With gun legislation practically non-existent in recent years, it's easy to forget that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), before he became his caucus' leader, voted against the assault weapons ban. But in light of Friday's violence, Reid is joining his Democratic colleagues in looking anew at possible changes.
Reid conceded that "every idea must be on the table," adding, "We need to accept the reality that we are not doing enough to protect our citizens." The majority leader went on to say, "I believe part of that healing process will require Congress to examine what can be done to prevent more tragedies like the ones in Newtown, Conn.; Aurora, Colo.; Oak Creek, Wis.; and Portland, Ore."
Also today, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who's also been considered an NRA ally, conceded his perspective has changed. "I've been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights," Warner said this morning. "I've got an A rating from the NRA. But the status quo isn't acceptable. I've got three daughters. They asked me on Friday evening, 'Dad, what are you gonna do about this?' There's got to be a way to put reasonable restrictions, particularly as we look at assault weapons, as we look at these fast clips of ammunition."
Rep. John Yarmuth (D) of Kentucky went even further, saying he's chosen not to speak out in the past, fearing political pushback, but the circumstances have changed. "I have been largely silent on the issue of gun violence over the past six years, and I am now as sorry for that as I am for what happened to the families who lost so much in this most recent, but sadly not isolated, tragedy," Yarmuth said.
Leave a Comment:
Every idea is on the table? Great.
Let's have a federal law requiring transmitters on guns that announce to law enforcement detectors withing 500 yards what the gun's registration ID is.
All schools, malls theaters and other potential scenes of gun violence have these detectors installed so that the security personnel of an installation be aware of potential threats to public safety. When a cop shows up at a doorstep, he is immediately made aware of any legal guns in the vicinity, providing him an additional tool to keep him aware of the threats in the house.
nice idea but to many moving parts and no practical way to make it retroactive. The thing with controlling firearms is that you have to get them all. If you allow "Grandfather" exclusions they you are just spinning your wheels.
If you approach it from a safety angle that idea could work better. Place detectors inside buildings like banks and schools etc that detect the sound of a gunshot and alert law enforcement. Sort of a passive 911 call.
No moving parts. A flat L-ion battery, a single IC chip with integrated transmitter, and you have a device a few millimeters thick that can be epoxied anywhere convenient on the weapon- stock, inside the grip, or the butt. All registered guns are annually checked for working transmitter. Any gun found without a transmitter or with a disabled transmitter is impounded until the owner is verified and weapon brought back into conformance with regulations.
There is nothing unusual about re-registering cars annually. Guns should too.
How about we just stop the "conversation" and ban the guns.
We've heard the arguments and lies from the gun freaks. They've been spewing the same nonsense for the last thirty years.
Conversation over. Ban and confiscate all automatic, semi-automatic weapons and hand guns. Now.
That means any weapon that fires more than once when the trigger is pulled is gone. Does that ban most guns? Yup.
We need to recognize Democratic spinelessness in the face of the NRA and gun kooks as equally if not more responsible for the state of things in this country. Each Democrat who has not spoken out needs to be made to feel the embarrassment and shame. And those that have spoken out need to feel support.
Let no one tell you nothing can be done. Let no defeatist waste a single moment of your time. Ignore them.
It is time to stop listening to the transparently stupid arguments we've had to endure. Endless discussion is asinine and pointless. As everyone knows, there just aren't any decent arguments for assault weapons. Period. There are very few for handguns.
Get it done.
John
I didn't mean "Moving parts" as in physically like a a device I meant as in systematically, getting it implemented, getting the sensors on the guns things like that. You could get things like that put on new ones relatively easily but old ones would be problematic.
It's like Biometrics you can make it so that a gun will only fire for one specific person but the cost is awful and there are issues with legitimate use. Somewhere like Law enforcement that would work but not in the private sector.
It's not that it's a bad idea I quite like it but getting it actually implemented on a broad scale would be next to impossible. Especially when you are considering that you are dealing with at least a certain number of paranoid nuts that don't trust the government anyway.
Dave, a lot of cities would like to do just that but it won't stand because the Supreme court ruled 5 to 4 in District of Columbia v. Heller that citizens have a constitutional right to own a gun unconnected with the use in a militia for lawful purposes such as defense of a home.
Possibly a minor change in court composition will allow the reversal of this ruling but until then such a ban on handguns would be ruled unconstitutional. A ban on assault guns and automatic weapons could possibly survive, but a blanket abolition wouldn't.
In my view,regulations can be used to effectively make gun ownership exceptionally inconvenient in some jurisdictions. The courts have tolerated this way of subverting Roe v. Wade, and so it is fair that we use the same mechanism to suppress ownership of guns in jurisdictions with rampant gun violence.
One question: what's to keep someone from having a stolen gun and taking the transmitter out.
Oops, double post. Sorry.
John -
I'm talking national - not cities or states. And please don't tell me it can't be done. It CAN be done.
I'm not interested in how to make it possible for people to continue to own guns. I want to take them away. Now.
Dragoon- certainly any measure could be foiled. The point is that defeating a device would be detected when the weapon is re registered. It is certainly true any measure can be defeated and it would certainly be possible for a nut to stick guns in a shielded case, but it makes it more difficult to carry out the massacer. The paranoids will relax when they figure out that all they have to do is keep their gun cache's secret. Then they can be "ready" for the big one, and the authorities will be none the wiser.
It's the guys that want to brandish their weapons at the gun range or resell them at gun shows that will be impacted.
I think the smart gun technology is confusing you. This is nothing so complex. In the late 1960s, cars were retrofitted with seat belts. That was a far more intrusive and onerous process but the policy was successfully implemented, so I fail to see why such simple retrofitting is necessarily difficult. Perhaps you don't understand that modern microelectronics makes this device exceptionally thin, small and rugged. To get into the EE geeky details, this is not RFID- it is a powered transmitter so that it has necessary range, but it is an ultra low power, light weight device that is basically passively listening for an authentic transmission from a high power law enforcement device, so it doesn't have to use power except to transmit a response after the authenticity of the query device has been determined. So really, a two year battery life is conservative.
But is there a way to install a transmitter such that it can't be tampered with?
John
I get it but my primary concern is participation. Like you said the nuts will just keep things secret and you will more likely end up creating a broader black market in domestic weapons than already exists.
I am just trying to see things in practical terms and anticipate unintended consequences.
Oops sorry Disgusted- the countermeasure portion was meant for you, and the egg nog is taking its toll.
I acknowledge the difficulty of foiling determined mass murderers. However the 85 deaths per day toll that we suffer is not dominated by guys who have thought through the countermeasures concerning body armor and so on. Aggressive regulation makes it much more difficult to commit mass murders. Simply because it cannot make it impossible is no excuse, because making it inconvenient will eliminate a large number of these murders.
The Nra which I did not renew my membership to as I felt they had moved to being a far right conspiracy shop as opposed to a single issue advocacy group(at least their leadership anyway). I didnt care for the choice of speakers at the recent conventions(Glenn Beck, other hard right personalities) That said
1) Joe Biden keeps two shotguns in his closet(I didnt check just going on what he said)
2) Kirsten Gillibrand keeps his and hers shotguns under her bed(same),Joe Manchin shot the cap and trade bill in his commercial
3) Mark Warner, Jim Webb, Harry Reid and many many other dems voted for a reciprocal carry law the would have negated ct's current laws for those holding an out of state permit (which can be gotten by a ct resident in Utah and fl and others I believe)
4) Al Gore would have been president if not for that tie breaking anti gun vote ,John Kerry would probably have won as well
5) The Roberts court that ruled Obamacare constitutional also ruled that you do have an individual right to own a gun and the President immediately issued a statement agreeing with the ruling
6) my typing hands are tired....While there MAY be some positive effect from passing legislation bear in mind it could result in the election of a senate that would defund or obstruct many of the programs(Obamacare numerous others)
7) on top of all that What in the world are the odds John Boehner would even allow a vote on a law banning Bazookas for insect control purposes?
Disgusted- I cannot imagine how any transmitter could be made invulnerable to nefarious individuals. Even if it were embedded in a grip, it could be defeated with nothing more sophisticated than a drill.
Dragoon- There is always a black market for any contraband, as long as there are dishonest people. You can make it tough for black marketers by restricting their potential customer base, and their supply of weapons. For the mostly honest members of society, the advantages of lawful compliance will far outweigh any benefits from the black market, so this constrains potential customers. While theoretically someone could own unregistered weapons- they could never take them to gun ranges, go out hunting with them, and so on. The game warden sees 4 rifles and gets only 3 transmitted IDs, and he is going to investigate, and report to the registry authority the serial number of the unregistered weapon, and the ID of its owner. Why involve oneself in such needless hassles with federal authorities? A black market weapon can never move back into common circulation or be used publicly because registration requires confirmation of former legal owner, and not many on the black market would be eager to provide such confirmation. So I don't see how the bulk of the population could elect non participation. This severely constricts potential customers of black market weapons.
As for constricting supply to the black market, universal registration and mandatory transmitters severely restricts that as well-
wasn't it Chris Rock who said bullets should cost $5000 a piece. "Damn, I want to kill that guy, but he's not worth it"
The Senate will take up a bill to ban assault weapons.
Ahhh, I love the smell of filibuster in the morning!
Harry's answer that is that the GOP will not dare do it because it will require them to stand up and talk endlessly.
Great thinking Harry. That will fix their wagons.
If they do it after filibuster reform, then the thugs will have to get up and do it in public. Not sure they'd really want everyone knowing what scum they are.
I don't know about that, TCinLA. They've really gone out on the fringe in the last couple of years to places that's really quite surprising. It wasn't that long ago that they voted for the Ryan budget and exposing themselves as wanting to dig in hard against Medicare and Social Security. They're pretty in your face and unabashed with their asswholiness.
I suppose that NOW we're supposed to believe that the Congress which has been "short-sighted" on this and so many other issues is finally going to start talking about it, okay I'll bite? Now can we see some "long-term" action on it?
Most Americans are starting to understand that climate change is a reality. They also have come to the conclusion that the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" doesn't have any adverse effects on the combat readiness of our military. They have decided that gays and lesbians getting married and having families of their own does not harm society or the institution of marriage. They have concluded that the theory of trickle-down economics doesn't work. They are reaching the conclusion that the time to end marijuana prohibition has come.
We couldn't say any of these things just a few years ago. In every case, the political obstacles of the status quo have been enormous. Yes, there are great challenges to enact responsible common sense gun laws. But public opinion can change, and we can overcome those obstacles.
Yes, the deaths of 20 kids in Connecticut totally change the picture. We've never had 20 kids die before.
On the other hand, thousands die every year. From firearms, in auto wrecks, from abuse, malnutrition, preventable disease, etc. and it's just business as usual.
Could it be because those 20 kids were cute? Blonde? Like us and ours?
Too bad we'll never have the news cycle locked up for a week or more over those thousands of other kids.
Could it be because those 20 kids were cute? Blonde? Like us and ours?
Sadly, I think you are right. It took the deaths of 20 white kids to change the conversation.
Local CBS station last night showed the pictures of each at the end of the evening news broadcast. No sound, just the pictures, the names, the ages. It was heartbreaking. If their deaths result in some serious changes, if they make people think about this stuff, then some good can come from this awful tragedy.
Honestly, I did think that briefly, but it couldn't be all that. The sad reality is, thousands of children, white and of color have died from gun violence, but this is the first time, I suppose that it happened because someone actually went somewhere for the sheer purpose of killing so many of them, unlike other deaths, where the kids are caught in the crossfire of some gang war, or some hunter's rifle went off accidentally, or two kids were playing with a gun that was supposedly unloaded. I think it just happened to be that they were all white--it was CT. Let's not... I just don't want to think about race right now. They were children. I saw my own children--who are not white, in them. I don't think it really matters.
You can look up the numbers yourselves. Grim, but enlightening:
http://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D76
You can look up the history of what's killing people by age group (think "birth to 15 years"), by year, by cause of death, and by damn near anything else. Tabulated.
We kill thousands every year by violence before they're out of primary school.
Of course it was because they were cute and adorable. That is human nature. It is also because they got to live almost none of their lives, and we realize that.
If you want something done sign the Petition at the White House We The People website:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-address-issue-gun-control-through-introduction-legislation-congress/2tgcXzQC
As the President said the battle did not end with the election, we made that mistake and 2010 happened, and this is how you can continue to fight.
At last check there were over 150,000 signatures.
Stand UP and Be Counted or sit down and shut up, it's your choice.
The NRA thinks they are bigger than the country. We have to change that mindset...
Banning guns in a bad idea. What is the anti-gun people afraid of.....honest citizens having a chance to defend themselves when an armed criminal attacks them or tries to rob them? It isn't a coincidence that these mass killings are taking place in no gun areas. Just to clarify....semi automatic shoots as fast as you can pull the trigger. Full automatic...you pull the trigger and it repeatedly shoots multiple rounds at a high rate of speed. Banning assault weapons will not prevent mass murder. This disturbed person that killed all those innocent children was supposed to be a very intelligent person....warped ..but intelligent. If he could not have found an assault rifle...he would have found a way to do it anyway. Timothy McVeigh is a prime example of this. Hell he might have killed even more people if he was forced to build a bomb.
Repeal the 2nd Amendment.
From a New York Times article: "Other countries offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings. In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half.
It's worked in other countries so the arguement that it couldn't possible help seems pretty darn weak. We can't just keep spinning our wheels talking about what will and won't work. We have to TRY!
From a NY Times article: "Other countries offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half."
We can't keep saying this or that won't work anymore and just spinning our wheels. We have to TRY!
The Minnesota Personality Profile Inventory (MPPI) has been around for decades and has been found to be most accurate in determining potentially violent tendencies. This test, as well as written and practical safety tests and background checks should be mandatory in all states. Too much attention is given to the firearms and not the user. License the gun owner and hold them responsible should an unreported stolen gun be used in a crime. Make licenses renewable and the private sales of firearms subject to the same laws as commercial dealers thereby giving each gun or rifle a clear paper trail. If one breaks a law regarding safety of their firearm, their ability to own a firearm should be either suspended or revoked dependent on the severity of the infraction.
From a NY Times article: "Other countries offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half."
We can't keep saying this or that won't work anymore and just keep spinning our wheels. We have to TRY!
You left out that violent crimes rose 42% and the British have about 1/4 of their citizens victimized by violent crimes. Australia and Great Britain have some of the highest violent crime rates in the Industrialized World. Please read the article.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/07/23/do-gun-bans-reduce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/
You also failed to mention the Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel fire (Australia).....killed 15 people in 2000. People who want to commit murder will find a way....with or without guns.
Leave the uninformed blogs out of the discussion as well as straw man arguments. I've lived in the U.K. and many of my family still do. There exists nothing close to the level of violence that Americans live with.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales
Maybe the democratic underground will suffice as a good source for you.....The UK has a violent crime rate 10 times higher than the US.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x171267
Once again your attempt to support your claim with a 'posting' from some guy named Tom from nearly ten years ago without a full analysis of multiple sets of data. Not what I'd call a reliable source of statistics... dubious at best. As to its relevance, the last time I checked, it is 2012... not 2003. Had you checked current data, you would have found that overall crime, including violent, is down in the U.K.
You say violent crime rate in the UK is down......Is it "down" below the US violent crime rate?
Also, take a look at the crime in DC and Chicago....they have some the strictest gun laws in America and some of the worst crime rates and murder rates in the country.
Of course violence is highest in highly populated areas regardless of local laws because one just needs to drive a few hundred miles where gun purchasing laws are lax or non-existence. Yes, it's true... more people die as the result of firearms in the U.S. than in the U.K. Wow! Who'd thunk... [smh]
Please don't avoid my question.....Is the UK violent crime rate lower than the US?