Comments on: Rather than debating gun control, we should be debating ways to diminish violent crime.

By: link dump #1 | Jurmond's Arsenal

link dump #1 | Jurmond's Arsenal — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:57:17 +0000

[...] http://www.bookwormroom.com/2013/01/11/rather-than-debating-gun-control-we-should-be-debating-ways-t… [...]

By: SayUncle » Because gun control is what you do instead of something

SayUncle » Because gun control is what you do instead of something — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:09:22 +0000

[...] Rather than debating gun control, we should be debating ways to diminish violent crime. [...]

By: Bookworm Room » I need to get me a duck hunting shotgun

Bookworm Room » I need to get me a duck hunting shotgun — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 02:21:27 +0000

[...] been making the point in the last few posts that the issue we should be debating is violence limitation, not “gun control.” This video makes the point [...]

By: Caped Crusader

Caped Crusader — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:54:28 +0000

GOOD’UN! Down to the nitty-gritty of it all.

”Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”
~Unknown

By: Wolf Howling

Wolf Howling — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 07:46:03 +0000

Just a few comments on the margins. One, whenever the left is about to discuss limiting what arms we can and cannot own, they invariably bring up hunting with a promise that they have no intention of taking arms away from hunters. But the majority opinion in Heller barely even references hunting. The whole focus of the 2nd Amendment is to allow individuals to to defend themselves against "public and private violence." With that in mind, when you hear a high pitched scream from the left that "assault weapons" are only meant for killing people, the correct response ought to be . . . "and your point is?" When your at the point of having to defend yourself with a weapon, you want one that will end the threat as soon as possible. THAT is precisely within the ambit of the 2nd Amendment. And indeed, I can think of no more family friendly weapon for effective self defense than an AR15. Two, the Heller decision directly addressed what type of weapons were within the ambit of the 2nd Amendment. Heller explicitly gave its approval to continuing restrictions on machine guns and sawed off shot guns. But as to other weapons, Scalia characterized the argument that the 2nd Amendment applied only to 18th century weapons as "bordering on frivolous." And indeed, he said quite clearly that "[j]ust as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, . . ., and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, . . ., , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." With that in mind, given that semi-automatic weapons have been around in the U.S. for over a century - and the AR15 has been in civilian circulation for half a century - I question whether any limitiation on ownership of "assault rifles" would be held constitutional by the SCT. Lastly, as to states that give government officials the power to subjectively deny concealed carry permits for reasons other than a criminal background or mental illness, we await a future Supreme Court decision. But the operative language of the 2nd Amendment gives a right to "keep and bear arms." "Bear," in 18th century parlance, meant to "carry." Being forced to leave your weapon at home, thus limiting your ability to defend outside of the home, conflicts with both the language and intent of the 2nd Amendment. This surely points to the fact that "may carry" laws are likely to be held unconstitutional. (Don't tell Bloomberg or Cuomo) All of that said, unless the Supreme Court changes membership between now and 2016 (or John Roberts starts making political instead of legal decisions yet again), we may be witnessing the last gasp of the gun control movement. Then, maybe, we might see the arguments finally begin to change to where they should be - as you point out, BWR, how to reduce violent crime.

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 05:12:57 +0000

It may have been a Robert Heinlein short story that I read in my pubescent years.

By: Barry

Barry — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 00:40:59 +0000

I forget the attribution, but: “An armed society is a polite society.”

By: Bookworm Room » Ben Shapiro just shot to the top of my reading list

Bookworm Room » Ben Shapiro just shot to the top of my reading list — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 23:26:41 +0000

[...] the premise. What a great idea. I took that tack in an earlier post I did today challenging the phrase “gun control,” which presupposes that guns should be controlled, and leaves the scope of that control as the only [...]

By: JKB

JKB — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:17:04 +0000

This is a very good idea and I plan on taking it up. Don’t discuss firearms but discuss how to stop/reduce the violence.

Of course, the Progs counter with the argument proposals aren’t 100% effective, but Joe Biden has undermined that with his common ground to reduce probabilities. This undermines Chris Christie as well who’s opposition to putting guards in schools is the shooter could use a side door (Moron).

By: Caped Crusader

Caped Crusader — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:22:50 +0000

I read several years ago that if you factor out African Americans and “undocumented” residents, the murder by gunfire and other violent crimes were lower here than in Norway or any other Scandinavian country. Suppose anyone has the guts to propose we deny firearms to these groups only as a test case? One can only imagine the “racist” howls of the politically correct, but it does spring from logical thought which so terrifies liberals. Before anyone comments, I do realize that most mass murderers are white males (usually with severe mental problems) and rational thought would also be in favor of intervening in this group also with denial of arms, proper treatment, and incarceration, as necessary for the protection of society. Don’t hold your breath until the governing class uses rational thought to address any problem.