A matter of PUBLIC HEALTH: Why Not Regulate Guns as Seriously as Toys?

[chimpymustgo]

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: January 12, 2011

Jared Loughner was considered too mentally unstable to attend community college. He was rejected by the Army. Yet buy a Glock handgun and a 33-round magazine? No problem.

To protect the public, we regulate cars and toys, medicines and mutual funds. So, simply as a public health matter, shouldn’t we take steps to reduce the toll from our domestic arms industry?

-edit-

There are about 85 guns per 100 people in the United States, and we are particularly awash in handguns.

-edit-

So what can be done? I asked Professor Hemenway how he would oversee a public health approach to reducing gun deaths and injuries. He suggested:

• Limit gun purchases to one per month per person, to reduce gun trafficking. And just as the government has cracked down on retailers who sell cigarettes to minors, get tough on gun dealers who sell to traffickers.

• Push for more gun safes, and make serial numbers harder to erase.

• Improve background checks and follow Canada in requiring a 28-day waiting period to buy a handgun. And ban oversize magazines, such as the 33-bullet magazine allegedly used in Tucson. If the shooter had had to reload after firing 10 bullets, he might have been tackled earlier. And invest in new technologies such as “smart guns,” which can be fired only when near a separate wristband or after a fingerprint scan.

We can also learn from Australia, which in 1996 banned assault weapons and began buying back 650,000 of them. The impact is controversial and has sometimes been distorted. But the Journal of Public Health Policy notes that after the ban, the firearm suicide rate dropped by half in Australia over the next seven years, and the firearm homicide rate was almost halved.

-edit-

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/opinion/13kristof.html?src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB

*************
And some more ideas from this commenter:

William J Haboush
New York City
January 13th, 2011
1:35 am
I'm sure none of this will happen but these strike me as the minimum one should expect. Don't limit how many but{b] tax each one. {/b}Suppose one had to pay a two hundred dollar tax per year on each handgun you owned. Suppose also you had to carry liability and personal injury insurance on each firearm as well. Also make the registered owner of a gun liable for injury or damage caused by the weapon unless it has been reported missing. Require that each person using a gun be licensed and require that they be tested for basic firearms competence every five years or so to remain eligible for a license. Record the serial number and the ballistic characteristics of each gun registered. That is what we do with cars and trucks. No one is up in the air about it. No one thinks that it takes away our right to own cars. Why the difference?

[justiceischeap]

1. I think the NRA lobby is much more well-funded than Toy lobby's

That's my guess.

[Toucano]

13. +1

That sums it up.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Well, duh

Such a no brainer. But sadly, the NRA lobby feeds the minds of the brainless.

[bullwinkle428]

3. Chris Hayes explained it beautifully on last night's Rachel show -

the NRA is just incredibly effective as a lobbying agent, and goes so far as to lobby against things bills targeting animal cruelty, using the classic "slippery slope" argument. The paranoia level that exists amongst many of the organization's members doesn't hurt them, either.

[X_Digger]

16. Did you know congress passed, and the president signed the replacement for the previous bill?

http://www.ilovedogs.com/2010/12/obama-signs-crush-video-act-into-law/

At a White House ceremony yesterday, President Barack Obama signed into law the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010 (H.R. 5566).
....
Last April, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 1999 law that would have banned the marketing of videos and images depicting cruelty to animals, saying it was too broadly written and infringed on the First Amendment right to free speech.

[bullwinkle428]

33. Was the NRA involved in lobbying against this bill in particular?

I honestly don't know. Hayes was just speaking in general terms, and I was just relaying the points he made.

[X_Digger]

35. *nod* the previous bill had some pretty big holes..

It made the selling or distribution of a video illegal if the actions performed in the video would be illegal in the locality where it was purchased from.

So if a resident of DC bought a video on bow hunting white-tailed deer because he goes down to a hunting retreat in Virginia, that would be illegal- because bow hunting is illegal in DC.

There were some pretty vague exceptions for 'art', which were never defined.

[Statistical]

39. In essence it was a horribly stupid and vague bill which never should have been

proposed in the first place.

Some people just latched on to the fact that since the NRA opposed it then it must be good without actually looking at the merits.
The modified bill wasn't opposed by the NRA because it was actually a well written bill that wasn't vague and overly broad.

[Statistical]

4. The story starts with a false claim. firearms are heavily regulated.

Pretending firearms aren't heavily regulated is intellectually dishonest.

"No one thinks that it takes away our right to own cars."
That is because YOU DON'T have a right to own a car. The government could ban all cars tomorrow and you would have no Constitutional protection. Now if enough Americans were upset you could amend the Constitution to make the right to own and drive a car a right.

"Suppose one had to pay a two hundred dollar tax per year on each handgun you owned."
What would that accomplish other than be punitive. Should the poor be denied access to effective methods of self defense?

"Suppose also you had to carry liability and personal injury insurance on each firearm as well."
Why should insurance be mandatory? If you feel you have a valid claim sue the person.

"Record the serial number and the ballistic characteristics of each gun registered. "
Gun registration is costly and ineffective. Canada is considering abandoning its registry because of high cost and low value. Ballistic databases are completely useless.

"Require that each person using a gun be licensed and require that they be tested for basic firearms competence every five years or so to remain eligible for a license."
Would you also advocate a citizenship test every 5 years in order to be able to vote, or a speech test before you can post online.

All these elements have a commonality; a small (but vocal) minority on the left fail to accept the simple premise that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a RIGHT. It is no different than the right to a trial, or the right to petition the government. It is a right. The founders didn't accidentally make it the 2nd amendment. It was very important to them.

If you feel it shouldn't be a right then appeal it. At least that would be honest.

[msongs]

5. "well regulated" = no limits on allowed regulation. Oh, how inconvenient for gun worshippers nt

[Statistical]

6. ROFL. So much wrong with that.

1) Well regulated didn't mean regulation. It meant functional or effective. Try replacing functional and effective into the sentence and try again. Of course the government can restrict the 2A as it can any protected right however it requires Due Process. That Due Process is called Strict Scrutiny. A right (any right) is not unlimited but it is also true that the governments ability to strict a right is also not unlimited.

2) If the govt ability to regulate/restrict/infringe a right, any right was unlimited then the right is completely worthless. You can see that right? Replace the 2A with the 1A. If the govt has unlimited ability to restrict/infringe/regulate the right of speech then how much protection of speech do you have. It isn't worth the paper it is written on.

[villager]

7. If "well regulated" doesn't mean "regulated," what does "militia" mean?

Is everyone in the U.S. in the militia? If so, why do we have a standing army?

Either abolish the army, or have all these wanna be soldier boys with their guns cop to the fact that we're not in the 1700's anymore, and they're not in the "militia."

[Statistical]

8. Bogus claim and settled law.

Take this sentence.

"A well educated electorate being necessary for free elections, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

The need for educated electorate is the REASON but the right belongs to the PEOPLE. Not the state and not even just voters (the electorate). Even people who don't vote would have the right to keep and read books. Since all the PEOPLE are potential voters allowing them to read increases the pool of eligible voters.

Likewise the States couldn't have effective militias IF the federal government could ban firearms. Giving the states the ability to from militias but allowing the government to have an defacto ban by depriving the people of firearms was a concern. It was a concern because the British seized weapons FROM THE PEOPLE in order to prevent mobilization of militias. So the PEOPLE retained the right to keep and bear firearms, this includes all people not just those in the militia. In doing so the States retain the ability to form militias.

If you feel the 2A isn't necessary or wanted then repeal it. At least be honest about your attempt to strip people of their Constitutional Rights.

Until then....

------------

So held: The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's 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. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

------------

[villager]

24. I know you can cite right-wing "reasoning" in Heller

...but really, the legal views of Scalia and Thomas aren't that... persuasive.

Though I guess -- given your admiration of their reasoning -- you must love their Bush v. Gore decision, too.

[Statistical]

27. What a pathetic personal attack.

The historical evidence isn't Scalia. He simply ruled upon it.
Most historians validate the 2A protected an individual right.

All 9 Justices believe there is an individual right as protected by the 2A.

Nobody except die hard gun-banners believe in the utterly discredited "collective rights" junk. It is merely grasping at straws. Gun banners know the 2A makes their "crusade" far more difficult. They want to wish it away and the "collective rights" BS is a way to do that.

[villager]

28. Um, Heller wasn't a 9-0 decision. Sorry you see attacks on Scalia's reasoning as "personal"

...but that certainly goes a long way toward explaining your enmeshment with his world view in this instance.

[Statistical]

29. It wasn't a 9-0 decision but the court WAS unanimous in the belief that ...

It wasn't a 9-0 decision but the court WAS unanimous in their belief that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. The collective rights nonsense is just that; nonsense made up by radical gun banners who want to "wish away" the 2A.

All 9 Justices affirmed the Second Amendment protects an individual right. They simply differ in the scope of that protection and how far the govt can go in restricting that right. Not one of the 9 justices (nor any legal scholar) buys into the pathetically stupid "collective rights" garbage.

You have actually read the Heller decision (including the dissenting opinion) right?
I mean you aren't making claims based solely on what the Republican led Brady bunch tell you?
If Scalia said the Earth is round would you contest that too?

[villager]

31. Yes, I know that community safety is "nonsense" to your ilk

...and I know you assiduously avoid the descents in Heller as part of your rightwing legal fantasia.

It's almost refreshing that a poster like you is, at least, explicit in those things, so we see exactly where you stand. At least you're not pretending to give a damn about anything other than your guns.

[Statistical]

32. No the DISSENTING OPINION stated the 2A protects an individual right.

Period.

That is settled law. All 9 Justices affirmed the 2A protects an individual right.
The only split in the court was in how far the government can restrict/infringe upon that right and the scope of that the 2A protects.

I read both the opinion and dissenting opinion. You obviously (since you missed this major fact) can't claim that.

From the dissent:
"The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right." Justice Stevens - Heller v. DC (2008)

[villager]

34. But in your paranoia and rage, what you miss is the community interest in sensible regulation

...of those rights. No one will take your precious precious guns from you. That's what the dissent spoke of.

There might need to be restrictions on where guns can be, what types of "weapons" aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment, et al.

In the community interest. Which is, of course, "nonsense" if you're, well, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, or one of their acolytes.

[Statistical]

37. I believe in sensible restrictions.

I just have never heard anything from you on gun control which could be considered sensible.
You have claimed repeatedly that no individual right exists.

"There might need to be restrictions on where guns can be, what types of "weapons" aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment, et al.
In the community interest. Which is, of course, "nonsense" if you're, well, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, or one of their acolytes."

Um. Not the majority agreed with that. It is clearly stated in the opinion.

[villager]

48. I have never claimed no individual right exists. I am as stuck with the 2nd Amendment as everyone

...else.

I don't think that means unfettered access to any type of weapon, ammunition payload, etc., for any type of citizen, at any time, in any circumstance.

And I think, as with driving laws, different communities will have different needs to regulate these tools of death (for indeed, that is their purpose, even if one just target practices -- that's not what they're designed/created for).

Here's part of the dissent on Heller, which you keep (deliberately?) getting wrong:

<snip>

I

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.


<snip>

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

[MedicalAdmin]

14. OR better yet, sign 'em up and ship 'em over.

It would separate the men from the boys in a big hurry, although I suspect that there would be lots of folks diggin' holes in their back yards at midnight to bury the, er, evidence.

Seriously, if you are part of a well regulated militia, then you are part of service. No?

[badtoworse]

15. The "militia" means all able bodied men between 18 and 45 years of age

It has nothing to do with the National Guard or a standing army.

[villager]

25. Actually, originally, it did. The Founding Fathers were trying to avoid standing armies.

n/t

[badtoworse]

40. In that sense, I suppose you are correct, in lieu of a standing army...

...the founding fathers preferred an armed citizenry that would be able to provide their own weapons. That clarification changes nothing.

[Statistical]

41. Exactly

Effective militias rely on the Right to keep and bear arms, however the right to keep and bear arms doesn't rely on militias.

[MedicalAdmin]

43. Um... what?

So should we sign em up, er not?

[Statistical]

44. Well even if you are a non-gun owner you are in the militia.

The US govt use of militia has fallen out of favor with the rise of standing armies (something founding father feared).
Technically Obama could mobilize the state militias. It would be the equivlent of a draft, except rather than being drafted into the US Armed forces it would be you being forced into you mobilized state militia.

Should he do that? Well that is a different question. Just don't think you excluded from the militia just because you don't own a gun though.

Would Obama do that? Unlikely. Conscription could be achieved without state support via a draft directly into the Federal Armed Forces.

The point is that:
An EFFECTIVE STATE MILITIA requires that the People having a Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Without the People having the right to keep and bear arms you can't have an effective militia.

The People having the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS doesn't require an EFFECTIVE STATE MILITIA.
Without an effective (or active) State militia the people still retain the right to keep and bear arms.

[MedicalAdmin]

49. So is that right absolute.

For example I have always had a hankering to set off a STA missile like a stinger or exocet. Do I have that right? How about artillery? Thermo-nuclear? Biological? I mean as long as all of these things can be made to fire from the end of a gun, they should be OK, right?

Generally I support the view that no right is absolute. I have the right to free speach but not to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema. So what I am asking is what are the limits on the 2nd amendment (or more accurately, what should they be, or more specifically what do you think they should be?

[Statistical]

50. Of course there are limits. No pro-RKBA person on DU has said otherwise.

The RKBA is not unlimited (no right is) however the governments ability to impose restrictions isn't unlimited either.

I think the current balance between protected right and lawful restrictions is a good one.

Military grade weapons (automatic & selectfire weapons), ordinance, explosives are heavily restricted.
Civilian grade weapons (semi-auto pistols & rifles) are available with background check.

Dealers are required to be licensed by federal government and must comply with secure storage, reporting, and background check requirements.


Under the GCA, firearms possession by certain categories of individuals is prohibited.
* Anyone who has been convicted in a federal court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
* Anyone who has been convicted in a state court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding two years, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
* Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
* Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
* Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
* Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa. Legal non-immigrant aliens may possess guns if they have a current, valid hunting license.
* Anyone who has been discharged under dishonorable conditions from the United States armed forces.
* Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
* Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. (added 1996)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

In addition one must be 18 years of age to own a handgun. Also someone with an active indictment can't obtain new firearms (however they can keep existing firearms - innocent until proven guilty).

Validation of authorized status is via the NICS. This system is instantenous thus there is no need for a waiting period (unless system can't generate instant reponse - rather rare).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

[RC]

10. Deflect and obfuscate much?

Pretending firearms aren't heavily regulated is intellectually dishonest.

"No one thinks that it takes away our right to own cars."
"That is because YOU DON'T have a right to own a car. The government could ban all cars tomorrow and you would have no Constitutional protection. Now if enough Americans were upset you could amend the Constitution to make the right to own and drive a car a right."
Cars are not designed to kill living things. Their purpose is to move people and thing from one place to another. Bad comparison.

"Suppose one had to pay a two hundred dollar tax per year on each handgun you owned."
"What would that accomplish other than be punitive. Should the poor be denied access to effective methods of self defense?"
Agreed

"Suppose also you had to carry liability and personal injury insurance on each firearm as well."
"Why should insurance be mandatory? If you feel you have a valid claim sue the person."
This is not really a bad idea. Guns are by design, dangerous. That is their purpose, to kill living things. That is why they were invented in the first place.

"Record the serial number and the ballistic characteristics of each gun registered. "
"Gun registration is costly and ineffective. Canada is considering abandoning its registry because of high cost and low value. Ballistic databases are completely useless."
Gun registration is no more costly or infective than any other registration data base. The mandatory insurance could be one way to take care of this.
Only some in Canada are considering dropping its registry. Most of the citizen of Canada are happy with the way things are now. Also Canada does not have near the gun problems this country has. There is a difference in the gun laws in Canada between hand guns and rifles. Hand guns in Canada are much harder to buy and own for a reason.
Ballistic databases Achilles heel is because a gun that has been fired a lot will change the markings it put on the slug over time. It takes quit a bit, most guns are not fired this much. Like finger prints, the marking are not necessarily go/no go, but they can help resolve questions one way or the other.

"Require that each person using a gun be licensed and require that they be tested for basic firearms competence every five years or so to remain eligible for a license."
"Would you also advocate a citizenship test every 5 years in order to be able to vote, or a speech test before you can post online."
What does testing of citizenship/voting/posting on line every 5 years have to do with gun ownership? Other than nothing that is? Your comparisons are silly.

[Statistical]

11. I didn't make the car comparison it was in the OP.

I simply pointed out you have no RIGHT to car you have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Thus the government can impose any kind of restrictions up to and including banning and confiscation when it comes to cars.

"What does testing of citizenship/voting/posting on line every 5 years have to do with gun ownership? Other than nothing that is? Your comparisons are silly."
You have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms. There is a due process for restricting rights. The govt has no authority to do something just because people like it or want it when it comes to constitutionally protected rights. It is funny/sad you couldn't see the parallel between speech, voting, and bearing arms. They are all rights. They are all equal under the Constitution. The Bill of Rights severely restricts what the government legally do to infringe upon any right. Maybe you feel that is silly or shouldn't be the case but that is the legal framework our government operates under.

Before you whip out another strawman (I can already see this coming):
I am not claiming the Right to Keep and Bear Amrs (or any other right) is unlimited.
No right is unlimited but neither is the government ability to restrict a right unlimited.

To restrict Constitutionally protected right, requires due process, the government must meet the three prong test of Strict Scrutiny.

-----------------------------------
First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.
-----------------------------------

The burden of proof is on the government. To find a law Unconstitutional a plantiff needs to merely show the government hasn't proven to the court that it meets all three prongs.

[DaveinJapan]

52. Liability...

***"Suppose also you had to carry liability and personal injury insurance on each firearm as well."
Why should insurance be mandatory? If you feel you have a valid claim sue the person.***

Why should it NOT be mandatory?

It's mandatory to own an automobile, why not a gun?

"if you feel you have a valid claim" doesn't cut it, which is why liability insurance is MANDATORY for most auto owners.

Again, why not for gun owners?

[Statistical]

53. The likelihood of being accidentally injured by someone elses firearm is far less than

being injured by someone elses vehicle. We didn't always have insurance for vehicles. We only mandated it (only when driving on public roads) when rate of injury became excessive. In 2005 auto accidents caused $2.9 billion in damages, injured over 250,000 persons and resulted in over 46,000 fatalities.

Personally I wouldn't be totally opposed to liability insurance if
a) govt shows it is a compelling reason and not just we want it for the sake of gun control. See "strict scrutiny".
b) the limits are statistically sound and not punitive ($10 billion in liability insurance for example).
c) any change in law comes with pro-gun compromise (like national conceal carry)

Still this argument is always weak:
"It's mandatory to own an automobile, why not a gun?"
First of all you don't need insurance to own an auto. You need insurance to drive on public roads. Secondly you have no right to own an auto. You can't compare a right to a privileged and then say "why the difference".

[Bragi]

9. Comment re: Canada

Despite the wishes of our current conservative minority government, handguns are severely restricted/prohibited in Canada.

You can only get a license for one if you are a target shooter or somehow need one for self-defense in special circumstances. Even then there are serious restrictions on where you can carry one.

Approximately 2.3 per cent of households have a handgun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

[kctim]

18. Thanks for that info

I think it could be beneficial to the anti 2nd Amendment crowd here in the states.

How did the Canadian government get around or bypass the peoples right to keep and bear arms?

[Statistical]

20. They have no right. Nothing to bypass. n/t

[kctim]

30. Exactly

Which is why we cannot just say "I fear guns, protect me government and take them from everybody."
There is, as you very clearly stated, an appeal process here that must be followed, and it would be beneficial to the anti rights people if they worked within that process instead of always trying to circumvent it.

[badtoworse]

21. What does their constitution say about the right to keep and bear arms?

Ours says it's an individual, inalienable right and the SCOTUS has affirmed that right in two recent decisions.

[Statistical]

22. It doesn't.

Canadians have no Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. They are granted the privilege to firearms by the State, one which could be revoked at any time and for any reason.

If Canada banned guns tomorrow with no exceptions there would be no valid Constitutional defense.

[badtoworse]

23. Sounds perfect for certain regulars in the Gungeon - nt

[Bragi]

51. There is no "right to bear arms" in Canada

We have a constitution and a Charter of Rights, but the specific right to possess lethal weapons to kill our neighbours is not an identified as a "right".

I think the U.S is the only country which has a specific "right to bear arms" embedded in their Bill of Rights.

Wisely, other countries have not followed your example.

[kctim]

55. Wisely? Guess that is a matter of opinion

But the question here is 'why not regulate guns like toys are.' Canada is then used as an example. Canadians have no right, Americans do. Canada is not a valid example.

[badtoworse]

12. Maybe because children aren't supposed to be playing with guns

Besides, we have around 20,000 gun laws already. How many do we need?

[Upton]

17. Violent crime is down..

it's a shame gun control advocates are using this one tragedy to try and chip away at our Second Amendment rights.

[slackmaster]

19. It would make no sense to regulate guns as we do toys, because THEY'RE NOT TOYS!

They're weapons.

BTW there is already a federal excise tax of 11% of every new gun sold in the USA.

I'm all for tax incentives to encourage people to buy gun safes.

Serial numbers are already almost impossible to remove. That's really not an issue.

People have a right to own them. Any recurring license fee would be unconstitutional.

[astroBspacedog]

26. Maybe we can make sure there is no lead in the paint !

sorry, --- this time I really am leaving ti take my do for a hike. Have a good day

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

38. Name a common sense gun control which you would like to see implemented?

The NRA supports background checks. It actually lobbied FOR the instant background checks. It also lobbied to have mentally adjudicated persons added to NICS block. They also supported restrictions and later bans on new machinegun purchases.

"Common Sense" means a lot of different things to different people. We have some (not all but a vocal minority) on DU advocating banning all guns while clamoring for "sensible gun control".

Another example is McCarthy wants to ban high capacity magazines. That "could" be sensible gun control except she considers 11 rounds "high capacity". Of course there is an execption for Police because no Police Dept would support that "common sense". She could have pushed to ban 20+ round magazines but she went with 10. Of course she will tell you it is "sensible gun control".

Many politicians said the gun bans in DC and Chicago were "sensible gun control".

[ChoppinBroccoli]

42. You Can Buy A Gun At Wal-Mart, But You Have To Smuggle 4th Of July Sparklers Across The Border......

.........under cover of darkness. Why? Because (at least in my State), fireworks are illegal. And WHY are they illegal? They fall under the category known as "dangerous ordinance."

But guns don't.

Go figure.

[craigmatic]

45. sadly guns are the only things we still make in this country. If China started making our guns I

guarantee you that they'd start regulating the next day.

[Puzzledtraveller]

46. toy guns

Growing up I loved playing "guns" with my friends, some of us had really cool ones, near replicas, some of us used sticks and a great imagination, then...they started making them orange, LOL, no self respecting kid was caught playing commando with an orange gun.

On a more serious not, we see how well the war on drugs is working out, I hate to entertain what a war on guns would be like. IMO.

[Statistical]

47. We had a war on guns....

It cost Democrats control of Congress for a decade, had no effect on crime, and made the NRA the most powerful lobbying body in the United States.

Then the war on guns ended and crime went down for over a decade. Now some want to try that again.


Bill Clinton's autobiography:
--------------------
The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Floey and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Grooks has supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committe he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master; one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen out of the twenty-four members on its list. They did at least that much damage and could rightfuly claim to have made Gingrich the House Speaker.
---------------------

[area51]

54. If not a gun, Loughner could have picked up a knife.

The base issue is why we as a country ration health care, including mental health care, based on personal wealth. If he had been treated, probably this would not have happened.