A radio talk-show host once confided: "If you want to light up the phones, just talk about abortion or gun control."
It works for blogging, too. My piece here earlier this week, saying that the key issue, handgun control, has been largely neglected in cable's saturation coverage of the Fort Hood murders, brought out the gun-nut crowd, big time.
(This reminds me of that darkly apt joke: Two nuts were walking down the street. One was a salted).
Little has changed with the handgun groupies. Certainly not their point of view (summary: "The Second Amendment is the revealed word of God"), no matter how many lone-gunman shooting sprees we have.
And the anti-handgun control arguments posted here? Staler than last year's Christmas fruitcake (an apt metaphor for a lot of these pious pistoleros).
C'mon, NRA and its acolytes: Time to freshen the material.
Here are some of the golden oldies trotted out to explain (justify?) the latest handgun bloodbath. I paraphrase at times:
1. "Nidal Hasan used the Internet. Should we also ban the internet?"
No, Einstein, just doorknobs like those that got him into that building. Doorknobs can be as lethal as handguns. I think Chairman Wayne (Lapierre) said that.
2. "Many of MY guns are bought for historical significance."
You mean, like the ones that killed Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy? Ever thought of collecting coins instead?
3. "You cite Canada as being anti-handgun. Did you know it's about to repeal its gun ban?"
Yes, I did. But that repeal movement is directed at the Rifle and Shotgun Registry, not handguns. And it's probably not gonna happen. Try reading actual news stories, Baretta Boy.
4. One anti-gun Commenter asked: "Can anyone could name another mass murder that DIDN'T include guns?" The NRA crowd was all over this one instantly: The Oklahoma City bombings, they fired off notes en masse.
OK, you got us on that one. Now, how about the other 50 or so, committed with guns and handguns?
5. "The gun didn't kill anyone. A person killed them."
I'll let Commenter kcdrew field this oldie: "You're right. Guns don't kill people. People WITH guns kill people."
6. "Guns -- on an Army base? What a surprise," said one pro-gun jokester, whom we'll call "Shecky."
Hey Shecky, I can answer this one from personal experience: My father was a career U.S. Army officer; I grew up on Army bases. The only way you can obtain a gun on a base is to sign one out at the armory, and only then for a good reason Ironically, U.S. military bases are often far safer than the cities outside them - because this part of the government, anyway, has stricter gun-control laws. That is, unless a soldier has visited Guns Galore in Killeen...
7. "Guns are banned in the U.K., but they're having knife crisis."
Hmmm. Google News doesn't turn up any instance of recent mass murders in the U.K. with knives.
8 "For gun laws to work, you have to assume people will follow them."
No, you don't. You do, however, start arresting those who break handgun laws (which should be felonies.). It's not perfect by any means, but you have to start somewhere.
9. "If the students at Virginia Tech had been allowed to carry guns, the death toll would have been a lot lower."
Yes, allowing untrained, gun-toting and hormone-driven young males to pack heat on campus sounds like a great idea. I told this one to a cop I know, and he started laughing.
And finally, the inevitable fallback position:
"Owning a gun is a constitutional right."
OK, so how's that well-regulated militia unit you're part of working out for you?
Follow Bill Mann on Twitter: www.twitter.com/newsmann
Our law enforcement and national security policies need to deal with all extremist perspectives vigorously and vigilantly, but there's no justification for any "backlash" against Arab or Muslim Americans in general.
Jeff Schweitzer: War Dead and Differential Grief
This year we have lost a total of 429 soldiers, an average of 1.2 per day, every day of the year, or the equivalent of a Ford Hood every 11 days. We should all ponder that.
Wrong, military bases are safer because the populance that inhabits them is far more lawful than the civilian population as a whole. It's not due to a lack of guns. It's because of a lack of violent criminals.
When it comes to actual physical safety though, the incident proved that gun restrictions on bases actually make them very unsafe and wide open to any attack.
Furthermore, we are trained in the proper cultural requirements related to searches, especially involving women, and we are forbidden to interrogate anyone; and suspects are required to be turned over to Iraqi authorities as quickly as possible--with inventories of personal assets of the detainee and a custody form for the person and property of the person, all others set free--you know nothing about which you speak in your short statement, and I recently took training through the Army on the matter of cultural issues directly FROM IRAQI and other Middle Eastern Muslim trainers hired by the Army.
Your opinion (obviously a "blame America first-er" and America hater) doesn't mean squat to me--you're not qualified to speak on the subject. What Iraqi's do you know personally? HMMM? You are ignorant on the matter and it clearly shows.
OK, so how's that well-regulated militia unit you're part of working out for you? "
It surprises me that, as a journalist, you do not recognize the 'militia clause' as a dependent clause.
I think the reason so many people misinterpret the 2nd Amendment, is because they think it 'grants' the right to keep and bear arms. It does not. That right already existed long before the Constitution was written. It came ashore with the English, at Jamestown, in 1607.
Keeping in mind that the right already existed, re-read the 2nd Amendment, and you may see it in a different light.
Yeah, I knew that. ; )
I wanted to paste your whole post, but I thought I'd save the bandwidth. You are absolutely correct. My bad.
If you ever get tired of law enforcement, there are a couple of colleges I know of that could use a good English professor.
I'm glad you're on our side, OE.
Also, ONLY PEOPLE as INDIVIDUALS have rights--though they may also exercise powers (c.f. 10th Amendment) but states (meaning governments generally, not a specific state like oh, say, Florida, or Massachusetts) may exercise powers only; states have no rights. PERIOD!
“Hmmm. Google News doesn't turn up any instance of recent mass murders in the U.K. with knives.”
The U.K. is also having a gun crisis as well. In fact, Alan Green, assistant chief constable of Greater Manchester Police state publicly that gun crime has spread across Britain "Like a cancer."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1430690/Gun-crimes-spreading-like-cancer.html
OK, so how's that well-regulated militia unit you're part of working out for you?
Honestly, that last one cracks me up. According to some self proclaimed Liberals I'm "a dangerous right wing extremist militia member". So I guess that according to them, even under Mr. Mann's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, I still have a Constitutional right to own guns.
Meanwhile, it's still amusing to me that the same people that claim that you need to be a militia member to own guns accuse people like me of being "extremist right wing militia members".
Out of curiosity though, what's my other assorted agenda, besides advocating for legalizing mary jane?
Except in Vermont and Alaska, where there is no permit required for concealed carry, every other state I am aware of rquires that a person be at least 21 years old, undergo a background check, and complete training before being given a permit to carry concealed.
Several colleges already all this. No problems have been noted.
And I am a cop and I have no problem with the idea of legal concealed carry on campus.
Anyone ever notice that all the mass shootings take place in victim disarmament zones ("gun-free zones")--so how's that working out for you gun-grabbers?
Then when another shooting takes place, you want to make even more places gun free and confiscate the arms from all those who didn't do it? Great use of logic there. Advocates of prior-restraint are we?
“OK, so how's that well-regulated militia unit you're part of working out for you?”
The Supreme Court held in D.C. vs. Heller “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
2. "Many of MY guns are bought for historical significance."
“You mean, like the ones that killed Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy? Ever thought of collecting coins instead?”
So do you believe that Revolutionary War, Civil War, World War 1, World War 2 etc. rifles and pistols should be confiscated and destroyed? Gun ban groups and zealots are always quick to argue that they are not against the legitimate uses of firearms like hunting, competitive shooting, and collecting, but your argument here proves that their true agenda, in fact, is total citizen disarmament.
“I'll let Commenter kcdrew field this oldie: "You're right. Guns don't kill people. People WITH guns kill people."
People with guns also protect themselves and others from crime as many as two million times a year.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm
8 "For gun laws to work, you have to assume people will follow them."
“No, you don't. You do, however, start arresting those who break handgun laws (which should be felonies.). It's not perfect by any means, but you have to start somewhere.”
What handgun laws are you referencing? Are you talking about enforcing the laws that are currently on the books as the NRA has been arguing for years, or are you favoring even more controls on lawful firearms owners or even a complete handgun ban?
Also, studies have concluded that there is no correlation between firearms ownership and crime, and many nations with the strictest firearms prohibitions have higher murder rates than nations without such restrictions.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
“Yes, allowing untrained, gun-toting and hormone-driven young males to pack heat on campus sounds like a great idea. I told this one to a cop I know, and he started laughing.”
Nine public universities in Utah as well as Colorado State University and Blue Ridge Community College in Virginia allow licensed students and faculty to carry firearms on their campuses, and there have been no shooting tragedies at those institutions as predicted by the gun ban zealots.
At the Appalachian State Law School a gunman entered the school and opened fire. Two law students ran to their cars and retrieved their rifles. They reentered the school, confronted the gunman, and held him at gunpoint until police arrived. The two law students had no difficulty identifying the attacker, and the police had no difficulty in recognizing that the two students with the rifles were holding the attacker at bay.
Gun ban zealots argue that places of worship should be gun free zones as well, but when a heavily armed gunman entered the New Life Church in Colorado and opened fire a carry permit holder, who volunteered to be a church security guard, returned fire wounding the attacker. She held the gunman at bay, and when he came to the realization that his shooting spree was thwarted he committed suicide.
Hmmm. Google News doesn't turn up any instance of recent mass murders in the U.K. with knives."
Perhaps it's time to Google real crime stats. The UK has experienced so many knife crimes since they banned guns, that they have banned pocket knives, swords, and are trying to ban large cooking knives.
"8 "For gun laws to work, you have to assume people will follow them."
No, you don't. You do, however, start arresting those who break handgun laws (which should be felonies.). It's not perfect by any means, but you have to start somewhere."
Uh, yes you do have to assume people will follow them (criminals don't). That's why the gun bans in DC and Chicago have been such a smashing success. It may also interest you to know, that firearms violations ARE felonies. Always have been, and we're not just talking handgun violations. As a matter of fact (you DO know what a fact is, right?), most firearms violations are federal offenses.
2nd Amendment supporters (including the dreaded NRA), have been screaming for criminals who use weapons to commit crimes to be incarcerated for a seriously long time, not just 'arrested'. Anti-gun zealots respond by calling us "draconian", because they are more concerned about prison overcrowding than they are about public safety.
Hmmm. Google News doesn't turn up any instance of recent mass murders in the U.K. with knives."
But there have been many murders, and assaults with knives, and the British are getting fed up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eyFHYQLzIE
Hey Bill, can you cite a mass-shooting that did not take place in a 'gun-free zone'?
Gun free zones only work if you enforce them (think airport security). You have to have armed security at the perimeter of said gun free zone and search everyone and everthing going into your zone. Otherwise, criminals will just ignore the rule, carry into the zone, and commit crimes.
Carrying a gun doesn't magically make you immune to crime, but neither does hanging up a sign that says "No Guns Allowed".
That's exactly right. I don't understand why the anti-2nd Amendment crowd attaches majical properties to cardboard signs.
As I've said a hundred times before, gun-free zones are only gun-free, until someone brings a gun.
4. One anti-gun Commenter asked: "Can anyone could name another mass murder that DIDN'T include guns?" The NRA crowd was all over this one instantly: The Oklahoma City bombings, they fired off notes en masse.
OK, you got us on that one. Now, how about the other 50 or so, committed with guns and handguns?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
here are 3....
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2009/09/man-arrested-after-georgia-mass-killing-out-on-bond.html
http://www.whnt.com/news/whnt-lincoln-county-news-conference,0,4261455.story
http://www.bet.com/News/NewsArticleCrimeManDecapitatesSister.htm..
""Guns are banned in the U.K., but they're having knife crisis."
First error: guns aren't banned in the UK. Eric Clapton is an avid hunter, he owns lots of guns. Last year he put up a number of his rare and fine firearms up for charity auction. He talks about his gun collection and his passion for hunting in the UK in his autobiography.
Second error: British law refers to any stabbing, be it from a pencil or crochet needle, as knife crime. Yet, British homicide rates (all causes) per capita are about 1.4--about a quarter of the US homicide rate. So, if the UK is having a crisis, we must be having an apocalypse.
Handguns are. Rifles are tightly controlled, shotguns are subject to much fewer constraints for reasons dealing with culture and status.
Gun violence is a symptom people. The War on Drugs and gangs are the cause of much of the violence whether it's committed with guns, knifes, or beatings. Solve the drug/gang related violence and then you'll see the crime rate drop. Keep blaming whatever tool they use, you might accomplish something, more likely you won't. What you will do is take the rights of law abiding people away.
Further, when it comes to the dreaded knife homicide crisis, the US rate matches that of the UK.
311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of
the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
CONTINUED in next post
I think your masters at the NRA will ultimately see Heller as the beginning of the end for you.
On one hand, Heller, at least for now, put an end to the indiviidual v. collective rights debate. But that was really just an esoteric debating point since there is no US group that has ever called for a total gun ban.
OTOH, Heller did leave open -- and advocated--many things the gun crazies would rather not see: things like registration, licensing, bans on certain firearms, etc.
As Sanford Levinson said: "My own bet is that Heller will more likely than not turn out to be of no significance to anyone but constitutional theorists."
So, while gun crazies beat their chests about Heller--the fact is gun control will at least stay the same or get tighter.
What, then, have the Brady Center and the Violence Policy Center advocated?
"OTOH, Heller did leave open -- and advocated--many things the gun crazies would rather not see: things like registration, licensing, bans on certain firearms, etc."
The ruling in Heller v. DC was not tailored to address the Constitutional viability of licensing and registration, as those legal requirements were not challenged. I do not understand how you have interpreted the Heller ruling to permit "bans on certain firearms" given that the Heller ruling explicitly overturned an extant ban on a "certain firearm".
"So, while gun crazies beat their chests about Heller--the fact is gun control will at least stay the same or get tighter."
Please explain the basis for this prediction, given that public support for increased firearms restrictions has been steadily declining for several years.
The way one's representatives feel about gun control says quite a bit about how they feel about their constituents - are they responsible individuals who can be trusted, or are they mere children who must be protected? Individualism is a core value upon which our society was built. To say people are too irresponsible to have firearms is an affront to that value. Just as people are presumed innocent, they should be presumed responsible until proven otherwise. In addition, acts of unscrupulous people should not cause the rights of the law-abiding to be stripped.
An extension of individualism is the importance of independence from paternalism. People unable to defend themselves rely upon the government to protect them. Some find governments untrustworthy (would you repeal the 4th Amendment?). Even if trustworthy, the government cannot be in all places at all times. As the adage goes, "when seconds count the police are only minutes away."
Finally, if we depend completely upon government, government can achieve almost complete control. The right to keep and bear arms is a last security against this control (which we call tyranny). The Revolutionary War began when the British attempted to seize the colonials' arms. The colonists knew that without their weapons their other rights could be confiscated.