Monday, December 17, 2012

Conversation about Guns

Ok, y'all. I keep hearing that we need to have a "serious conversation" about guns. That's wonderful. I love having conversations about guns. Seriously. I could talk about guns all day. So, I would welcome anyone to have a rational, logical, legal, and fact-based conversation about guns, gun control, gun regulation, gun restrictions, cool pictures of girls with guns, whatever...here on Permanent Press, it's all good. Here are a few ground rules, though:
You have to be informed. This means you have to have done a little homework about guns. You have to know the definition of the word "automatic" and the word "semi-automatic" and you have to know the difference. I would prefer the proper usage of "magazines" and "clips", but I'll let you slide a little on that one. You also have to know a little bit of constitutional case-law, specifically, but not limited to, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Knowledge of US history is also helpful.  

You have to be specific. If you want to talk about "assault weapons", you need to specify what that means. If you want to talk about specifics, be specific. If you're proposing a new law, you have to say exactly what the law would say, and why it would be beneficial. Remember, in a democracy the burden of persuasion is one anyone proposing new laws.

Check your emotion at the door. This is the time for factual, logical reasoning. Not shrill cries to "do something".

I'll start. I don't think that any additional laws are necessary. We need to stop half-ass enforcing the ones we have. I believe this because the laws that we currently have were all broken in the mass shootings we have recently had.

Specifically: You have to be 21 years old to own or possess a handgun in Connecticut. (See page 29 (on the .pdf counter) at this link). Also, you cannot take firearms onto school grounds in Connecticut. (See page 64 (on the .pdf counter) at this link). Obviously, these laws did not actually protect anyone in Newtown.

I don't think any additional laws would have prevented this tragedy. Arguably, the gun-free zone of the school was a bit of a disaster. Everyone keeps praising the "first responders" who came to the school. Those are the good guys with the guns, y'all. Maybe we should figure out a way for the good guys (who are already at the school) to be the first responders. It wouldn't be hard for the principal of the school to have a gun locker in his office. That might have helped, and it's certainly better waiting for the first responders.

Also, there may be some issues with how these guns were stored, whereby the shooter gained access to them. Were they in a safe? I don't really know, but it seems that the underage shooter had a relatively easy time accessing his mother's guns.

If you disagree, I would love to have a conversation with you. But...remember the ground rules.

Enjoy. I'm happy to talk about guns, gun control, and how to make our children society more safe all day long.

3 comments:

  1. NBC is reporting that ONLY handguns taken into the school, and the shooter was denied the ability to buy a rifle earlier that month.

    http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

    So one of the laws "worked".

    ReplyDelete
  2. And you have to be able to make a reasonable analogy.

    This Yahoo article is a good example of inability to make reasonable analogies:

    http://news.yahoo.com/why-we-should-politicize-the-newtown-school-shooting--starting-right-now-182303106.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, those are not really reasonable analogies. Adding lifeboats or requiring fire-escapes are not the same thing as putting restrictions on access to guns or magazines.

      I think the Korematsu case is a better analogy for what they're trying to do in face of this tragedy. It's not exactly legal, but hey, we must do "something". http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1944/1944_22

      Delete