Skip to main content

View Diary: Getting Specific on Gun Control (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Excellent proposals and excellent points... (18+ / 0-)

    ...and about precision in language.

    There are some folks who sincerely believe that the U.S. can duplicate the Australia, British or Japanese models of gun control. Never happen. A key factor in all those places is that serious gun restrictions have been part of the culture of those places for half a century or more. In the case of England, a century; in Japan, four centuries.

    And, of course, none of them has anything approximating the 2nd Amendment.

    We need to focus on legislation that can be effectively enforced, that can meet constitutional challenges and that will actually help reduce gun violence.

    Dumping the Tiahrt amendment should be high on the list. At the state level, activists ought to dump rules like the one pressed into reality by the Gun Owners of America which forbids local sheriffs (who issue conceal carry licenses) from providing anyone (including other sheriffs) with information about the numbers of citizens who get CCLs. Not having this kind of information serves who exactly?

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:45:36 AM PST

    •  1,000 times, this ^^^ (13+ / 0-)
      There are some folks who sincerely believe that the U.S. can duplicate the Australia, British or Japanese models of gun control.

      ...And, of course, none of them has anything approximating the 2nd Amendment.

      do not have and never did have.  it's a whole different ballgame in the face of the 2nd.

      and it's also true that we are talking about countries that, with the exception of australia, can fit inside one smallish u.s. state.

      homogeneity of culture is A LOT easier to achieve on the small scale.

      Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

      by Cedwyn on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:49:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  exactly the right tone and none of the usual (11+ / 0-)

      histrionics

      If the goal is to keep guns out of the wrong people's hands, there are few things more immediately effective than properly equipping BATF to do its job, like appointing a director, funding the agency, and stop kneecapping BATF's efforts at prosecution.

      “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama XIV (-9.50; -7.03)‽ Warning - some snark above‽

      by annieli on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 10:01:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I am not following this part (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, PavePusher, 43north
      forbids local sheriffs (who issue conceal carry licenses) from providing anyone (including other sheriffs) with information about the numbers of citizens who get CCLs.
      The reason I say this is that I have seen published figures regarding CCL numbers in several states.  My state, North Carolina, even breaks this information down by county, including the number of permit requests, number of active permits, and number of permit revocations.  It has also been a matter of some controversy, but the information regarding who has a CCL is considered public record and may be obtained by going to the sheriff's office and making a formal request for information.  The Raleigh area newspaper made use of this, put the information in a database, and published it on a website which created a lot of argument.
      •  Sorry. I missed a very crucial word... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn, 43north

        ...This is the case for Colorado only.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 12:25:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sherrifs are allowed to share CC permit info with (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher, 43north

          other law enforcement personel for law enforcement purposes here in CO.

          What they can't do is make a data base for a list of who has a CC permit. We like things that way because we believe it is no one's business who has a gun or a conceal carry permit. You should just always assume anyone could be carrying. Like a lot of western states we have a very low murder rate.

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:54:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're mistaken. What they can't do... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            43north

            ...is provide a COUNT of CCLs even without the names. One can keep a tally on all the checks going to the CBI to pay for permits, but this is not broken down by the bureau by county. Colorado has one of the worst systems for granting conceal carry permits (of those states that require permits). An hour watching a video meets the firearm class requirement. You never have to prove you know how the gun you're going to conceal works. You never even have to fire it. In fact, you can get a permit to carry a concealed firearm without EVER having fired a gun.

            I lived in Colorado a long time. I often open-carried when hiking and camping. I have nothing against hunting (although I despise the methods of some people who dare call themselves hunters). But this counting restriction imposed as a result of pressure the Gun Owners of America is another example of how unreasonable fanatics can be on the subject of their firearms. Why give any credence to fanatics?

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:08:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What purpose does this count fulfill? (0+ / 0-)

              What's the point?

              P.S.  May I please see your First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendment Licences?  We want to make sure you're a "responsible person" in the exercise of your Rights....

              •  So your view is that nobody should have... (0+ / 0-)

                ...to have a permit carry a concealing firearm?

                The count is data. Which counties have the most CCLs. Are some sheriffs issuing far more per capita than others? Why is that? What factors contribute?

                All the amendments have their limitations. The Supreme Court, even in Heller, accept this.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:23:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The Second is the only one that requires a licence (0+ / 0-)

                  so broadly, and is curtailed so broadly.

                  Would you be willing to accept a licence for your other Rights, with similar scope of "restrictions", as readily as you do with the Second Amendment?

                  Like hell you would.  If we licenced the First Amendment the way the Second is done, we'd truely have the blood in the streets that the Anti's wail about.

                  And I still do not understand what your ultimate goal with the counting is.  What trends are you looking for, why, and what would you do in reaction after demonstrating them?

                  •  One's speech, the media's speech... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Mokurai

                    ...the clergy's speech may wound, but it does not kill. And yet, we do restrict that speech under certain circumstances, with legitimate purpose.

                    I am a gun-owner and I will happily accept licensing and a requirement that I demonstrate an understanding of gun safety and state and local gun laws either by testing or by taking a thorough firearms training class.

                    I understand fully the absolutist view on the 2nd Amendment. It is a view I reject. And, despite the NRA's successes at loosening gun laws nationwide, if absolutists do not soon accept reasonable additional restrictions on firearms, unreasonable ones will be coming.

                    As to the purpose of the count? The data will speak for themselves. Once collected, analysis will determine what, if anything, they say. Wanting to collect such data is not extraordinary. Opposition to the collection of these data is.

                    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                    by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 10:05:30 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Looking over history briefly.... (0+ / 0-)

                      I'd say speech has killed quite a lot of people.  YMMV.

                      And yet, we do not require a Speech Licence merely to take one's speech outside the home, or a background check to engage in speech within the home or in the public square.

                      We already have laws to punish harmful behavior.  What good will additional laws do, and why do you think they will strengthen laws that are not already properly enforced?

                      It's also quite interesting that you appear to not want to say what you think the data will show, or what you want it to show.  That indicates to me that you want to use this for additional restrictions, no matter the results.  Rigorous science states a hypothesis, then collects the data, analyses it and checks for confirmation.  You seem to want to do it out of order.  What, specifically, are you looking for?

                      •  Please: (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        PavePusher
                         Rigorous science states a hypothesis, then collects the data, analyses it and checks for confirmation.  
                        Some rigorous science does not first state a hypothesis but merely asks a question. Does this subatomic particle exist? If it does exist, how does it behave? I'm not asking something as weighty. I am not making as weighty a question, obviously. How many CCLs are issued in each county per capita? Is there a disparity among counties in the numbers issued? Are there special factors in the county — like the murder rate — that may coincide with a larger or smaller number of CCLs per capita?

                        Let the patterns of the data, assuming there are any that clearly demonstrate some apparent causation of good or bad result.

                        I do not prejudge the data and your accusation that I am up to no good and intent on additional restrictions based on whatever the data say is false. I do believe more restrictions are needed on guns but not necessarily on CCLs (although some states' safety/proficiency requirements for acquiring them are ridiculously inadequate).

                        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                        by Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:06:13 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You are correct, I was out of line. (0+ / 0-)

                          I offer my apology.

                          I can only say that I let my defensiveness get in the way of honest communication.  It's been a rather rough week on DKos and I guess I've let it get to me.

                          Probably time for me to take a break for a day or two.  

                    •  I don't get the need either. Why? What will it (0+ / 0-)

                      prevent in the name of gun safety...gun control...gun emergencies or whatever meme this is for?

                    •  Reasonable restrictions (0+ / 0-)

                      In line with this:

                      I understand fully the absolutist view on the 2nd Amendment. It is a view I reject. And, despite the NRA's successes at loosening gun laws nationwide, if absolutists do not soon accept reasonable additional restrictions on firearms, unreasonable ones will be coming.
                      I suspect that background checks, while reasonable, will not do enough to prevent guns from reaching those who should not have them. What will come after that? I would appreciate your comments on this diary:

                      http://www.dailykos.com/...

                      The only winning move is not to play. - Joshua

                      by FightersFate on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 07:20:55 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  This turns out not to be the case (0+ / 0-)

                    for licensing. You are so used to it that it doesn't even come to your consciousness when you try to think about it, except for your obsession with the Second Amendment.

                    Free Speech frequently requires a license in the form of a parade or other event permit or a broadcast license, and is often limited to arbitrarily selected "Free Speech Zones" when it is most needed. Voting requires registration and, increasingly, photo ID at the polls. Churches must register in order to get tax exemptions.

                    Some Constitutional rights are available only to citizens, and every class of Civil Right in the US is routinely violated for some groups of people, including Blacks and other minorities, the young, the old, women, people of various shades of political and other opinion, and others. The Eleventh Amendment specifically denies citizens of any state the right to sue any other state that might injure them, as in the National Guard shootings of out-of-state students at Kent State.

                    There are common violations of voting rights, Freedom of Speech and of the Press, Freedom of Religion (for Native Americans, conscientious objectors, and now Muslims, among others), Freedom of Assembly, Habeas Corpus, unreasonable searches and seizures, wiretapping, self-incrimination, speedy and public trial, double jeopardy, due process, excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment, drone killings of US citizens. Such rights are only enforceable when somebody can get a really good lawyer in front of a sympathetic Supreme Court, which has not been the case during a large fraction of our history. We are getting better at it, with a significant number of Supreme Court rulings that can be enforced now in other courts, but we are nowhere near there.

                    Counts are a tool in statistical analysis in public health. We would like to ask whether there are hot spots for gun crime, accidents, or suicide with too many illegal guns, or with lots of legal guns. We may not. The Tiahrt Amendment forbids CDC and NIH doing such studies, even when they could get the data.

                    America—We built that!

                    by Mokurai on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 10:24:46 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The Free Speech licence you refer to.... (0+ / 0-)

                      is applicable only when your exercise would interfere with others.  My lawfully carrying a sidearm does not stop anyone from going about their normal business.

                      I'm completely against "Free Speech Zones".  I consider them anathema.

                      Voters must prove eligibility to vote in the district they claim.  There is no licence required, you simply need to prove your identity and residence.

                      Trying to justify restrictions of Rights with the excuse that we unConstitutionally restrict other Rights is patently absurd.  Instead of using that as justification to restrict, we should be using it as incentive to restore Rights.  

                      Lastly, see my reply to MB above.

                    •  I contend that this is wrong too: (0+ / 0-)
                      Free Speech frequently requires a license in the form of a parade or other event permit or a broadcast license, and is often limited to arbitrarily selected "Free Speech Zones" when it is most needed. Voting requires registration and, increasingly, photo ID at the polls.
                      As a matter of fact, we all hotly discuss and all generally agree how wrong it is.  

                      Voter ID for an example.  Just say for the sake of discussion that true voter fraud was rampant and our elections were considered complete frauds because of it.  Say data proved that the only true way to curb it was to issue and demand voter IDs and the in order to create the system, it was necessary to charge people for them, because there were no funds available. Also, it was known the Voter IDs would deny some people, who had the legal right to vote,  that same right because they didn't have the money or no documentation of address or where homeless or whatever reason.  

                      Ok, how many freak out diaries would you see about this injustice to the Bill of Rights?  I think we know the answer to this.  

            •  I don't think we said anything that contradicted (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              43north

              each other?

              I know that when the local cops want to find out if so and so has a ccl before they serve a warant or if there is a restraining order they call up the sheriff, or so I've been told.

              To tell the truth I don't own a handgun, things are quiet here. I do know a few people that have ccl and they said they had to take a few hour course then go to the range and fire a handgun. I know it's pretty easy, but then so is buying a pistol, and I believe you don't need a ccl to carry a loaded handgun in our car.

              I find many people don't understand many aspects of hunting, we are an urban culture.

              How big is your personal carbon footprint?

              by ban nock on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:08:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  And who does giving out the numbers of CCLs serve? (0+ / 0-)
      •  Epidemioligists in public health services (0+ / 0-)

        or it would if the Tiahrt Amendment were repealed. CDC and NIH are forbidden to conduct studies of gun crime, accidents, and suicides as the important public health issues that they are.

        America—We built that!

        by Mokurai on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 10:27:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the tiahrt language only addresses (0+ / 0-)

          gun trace data, who sold what to whom and what not.  not sure it's of use to epidemiologists or health policy types.

          Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

          by Cedwyn on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:15:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site