We can't end these massacres but we sure can cut them down by orders of magnitude

[dsc]

I concede that there will always be a chance of such a massacre happening even if our society were to do everything right. Heck, even Norway had one of these. But there is literally not another first world country, not a one, where such massacres happen with anything approaching the regularity that they do here. Not in Greece which is rapidly becoming a third world country thanks to economic mismanagement, not in Germany which produced Hitler, not in the UK where the racial mix is roughly the same as ours, not even in such backwaters as Serbia and Turkey. Just like in every year in the memory of pretty much anyone who is younger than 50, with the exception of the Balkan war, there will be way more people killed by guns in the US than in the whole of Europe a continent with over 1 and a half times as many people.

There are two major differences between us and Europe. One is that we have insane gun laws and the other is we have worse medical care for our poor. Improving our medical care for the poor might reduce these events by a micron by catching and curing someone who has a mental disease which is endeavoring to cause a him or her to lose control but it is our gun laws which are the big difference. We literally permit anyone to by any gun at any time for any or no reason and in many states we then permit them to carry them anywhere at any time for any or no reason. Then we are shocked, shocked I tell you, that we have massacre after massacre after massacre after massacre after massacre after massacre.

Before Columbine I was convinced that it would take a bunch of white, middle to upper class kids getting killed to wake us up. Well then that happened and we just said, Oh well, nothing we can do. Before Newtown I said it would take a bunch of white, rich elementary school children, then that happened and we said, oh well, nothing we can do. At this point, I honestly have no clue what it would take. Maybe if we had all the deaths at once instead of a few dozen or so at a time, then we might wake up.

It took one 9-11 to completely change our country. Flying now is totally different than it was then as to be close to unrecognizable. We let the government monitor who we call, what books we read, what websites we visit, all in the name of preventing another 9-11. Each year we lose 10 9-11's to guns, 2 of those violently, and we say, oh well nothing we can do. We even let people who we won't let on planes due to being on the terrorist watch list, buy semi automatic military rifles.

We could cut these massacres by orders of magnitude if not end them entirely just like every single other first world country has done. We choose not to. We choose instead to let anyone by any gun at any time for any or no reason and then we wait for the inevitable. In the time it took you to read this post, we almost certainly had someone, somewhere, shot maybe to death but oh well, there is nothing we can do. At least as long as we choose not to.

[dsc]

1. kick

[NutmegYankee]

2. How would you actually go about doing this?

This isn't Britain or Australia - People in the USA believe in their hearts and minds that they have a right to own guns. Most gun owners are not going to hand in their guns. They will fight or hide them.

[dsc]

3. then put them in jail

I an beyond fed up with the notion that we only have to obey laws we like. Put a few or more than a few of them in prison for some time and I think that people will come around very quickly. To be clear, I would give owners a period of 6 months to get real licenses, get all their guns registered, and for private sales to either be subject to back round checks or to be stopped. After that, you have a gun you aren't supposed to have or where you aren't supposed to have it and you go to jail.

[NutmegYankee]

4. I doubt that very much.

Too many people like myself took an Oath to uphold the Constitution of the USA. They would never comply with an illegal law.

I myself believe that immoral laws should be disobeyed. My family has a proud tradition of working against immortal laws, serving as a slave hideout on the underground railroad and passing out contraceptives when they were outlawed. I think your view of tough enforcement would just turn out like our war on drugs - a miserable failure.

[dsc]

5. it is worth a try

I don't think restricting off target range ownership of guns to rifles and pistols which hold 6 bullets and need to be cocked is either immoral or unconstitutional. I also don't think requiring registration of those rifles and pistols is either immoral or unconstitutional. If you or others can't obey that law than frankly I don't have a problem with enforcing that law.

[Lee-Lee]

6. Having worked in LE

In the south and most other rural states I doubt you would get much, if any, cooperation with enforcing a set of laws like that.

It is a vast cultural difference.

[dsc]

8. since when do we let people decide what they will and what they won't enforce

If you are the sheriff of say Wayne County, NC and you don't want to enforce gun laws, then quit your damn job. We wouldn't let inner city DA's refuse to enforce drug laws. We wouldn't let gay DA's refuse to enforce laws banning gay marriage, we wouldn't let male DA's refuse to enforce child support orders against males, why on God's green earth would we let this group do that?

[Lee-Lee]

9. It happens all the time

And sometimes we applaud it- the recent actions by the President dealing with immigration choosing to not enforce laws regarding dreamers is a good example- discretion exists and is exercised every day at all levels of the justice system.

The recent decision of several states attorney generals to not support or enforce state bans on marriage equality are another example. The law was on the books, they judged it wrong and refused to force or defend it.

In the case like this, I know the Sheriff I worked for wouldn't have gone for it, and he was a Democrat. I don't think a sheriff who advocated for that would ever get elects in that county, nor would they find many applicants for jobs there willing to do it.

[Travis_0004]

32. All the time

Eric holder has said that states attorney generals are not required to defend and enforce laws they disagree with. He was mostly walking about immigration, and gay marriage, but its very common to just ignore laws.

Marajuana is illegal on a federal level, and as such, if we are going to enforce those laws, the feds should swoop in to Colorado, and other states and shut them down. But, the Feds are allowing states to choose, and they are choosing not to enforce a federal law.

I think the bigger problem you have is, there are not the votes for an AWB in congress. And if one of my representatives proposed what you have proposed during an election year, they would not get my vote. I wouldn't vote for the republican on the ballot, but instead leave it blank, and see who wins. Then you are going to complain next congressional cycle when the democrats have no control

[NutmegYankee]

12. If kicking down people's doors and shooting their dogs is your thing...

I wish you luck on your endeavor. I'll buy some stock in the massive private prison industry you create.

[AlinPA]

7. I believe my right to be safe from guns is just as important as someone else's 2nd amendment rights.

But the 2nd amendment seems to trump others’ rights, liberties and their right to live. (last phrase re: Richard Martinez quote).

[NutmegYankee]

10. The problem with that statement is that it is a fallacy.

Ownership of a thing doesn't mean it will be used to murder someone. The act of murdering a human being is a separate and already illegal act.

[AlinPA]

15. Yes, murder is illegal. But the guy exercising his 2nd amendment has control over my rights

(and life) if he so chooses and my rights don’t mean a thing. (In the U.S. we have demonstrated our bias to the 2nd Amendment over others’ rights by accepting the butchery we’ve seen)

[NutmegYankee]

16. How do they exercise control over your life?

There are over 1000 ways to kill a person. But the act of using any of them is still illegal. And nearly everyone on the planet doesn't use any of them. The argument is fallacious.


Did you know the worst murder of elementary children in US history wasn't with guns?

The Bath School disaster refers to the series of violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927, in Bath Township, Michigan, that killed 38 elementary school children and six adults in total, and injured at least 58 other people.[Note 1] Kehoe first killed his wife, fire-bombed his farm and set off a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.[1][2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

People that actually intend to kill will find a way. Even the UK with it's strict laws couldn't stop the murder of 52 people a few years back.

[AlinPA]

17. I'm talking about the U.S. 2nd Amendment which is about guns that can be used to take away others'

rights, including their life. Repeating, it's illegal, but the one exercising the 2nd Amendment controls the rights of others.

[NutmegYankee]

18. Good grief!

Owning an object does not control your rights. What a ridiculous notion.

Just an hour ago I was using a machete to hack down some woody weeds. This same tool has been used to kill over 4 million people in central Africa lone in the last 20 years. Does that take away your rights? NO - Because I don't use it on people. The same goes for my firearms.

[AlinPA]

21. If someone ever aims their object acquired under the 2nd Amendment at me I'll keep that in mind.

[treestar]

23. An impulsive person with a gun is more likely to kill and more people

I don't see how you can get around that. Sandy Hook should have shown it. Are we really to accept that occasionally happening as the price of a right to have a gun? Because that is what people are afraid to say. But in essence what they really mean. Those kids had to die so we might all have our Second Amendment rights. If that's the case, it's the Second that needs to be repealed. We don't need all those guns around in modern society.

[AlinPA]

24. "Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics

are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"-- President Obama, December 2012

[NutmegYankee]

26. Well hell, repeal the entire Bill of Rights.

With no freedom to travel and strict control over speech and the internet, we could stamp out racism and bigotry once and for all easily. Without those pesky rights for criminals, we could lock people up so much easier and cheaper. It certainly would clear the repubs from the house.

Freedom has always had it's risks and it's problems. I prefer freedom myself, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

[treestar]

27. No, only the Second Amendment

You're dodging the issue by pretending I'm for repealing the entire bill of rights. That's ridiculous. Obviously frustration that you are being forced to acknowledge that you think Sandy Hook is a price we have to pay so everyone can have guns.

[NutmegYankee]

30. It's not a dodge.

I genuinely believe that someone who would propose ending a Bill of Right's Enumerated civil right is an authoritarian. The same kind of people that fund and enable the NSA to collect our Metadata for every call we make. And it disgusts me. And don't bother with the "For the Children" thing. That lost its effect on me after years of it's use by fundamentalist Christians to oppose gay marriage, which I have long supported.

I consistently believe in protecting and adding rights. I believed in making marriage a right for all. I believe in making health care a right for all. I am an ACLU member. I never have supported removing rights, and I'm not going to start. I believe in reasonable regulations to control the sale of firearms, and keep them out of unstable hands. But creating a new prohibition or drug war, no thanks.

[treestar]

34. Well you shouldn't, there are ten amendments

One can easily think differently of each of them.

The Fourth should never be touched. Likewise the 5th and 6th.

The Third is obsolete.

The Second should be changed, because the nature of war is not what it was in the 18th century.

You're dodging. You're pretending to attack the second, I have to attack the rest, and that's not so.

[Travis_0004]

33. Then go ahead an repeal the second admendment.

You just need 2/3rds of the house and senate to vote to start the process.

I take issue with the people that just want to ignore the second amendment, instead of repealing it. If you want it repealed, then call your congressman and tell him to start working on it. Yes, I know its impossible to have it repealed today, so that means there needs to be some second amendment rights, perhaps people disagree on where they should be, but that is what elections are for.

[treestar]

35. Exactly.

that's what I'd have to do, and I'm not going to give up because it seems far away. Like with single payer.

[dsc]

37. then why is our murder rate not just higher

but vastly higher than any other country in which we would consider living. I have never heard an answer much less a satisfactory answer to that question.

[Eleanors38]

13. So, jail your way out of the problem? I've heard that before...

I have no problem with jailing violent law-breakers, and quite a few non-violent ones as well. But to create a crime on a mass scale, and then set off another prison-building boom, smacks of Prohibition. And THAT is distinctly American.

[beevul]

14. "I an beyond fed up with the notion that we only have to obey laws we like."

So you don't suggest ignoring the federal ban on gun registration that the Firearm Owners Protection act of 1986 passed into law?

Interesting.

[dsc]

36. I didn't say we could never change the law

[treestar]

29. Most people obey laws

If it became law, then it would be in a society that felt they needed to be banned.

Which society will come along when they finally get tired of these shootings. Shocking Newtown did not do it.

[treestar]

11. You said it

Great post. I cannot believe nothing happened after Newtown. Shows how very sick the Republicans are. They let that one just be - acceptable price for the alleged freedom to have guns everywhere.

[hack89]

19. It was Dem Senators that derailed gun control post Sandy Hook

Reid was more concerned about protecting Dems up for reelection in pro - gun states.

[treestar]

20. Well, them too

Red states are disproportionately powerful.

[hack89]

22. That pesky Constitution again. nt

[steve2470]

25. I think all of us on DU want to cut down or eliminate these massacres

We differ on how to accomplish it. I have to agree with those who have said a confiscatory strategy, at this time, is not going to work. Guns are too deeply embedded in our culture right now.

I really hate to say this, but I think things will have to get worse before they get better. Before I get leaped on, I do NOT want it to get worse. The Newtown massacre did not change things. How many more Newtowns and Columbines and Isla Vistas do we have to witness ? So sad.

[NutmegYankee]

28. Yes, we all want to stop the massacres

We just disagree on the method.

[Thinkingabout]

31. On curtailing gun violence,one can decide to be a part of the problem or a part of the

Solution. If you are for gun ownership or if you are for control, step up to the plate and say we are going to do everything in our power to get this under control. There are laws in Texas which says you have to keep your weapons out of the reach of your children and can be charged in case of a failure. This is common sense, children are curious and bad things happen. We should be happy to say we need hun safety training, participate and be a trainer. This is sensible. Some people do not need to operate vehicles and likewise do not need guns in their possession. Admit this and we can work together for the good of everyone. The talking points has not brought any dead person back to life. It is about being sensible.