The emerging Biden Proposal

[artjrk]

Here is an article in the Washington Post just a couple days ago.

 

"Data indicate drop in high-capacity magazines during federal gun ban"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/data-point-to-drop-in-high-capacity-magazines-during-federal-gun-ban/2013/01/10/d56d3bb6-4b91-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html

 

Then I hear the NRA say that the Assault weapon ban was a total failure. Where are their facts. Oh wait they lobby to prevent any research.

[vol_scouter]

Academia controls all of the so called 'reputable' journals and the media. They are left leaning to left wing. There is no opportunity for fair research or review of research. There have been some 'studies' published in medical journals that were poor science and reached unsubstantiated conclusions that were lauded. Contrary views were treated derisively rather than with serious discussions. There is no opportunity for free and honest discourse in academia for anything that has to do with the left's view of the world. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[JoeBob]

Beavah, does it really surprise you that John Lott was hounded from one temple of holy academia to another because he didn't drink the Flavoraid? Not all of us think that Yale, Stanford, and UCLA are at the top of the reality food chain.

 

But move your thinking beyond Lott. Does not the fact that 90% of mass shootings in public places take place where guns are legally or otherwise prohibited tell you anything?

 

****

'Gun Free Zones' kill more people that they protect.

Concealed carry of firearms saves way more lives and stops way more crime than CCWs cause.

 

If you can't accept that basic reality as a starting point for discussion, how can you possibly expect the other side to take you seriously? Why would anyone waste time negotiating magazine capacity, firearms liability insurance, background checks, and cosmetic rifle features with a clueless ideologue?

[Beavah]

Yah, let's try not to take da thread on the Biden Proposal off into Global Warming, if we can avoid it. I'll spin da second thread.

 

JoeBob, you were the fellow that brought up Lott's CV, not me. Don't yeh think it's a bit odd to be lauding his CV in one post, and then less than a day later to be talkin' about how those same institutions yeh were lauding aren't worth anything?

 

The man is just not credible. That doesn't make your position wrong, it just means yeh should be able to recognize a guy who is neither accurate nor honorable and stop quoting him. Find real evidence to support your position.

 

I sent yeh off to da Mother Jones piece that did da fairly comprehensive list of mass shootings quoted by many conservative commentators because it demonstrates how strongly tied these mass shootings are with mental illness. So it's an accepted source by all sides. Even a cursory scan of that list (coupled with da fact that gun-free zones didn't start up until the 1990s, not 1950) shows that your 90% claim is just wrong. You can do better.

 

What's interestin' to me in all this is how ridiculously knee-jerk folks get. I'm not personally one way or the other about gun-free zones. I confess I haven't thought about it much. You asked what da rationale is, and I told you. From a legal/prosecutors perspective, it provides a prosecutorial tool which allows yeh to charge and hold a bad guy who enters an area with reported intent, but who hasn't (yet) shot anyone. Da rationale is that we probably don't want da 16 year old emancipated minor who is havin' social issues in school open carry legally into da lunchroom. That doesn't mean they're a good policy choice, eh? It just means that there is a rationale, which should be considered thoughtfully.

 

Beavah

 

[Basementdweller]

So the entire gun free zone thing didn't come to into being till.....what 1990?????

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

 

So any data prior to that is irrelevant because the gun free zones didn't exist.

 

The legislation is only for schools not religious institutions.

 

In my state.......to be declared a weapon free zone all one has to do is post a sign......Just about every place does and has.......Every gas station and convince store locally does.....interestingly this morning I checked the church and it is not posted weapons free.

[CalicoPenn]

"Does not the fact that 90% of mass shootings in public places take place where guns are legally or otherwise prohibited tell you anything?"

 

Does not the fact that 100% of mass shootings in public places take place where large numbers of unrelated people come together?

 

It's a real stretch to say that mass shooters considers whether someplace is a gun free zone or not in making their decision where to start shooting people, particularly since there is no hard date to support such a notion.

[boomerscout]

"Yah, hmmm.... not sure why yeh would think background checks would be unconstitutional, boomerscout."

 

because it is an infringement on the right to bear arms. If you don't like that, then change the Constitution.

 

I like high capacity clips to be available -- the higher the better. They are harder to hide, weigh down the perp, and more frequently jam than the smaller clips

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, sorry boomerscout. That area of constitutional law is quite settled, eh? Even da colonial militia leaders got to tell some folks they didn't trust to stay home.

 

 

[JoeBob]

Since y'all insist on squabbling about minutia and refuse to address the larger issue, let's try another angle.

 

Scenario:

 

A crazy/evil person has decided that he wants to kill a bunch of people.

 

What penalty for violation of a 'Gun Free Zone' will deter the crazy/evil person?

The person who is going to be punished for multiple murders or kill himself anyway?

 

One penalty. Come on, one?

[CalicoPenn]

Scenario - a yahoo wants to get on the highway and drive at 100 miles an hour - the speed limit isn't going to stop him, and the additional laws (which most states have) that add penalties for excessive speeding isn't going to stop him, so why bother to have those laws at all.

 

Scenario - an idiot decides to manufacture meth in a house next to a school - drug-free school zones (which tend to extend well beyond the school properties borders) aren't going to stop him - isn't the penalty for manufacturing meth enough, is it really necessary to add charges for manufacturing meth in a school zone?

 

Let me say it again - laws aren't followed by criminals - if they were following the laws, they wouldn't be criminals, would they? Laws are created to allow us to continue to live as civilized people in an otherwise brutal world.

 

Just because criminals aren't going to follow gun free zone laws doesn't mean we should just dispose of gun free zone laws. We already know criminals aren't going to pay attention to laws. No, they're meant for us, the law abiding folks, as a contract between us that we will follow these laws because it contributes to the civilized society we want to live in. If you get a CCW permit, you agree to abide by certain laws, including following gun free zone laws. It already a given that criminals, being criminals, are going to ignore that - the question is, do you remain a law-abiding citizen and follow the law or do you become a law breaker and ignore the law because you think that since criminals aren't going to follow the law, you shouldn't have to follow it either?

[JoeBob]

Hey Calico,

 

The discussion is not about whether or not to obey the law.

 

The discussion is whether or not the law is stupid and accomplishes anything.

 

Since the more valid argument is that 'Gun Free Zones' augment spree shooters, should we not revoke a law that does no good and only causes harm??

[sheldonsmom]

The reason I would not answer a question by a doctor about guns in the house is that it is no more relevant to home safety than "are there knives in the house" or "are there chemicals in the house?". We have a cricket bat in the house and that is used in more murders than guns in Britain. Should they ask about those too? Where do the questions end. Does the doctor trust me to use common sense in raising my children? If he doesn't, then I need to find new doctor since he doesn't trust me!

[Beavah]

Yah, sheldonsmom, I get where you're coming from. At the same time, I think yeh have to allow a bit of professional discretion. "Do yeh have any machinery in the house?" might be a reasonable question for a doc who is writing a scrip for a narcotic painkiller. It allows the doc to have an extra conversation about how pursuing your woodworking hobby while at home convalescing is a really bad idea.

 

Similarly, a parent who is dealin' with a troubled kid is goin' to be focused on the kid, eh? Not necessarily thinkin' through all the issues that might need to be addressed. If the doc is goin' to be prescribing one of da antidepressants that has occasionally been associated with suicide, for example, a question about guns in the house might be very, very appropriate in the same way.

 

CalicoPenn, I agree with JoeBob, eh? Da issue is not whether to follow the law, the issue is whether the law is a good idea. Is a highway speed limit really necessary, given that the large majority of citizens exceed it and yet drive safely? Over the past 20 years, most states have raised limits from 55 to 65 or 70 with no significant increase in accidents. He's makin' the same argument about gun-free zones. They aren't goin' to stop the bad guy, and they just annoy or become a tax on the regular, ordinary citizen.

 

Da tricky thing to balance is that we want to stop the bad guy, eh? We'd prefer to stop the guy goin' 100mph before he kills a bunch of people, rather than arrest him afterward. In the same way, we want to stop the bad guy shooter before he kills, not wait for him to start shooting and arrest (or call da coroner) afterward.

 

That to my mind is the issue. No speed limit at all (driving fast is a "right"), and accept that we can only respond with punishment after the crash. Very restrictive speed limit (pro speed-control), perhaps coupled with limits on what kind of car you can buy/drive, and accept that we're going to annoy a whole lot of regular citizens who will likely disobey. Or perhaps somethin' in the middle, where we allow for minor inconvenience or some safety regulation on cars in exchange for providing law enforcement with some options to stop a fellow goin' 100mph on a dark and slippery road.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

I too have a cricket hat and it's beyond my comprehension how that thing could be used to kill someone.

 

Edit: Bat! Bat! Sorry, I guess I need some new glasses. Sometimes a hat is just a hat.

 

Beavah, the speed limit analogy is not a bad one. But I can show you places where the speed limit INCREASES for school zones. If the word 'stupid' comes to mind, I agree. But it's the same with this issue. If we pass a law that is clearly flawed, we need to admit it. And if we've already tried it in the past and it failed, then we should try to benefit from that experience. This is one reason why I think the ban on data collection and research is, well, stupid.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Eagle732]

Yea we don't ban cars that can go 120mph when the highest legal limit is 70. Focus on the criminal and not the inanimate object.