America's tragedy; Its politicians are still running away from a debate about guns

[gravity]

Apr 19th 2007
From The Economist print edition

Freedom yes, but which one?

No phrase is bandied around more in the gun debate than “freedom of the individual”. When it comes to most dangerous products—be they drugs, cigarettes or fast cars—this newspaper advocates a more liberal approach than the American government does. But when it comes to handguns, automatic weapons and other things specifically designed to kill people, we believe control is necessary, not least because the failure to deal with such violent devices often means that other freedoms must be curtailed. Instead of a debate about guns, America is now having a debate about campus security.

Americans are in fact queasier about guns than the national debate might suggest. Only a third of households now have guns, down from 54% in 1977. In poll after poll a clear majority has supported tightening controls. Very few Americans support a complete ban, even of handguns—there are too many out there already, and many people reasonably feel that they need to be able to protect themselves. But much could still be done without really infringing that right.

The assault-weapons ban should be renewed, with its egregious loopholes removed. No civilian needs an AK-47 for a legitimate purpose, but you can buy one online for $379.99. Guns could be made much safer, with the mandatory fitting of child-proof locks. A system of registration for guns and gun-owners, as exists in all other rich countries, threatens no one but the criminal. Cooling-off periods, a much more open flow of intelligence, tighter rules on the trading of guns and a wider blacklist of those ineligible to buy them would all help.

Many of these things are being done by cities or states, and have worked fairly well. But jurisdictions with tough rules are undermined by neighbours with weak ones. Only an effort at the federal level will work. Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, has put together a coalition of no fewer than 180 mayors to fight for just that. Good luck to him.

More: http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9040170

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. A small BUT VERY VOCAL minority

is holding them hsotage.

have you communited with your members of Congress over this issue lately?

You should strike while the iron is hot

[flamin lib]

2. The sad truth is that the most knowledgeable people on the subject

are suffering from a bad case of cranial rectal inversion. The NRA needs to get involved in designing and promoting real legislation that will protect both the right to own guns and the general public from gun violence.

Instead they stick their heads someplace dark, warm and damp.

[Initech]

3. This is why lobby controls are absolutely necessary.

Jack Abramoff proved that lobbyists need to be severed from our government. And there's no lobby in the entire country more dangerous than the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association (you could argue Big Tobacco, but let's save that for another topic). Once we get the lobbyists out of government, then we can start focusing on things like gun control.

[Craftsman]

5. The NRA has over 5 million members, when they speak may in Wash. listen

They are second only to AARP I think in size.

[blondeatlast]

6. But their membership slavishly follows their leadership.

Hasn't anyone in the NRA got the guts to stand up and say let's talk about this?

[Craftsman]

9. I am life member of the NRA, and I will tell you right now that any talk

That includes, bans, taxes, or turning guns in will be a none starter the the vast majority. They so far are winning the debate and have been for years.

[blondeatlast]

10. You said it, I didn't... nt

[Craftsman]

11. Like I said I am a life member, but I would be willing to discusssom restrictions

on background checks, storage, if Icould get what I wanted in a reasonable time. But many would not, and they are winning the legislative debate, so they have no need ot compromise. That is life.

[Initech]

12. 5 mil+ and they're very well organized. Not to mentioned armed.

That's why I think they are the most dangerous lobbying group in America.

[Craftsman]

14. That does make a good case for it. ;)

[blondeatlast]

4. The NRA prevents any kind of intelligent debate on the issue.

The NRA is so corrupted by their RW leadership and so damnably paranoid that any reasonable discussion is pre-empted from the beginning.

[gravity]

7. I really think both sides prevent intelligent debate

but that's American politics for you.

[blondeatlast]

8. But one side is especially well-organized, and the NRA isn't advancing their cause.

My zealot RW uncle lifetime NRA member publicly renounced his membership over their support of armour-piercing bullets. I'm hardly unfamiliar with the organization.

[AZBlue]

13. Will we hold them accountable or not?

That's really the question now. It's up to us.

[beevul]

15. Articles like this...

are part of the reasoned debate is prevented.

From the article:


"But when it comes to handguns, automatic weapons and other things specifically designed to kill people, we believe control is necessary..."


Your intentions will be called into question the second you don't know what your talking about. For instance "automatic weapons". Even mentioning them is IRNORANCE in the highest of degrees. They have already been regulated as far as anyone with any knowledge about the regulations would say they need to be. See the national firearms act of 1934. To legally own an automatic weapon, you have to purchase a 200$ stamp every year, and you have to go through a background check, verry in depth...the likes of which most people have never seen. Not to mention no new automatic weapons can be sold legally. Only those that were grandfathered in before the registry was closed in ...1989 IIRC.

Reaction of the uninformed: Well, people probably shouldn't have machine guns. Makes sense to me. (and by extension, anyone that disagrees with me, believes people ought to have machine guns)

Reaction of the informed gun owner: WTF. Automatic weapons have been regulated since 1934...These people are iether clueless or they're pushing an agenda dangerous to beliefs I hold dear.

More from the article:

"The assault-weapons ban should be renewed, with its egregious loopholes removed. No civilian needs an AK-47 for a legitimate purpose, but you can buy one online for $379.99."

Ignorant. Completely ignorant. Legally, one can not buy a gun online (excepting private person to person sales) without federal background checks. Someone with more knowledge can put a finer point on that if they want, but I think I got the jist of it correct. And the sale described wouldnt a private one. Who puts a xxx.99 price on anything that isn't a business? Not to mention that the sale in question is NO ak-47. It is a semi-automatic rifle. An AK-47 is a select fire machine gun. The AWB doesn't cover automatic weapons, it covers civilian rifles. Oh, and did I mention, rifles are used in like...3% of all crimes?

Reaction of the uninformed: Well noone really does need an ak-47 for legitimate purposes (and by extension the assault weapons ban will prevent people from owning an ak-47)

Reaction of the informed gun owner: WTF, rifles are used in 3% of all crimes, so why are they saying this? An ak-47 is a machine gun. These people iether don't know what they are talking about or (much more commonly) the people saying this have an agenda that is much less than honest and are trying to sway the uninformed against beliefs I hold dear.

And by the you finish reading that article, depending on if your uninformed, or an informed gun owner, the divide has just grown a mile. If that doesn't shed light on the heart of the matter, why there is no rational discussion, I don't know what will.