely exempt since certainly have adequate training. For everyone else yes I think training is a great idea. It is the licensing that I am not comfortable with if a license database is generated and kept by government. If instructors are not required to turn over license holder information to government then I could support it. I help train people at range events and those people are very interested in learning safe handling and marksmanship. I would also support a certification on a license for demonstrated proficiency for handgun and rifle as well as shotgun and single shot and semi-auto variants of each. What concerns me is the immature and reckless sort looking to expand his video game persona or emulate some action movie hero by purchasing a firearm. Perhaps training at the point of sale before final purchase? In the end training increases safety. Licensing doesn’t.

I see you wrote compulsory. I had not considered that but I would definitely support mandatory firearms training as a requirement to graduate high school. Kind of like driver’s ed. I like the idea.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 3 months ago by bnw.

The NRA will happily accept anyones money. FYI I am not a member.

This little “oversight” perfectly sums up this country:

In case you can’t read it–that’s a gun ad stuck over the headline about the church shooting.

Sad.

i dunno. I dont have anything ‘new’ to say on the subject
of violence in America. I assume we all agree there
are gigantic underlying causes that have very very little
to do with whether or not the “gun laws” are loosened or tightened

I do agree that there are many underlying causes, from mental illness(to me anyone who does this sort of thing is at some level of “crazy”)to a flash of anger to some sort of religious or political agenda to whatever.

But I would be content to see a world without guns–at least the people killing kind. Weapons that were designed to kill humans are tools used by these madmen so maybe tightening gun laws WOULD help in some instances. I’d certainly like to see it tried. What’s the alternative? Acceptance? No other country does it quite like this. I’m embarrassed and saddened that our country embraces the gun culture so tightly.

Of course if a guy wants to kill someone he’ll find a way to do it with or without these weapons. But in most cases it will be harder, more people will live. Guns are extremely efficient at killing.

This is what we do though. We deny, we argue and finally, we accept. That’s what Americans do.

“We need our rights and this just comes with it.”

“Global warming, MAY be happening but there’s nothing we can do about it.”

“The rich will always get theirs and that’s just the way it is.”

Obama has addressed gun violence 14 times since taking office.

The American attitude to this is more guns–everyone armed. That’s how OUR country thinks about these things. Instead of less guns the answer is MORE guns. To me, that’s insanity. I believe this country is insane.

…

This is from January. I don’t know what more recent inquiries would say. It’s just the first detailed account I found after a quick search. I will add more when I get a chance.

…

Fact Tank – Our Lives in Numbers

A public opinion trend that matters: Priorities for gun policy

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/09/a-public-opinion-trend-that-matters-priorities-for-gun-policy/

Last month, the Pew Research Center released a survey showing that a question about gun policy we have been asking since 1993 had passed a key milestone: For the first time in more than two decades, a higher percentage (52%) said it was more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns than to control gun ownership (46%).

The survey question has drawn criticism from gun control advocates and some experts on gun violence, who called it simplistic, misleading and even biased. They say that forcing respondents to choose between polar positions – “gun control” or “gun rights” – assumes that all regulations on gun sales infringe on gun owners’ rights.

Opinion on Controlling Gun Ownership vs. Protecting Gun Rights: 1993-2014

Here’s the full wording of the question: “What do you think is more important – to protect the right of Americans to own guns or to control gun ownership?”

This question presents respondents with simple, stark alternatives: When the issue of guns is raised, do you find yourself more on the side of protecting gun rights or controlling gun ownership? There is no indication that people have any difficulty answering this question or are ambivalent about the topic. In fact, when asked a follow-up about the strength of their opinion, 81% of those who said it is more important to control gun ownership felt strongly about that position; 91% of those who said it is more important to protect gun rights felt strongly.

How a person answers this question doesn’t presuppose how they might feel about any specific gun policy. In fact, it is not intended to measure opinion about proposals to restrict gun sales, to limit the ability of dangerous individuals to obtain guns or to put stricter background checks on gun purchases – all of which the Pew Research Center has asked about in recent surveys.

Rather, it is a gauge of broad sentiment over time on an important topic. In this regard, it is similar to “gut check” measures on other topics, such as, “Do you think the use of marijuana should be made legal or not?”, whether homosexuality should be accepted or discouraged by society, or whether abortion should be legal or illegal in all or most cases.

None of these questions fully capture the nuances of public attitudes on these complex subjects. For instance, the widely cited trend on marijuana legalization, which dates back more than 40 years, does not specify the purposes for which marijuana might be made legal – recreational use, medicinal use or both? Yet each of these questions – on marijuana, homosexuality, abortion and guns – enables us to measure long-term change in the overall climate of public opinion and, equally important, how views among demographic and partisan groups have changed over time.

Broad Public Backing for Many Gun Policy Proposals

Because no single question can possibly paint a full picture of opinion on an issue, the Pew Research Center covers public policy from multiple angles. On gun policy, we have conducted polls exploring attitudes about a number of proposals, including stricter background checks on gun purchases, preventing people with mental illness from purchasing guns and establishing a federal database to track gun sales. Our January 2013 survey found that many of these proposals drew extensive public support (see “In Gun Control Debate, Several Options Draw Majority Support,” Jan. 14, 2013).

Other recent polls have looked at the differing perspectives of gun owners and non-gun owners and the potential impact of stricter gun laws in a number of areas, including whether such laws would reduce the number of deaths in mass shootings. Even after the Senate defeated a background checks bill in 2013, we found that 81% favored making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks (see “Broad Support for Renewed Background Checks Bill, Skepticism About Its Chances,” May 23, 2013).

The Pew Research Center’s public opinion research, including our surveys on gun policy, is part of its broader mission as a nonpartisan research institution that studies the issues of the day. The Center does not take policy positions and does not engage in issue advocacy. It shares its research with the public to generate a foundation of facts that enriches the public dialogue and supports sound decision-making.

Changing Attitudes on Gun Policy

Examining trends over time is invaluable to understanding public opinion and is a core component of the Pew Research Center’s work. The question about gun control and gun rights was first asked in December 1993, a time when former President Clinton’s gun proposals – and his attempt to curb the power and influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA) – drew broad public support. In that survey, 57% said it was more important to control gun ownership while just 34% said it was more important to protect gun rights

On 11 occasions between 1993 and 2008 (the question was not asked 1994-1998), majorities consistently said it was more important to control gun ownership than to protect the right of Americans to own guns. Since 2009, however, opinion has been more evenly divided. In April 2009, 49% prioritized controlling gun ownership – down 11 points from just a year earlier – while 45% prioritized protecting gun rights.

Opinion was little changed over the next three years. But in December 2012, shortly after the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., a higher share said it was more important to control gun ownership than to protect gun rights (49% vs. 42%). By May 2013, opinion was, once again, divided (50% said it was more important to control gun ownership, 48% said it was more important to protect gun rights). And last month, by a six-point margin (52% to 46%) more prioritized gun rights than gun control.

Support for Assault Weapons Ban, Handguns Ban Has Slipped Since 1990s

The broad shift in views on this question has been mirrored in other trend measures on gun policy. For example, in October 2014 Gallup found that 47% said laws covering the sale of firearms should be “more strict,” down from 58% in December 2012. From 2000-2008, majorities typically favored making laws covering the sale of firearms more strict; support for stricter gun laws fell in 2009, increased after the Newtown shooting, and has declined since then.

And while there are few long-term trends of opinion regarding individual gun policies, surveys have found a decrease in support for some of these proposals. An April 2013 ABC News/Washington Post survey found that 56% favored a nationwide ban on assault weapons, down from 80% two decades earlier. Gallup found that support for banning the possession of handguns fell 16 points between 1993 and 2014.

Growing Partisanship

As noted, one advantage of any long-term trend question is the ability to measure how views have changed among different groups. In the case of marijuana legalization, age is a major factor in changing attitudes. On priorities for gun policy, growing partisanship has been responsible for much of the shift in opinion.

Dramatic Shift in Republicans’ Priorities for Gun Policy; Democrats’ Views Much More Stable

In the 1993 survey, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents were divided over whether it is more important to control gun ownership or protect gun rights (47% each). As recently as 2007, 48% of Republicans and GOP leaners said it was more important to control gun ownership, while 47% said it was more important to protect gun rights.

Since 2007, Republican attitudes have undergone a dramatic change: The share of Republicans saying it is more important to protect gun rights has increased by 28 points to 75%. By contrast, Democratic opinion has remained much more stable. In December, about twice as many Democrats and Democratic leaners said it was more important to control gun ownership (65%) than to protect gun rights (31%).

waterfield wrote:

The trouble with “discussing” the issue of gun control is in differentiating between the genuine concerns of some over a purported loss of liberty or right from those using that argument as a pretext to a misguided sense of masculinity (both men and women).

I look to the Canadian model (as I mentioned) and I recognize from that model that no one has to view gun regulation as anything even remotely like a “loss of liberty.” Why they choose to, I don’t know, because personally, I never hear arguments about that make any sense to me. I know people DO view it that way, but what I HEAR when I hear it is roughly equivalent in its sense-making as people who claim that the lord dictated that men rule over women.

It’s ideas, and passions, and beliefs.

My apologies on this to bnw but we just speak to each other from across a great divide.