PDA

View Full Version : Controlling Gun Violence: Obstacles to an Effective Policy



Teh One Who Knocks
12-19-2012, 12:15 PM
By ELIZABETH HARTFIELD - ABC News


The Second Amendment of the Constitution reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Despite that seemingly clear statement that Americans have the right to buy and own guns, legal experts say it does not preclude the government from enacting measures to regulate the manufacturing and distributing of firearms.

"The biggest misconception is the idea that the Second Amendment imposes serious hurdles to gun control," says Adam Winkler, law professor at UCLA and author of "Gun Fight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America."

"The Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that there is plenty of room for effective gun control laws," he said. "The right of people to have guns and gun control are not mutually exclusive."

Legislation introduced which proports to control gun violence has historically focused on regulating high-capacity ammunition clips and certain types of semi-automatic firearms. Polling shows that these types of regulations are generally popular, and therefore proposals to ban the sale of these types of weapons and weapon accessories makes political sense.

But legislation to control sales of weapons don't address the biggest hurdle to effective gun control -- the guns that are already in circulation.

"The biggest problem for gun control today is a number: 300 million," Winkler said. "That's roughly the number of guns there are in civilian hands today. Any new law you pass confronts the reality of 300 million guns already in circulation."

Federal and state government hands are tied when it comes to regulating these already circulated firearms, he said.

"You can outlaw assault rifles for instance, say that anyone who has one, it's illegal, you have to turn it in," Winkler said. "You could do that, but they won't be turned in. It's not that you can't outlaw them, it's just that practically speaking you can't get rid of them."

Additionally, the politically popular avenue of banning the manufacturing and sale of certain types of semi-automatic weapons is inherently flawed.

For a gun to be classified as a semi-automatic, it must be designed to automatically reload a bullet after the shooter pulls the trigger. Virtually every civilian-owned gun is a type of semi-automatic gun, which means banning all semi-automatic guns would likely be read by the courts as a violation of the Second Amendment, and therefore any ban on these weapons would be limited in scope.

Automatic firearms -- those in which a shooter pulls the trigger once and the gun fires multiple rounds of bullets -- are tightly regulated and have been since the 1930s.

While regulation of certain types of semi-automatics, such as assault weapons, has broad public support, broader legislative actions are not. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted in the aftermath of the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., found that 71 percent of Americans oppose banning the sale of handguns to everyone except law enforcement officials.

"The court's reading of the Second Amendment is completely in sync with the American public's views on firearms," said Randy Barnett, professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University. "That is, you're allowed to have firearms, you're allowed to have them in the home for self-defense. ... Americans are willing to consider reasonable regulations of that, and courts are also willing to consider that."

The more effective means of controlling the distribution of assault weapons, Winkler argues, is to improve the reporting of mental health data to the federal government, which oversees background checks.

"The biggest problem is that reporting by states of mental health rulings is voluntary, so very few states provide comprehensive data on mental health rulings to the federal government," Winkler said.

"Another problem with mental health reporting is that it's only adjudicated instances of mental health illness -- a court has to say you are mentally unfit," he said. "That's going to capture a very small percentage of the mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves and others."

But improving the reporting of mental health data is a difficult legal task in and of itself. There is an inherent difficulty in expanding existing laws in a manner that would not infringe on privacy rights.

White House press secretary Jay Carney stressed earlier this week that President Obama does not view gun control as the sole solution to the problem of gun violence in America.

The administration has not provided any specifics on other solutions the president is considering, but given the many problems in effectively controlling firearms, we should expect additional proposals, not related to gun control, to come from Washington in the coming weeks and months.

DemonGeminiX
12-19-2012, 12:44 PM
When the President said "something has to change", there was a surge in sales of the AR-15s.

KevinD
12-19-2012, 02:31 PM
Yep, gun purchases in Texas are at all time highs right now.

Lambchop
12-19-2012, 02:37 PM
During which everyday activity would you require an AR-15? From what I understand it is a military-type weapon and not really designed for hunting etc.

Acid Trip
12-19-2012, 02:41 PM
During which everyday activity would you require an AR-15? From what I understand it is a military-type weapon and not really designed for hunting etc.

During which everyday activity would you require a gun of any kind?

And it happens to be an excellent gun for prairie dogs and groundhogs. A .22 takes too many rounds and deer rifle or shotgun are too powerful.

Lambchop
12-19-2012, 02:42 PM
During which everyday activity would you require a gun of any kind?

And it happens to be an excellent gun for prairie dogs and groundhogs. A .22 takes too many rounds and deer rifle or shotgun are too powerful.
That's what I would like to know.

DemonGeminiX
12-19-2012, 02:43 PM
During which everyday activity would you require an AR-15? From what I understand it is a military-type weapon and not really designed for hunting etc.

Most people just like shooting them, so in that respect, it's not really a need thing.

But I will tell you this, if the US is ever invaded, the military might not be able to hold all fronts, but the invading force is still gonna have a helluva fight on their hands when all of our gun nuts with AR-15s start the guerrilla warfare tactics against them.

Acid Trip
12-19-2012, 02:44 PM
That's what I would like to know.

So you are saying if a gun isn't used everyday it's not worth owning? What a crock of shit.

Acid Trip
12-19-2012, 02:46 PM
Most people just like shooting them, so in that respect, it's not really a need thing.

But I will tell you this, if the US is ever invaded, the military might not be able to hold all fronts, but the invading force is still gonna have a helluva fight on their hands when all of our gun nuts with AR-15s start the guerrilla warfare tactics against them.

It also happens to be one of the most popular target rifles in the United States. It's also what the 10+ million ex-military / current military trained on in the service (me included).

Familiarity is a good thing when it comes to weapons.

Lambchop
12-19-2012, 02:56 PM
So you are saying if a gun isn't used everyday it's not worth owning? What a crock of shit.
No, no. I understand the need for handguns at home when criminals will invade your house with weapons and a handgun would be a great defensive tool in such a tight spot. It's just that these rifles are designed to take out a lot of people in open areas and tend to have better ranged accuracy and I question why an individual would require that much power.

Most people just like shooting them, so in that respect, it's not really a need thing.

But I will tell you this, if the US is ever invaded, the military might not be able to hold all fronts, but the invading force is still gonna have a helluva fight on their hands when all of our gun nuts with AR-15s start the guerrilla warfare tactics against them.
I think I understand a little bit now. An American citizen can arm themselves with a military-type weapon and use it to defend their country when invaded, i.e. a militia.

Teh One Who Knocks
12-19-2012, 03:11 PM
Here's a good (and rational) comment from someone on a message board where I saw a discussion on a gun control article:


There is a dark side to human nature that we are not going to change. Even if we ban firearms, fertilizer, machetes, propane, baseball bats, acetylene and gasoline, sometimes the unthinkable will happen. Making sure that good people are helpless when it does, is not rational.

KevinD
12-19-2012, 03:38 PM
An AR-15 is by definition, a CIVILIAN version of the M-16. An AR is semi-auto, meaning you have to pull the trigger for every shot, but the gun will self load the next round. It is no different other than looks from any other semi-auto rifle. That said it's popularity is because it looks like, and handles like millions of us are used to from being in the service. There are many rifles out there that are far more accurate, but you don't hear about them because they don't look like an "assault" weapon.

Lambchop
12-19-2012, 06:37 PM
I just read that in Texas the state law says that every 17-45 male is automatically made a member of a reserve militia so that's probably one reason they would need that type of weapon.

PorkChopSandwiches
12-19-2012, 06:39 PM
During which everyday activity would you require an AR-15? From what I understand it is a military-type weapon and not really designed for hunting etc.

During the activity of protecting yourself from your government

lost in melb.
12-21-2012, 12:14 AM
Good to see the latest massacre hasn't derailed the American way :tup:

Teh One Who Knocks
12-21-2012, 11:30 AM
Good to see the latest massacre hasn't derailed the American way :tup:

Good to see the deaths of 27 people, including 20 children, hasn't derailed you taking sarcastic shots at the United States :tup:

Acid Trip
12-21-2012, 02:05 PM
I just read that in Texas the state law says that every 17-45 male is automatically made a member of a reserve militia so that's probably one reason they would need that type of weapon.

Where did you read that?

Lambchop
12-21-2012, 02:30 PM
It was a Wikipedia page but it references this page:



Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists
of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.

http://constitution.org/mil/ustx_law.htm

Acid Trip
12-21-2012, 02:43 PM
It was a Wikipedia page but it references this page:

I think you are misunderstanding what it says. It's not an actual militia like it sounds. Those laws were written sometime ago and basically say:

As a citizen you are required to fight for your state/country should the need arise.

It's just like how we have to sign up selective service (the draft) when we turn 18. You aren't a part of any unit or militia, they just take your name down for future reference.