Viewer - What to do about gun violence in Oregon and beyond

What to do about gun violence in Oregon and beyond

Wednesday December 19, 2012

11:49

The Oregonian:

Welcome to our live chat. Erik and Susan will join us at noon, but you can go ahead and submit questions and comments now. Once we get started, there will be a short delay between submission of your comments and their arrival in the chat.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 11:49 The Oregonian

11:51

Can gun violence be significantly lessened through legislation?
Yes

( 75% )

( 25% )

Wednesday December 19, 2012 11:51

11:58

Erik Lukens:

Hello, and thanks for joining our chat. Just to get things rolling, we do intend to write about gun control proposals on Sunday, and one idea we support is Sen. Ginny Burdick's proposal to ban large-capacity magazines. As always, please keep the discussion civil.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 11:58 Erik Lukens

11:59

Erik Lukens:

We're having some technical problems. We'll take questions momentarily.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 11:59 Erik Lukens

12:00

Erik Lukens:

Amost there.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:00 Erik Lukens

12:01

Erik Lukens:

JohnB asks how large capacity magazines are defined. The working definition is anything that holds more than 10 rounds.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:01 Erik Lukens

12:01

[Comment From GuestGuest: ]

After the previous assault weapons ban the CDC, FBI and other agencies study the effect of the ban. All found that the ban had no noticable down tick in gun violence. What makes anyone think itnwould be different this time?

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:01 Guest

12:01

Erik Lukens:

Guest: I am not confident that it would reduce gun violence ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:01 Erik Lukens

12:01

[Comment From bailiebailie: ]

It is too late to make meaningful changes in gun control laws. The weapons are spread throughout the U.S. We have created a culture that can't be reeled in. It is very similar to the alcohol industry that our society considers deaths and problems as collateral damage. Can we change our culture?

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:01 bailie

12:02

Erik Lukens:

However, I think limiting magazines to 10 rounds would at least force people in mass shootings to pause to reload. A small but meaningful change.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:02 Erik Lukens

12:02

Susan Nielsen:

Bailie -- I'm not sure if it's ever too late to study responsible legislation and see if something might be both constitutional and effective.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:02 Susan Nielsen

12:02

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

how is the media defining "large capacity"?

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:02 JohnB

12:03

Erik Lukens:

JohnB: large capacity is anything holding more than 10 rounds, according to most definitions.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:03 Erik Lukens

12:03

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

not really. CT has a AWB law..which was in place and the rifle met that requirement...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:03 JohnB

12:03

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

better off with laws for reporting loss, requiring locks or locked storage, etc

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:03 JohnB

12:03

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

some talk of total ban and turn-in..will never work...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:03 JohnB

12:04

Erik Lukens:

JohnB: We have not said we'd support a ban on so-called assault weapons, but we do support a ban on big magazines.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:04 Erik Lukens

12:04

[Comment From NomoregunzNomoregunz: ]

I'm curious how many owners of assault weapons truly consider them an essential part of their personal security and can justify their need for them over than a conventional pistol or rifle.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:04 Nomoregunz

12:04

[Comment From bailiebailie: ]

Limiting the size of magazines? What good would that do with millions of large capacity magazines already available?

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:04 bailie

12:04

Erik Lukens:

bailie: Re. what good would ban on big magazines do? I think it's important to be honest ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:04 Erik Lukens

12:05

Erik Lukens:

up front about effectiveness of such policies. In this case, it wouldn't do much - if any - good for some time. ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:05 Erik Lukens

12:05

Erik Lukens:

The expired federal assault weapons ban exempted pre-1994 magazines, and there were a lot of these around. However ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:05 Erik Lukens

12:05

Erik Lukens:

bans on manufacture that stick around long enough can have an effect on the supply eventually, I'm sure.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:05 Erik Lukens

12:06

Susan Nielsen:

Hi Nomoregunsz -- It's hard to make any generalizations about gun owners and why they buy what they buy. This is another reason why it's very difficult to design legislation that is fair, effective, comprehensive and constitutional.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:06 Susan Nielsen

12:06

[Comment From GuestGuest: ]

The debate is important but also seems pointless. The Second Amendment isn’t going away, nor is opposition to gun control. Americans love guns and that’s not going to change no matter what. Disagree?

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:06 Guest

12:07

Erik Lukens:

Guest: I don't consider debates pointless, though I do agree that the second amendment isn't going anywhere. I think if debates can lead to meaningful (if necessarily limited) restrictive policies can be useful.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:07 Erik Lukens

12:07

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

Gunz..yes, they are a vital tool in some areas (not for personal defense) such as on a large ranch to protect against predators

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:07 JohnB

12:07

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

200+ million guns in US...good luck trying to get them all...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:07 JohnB

12:07

[Comment From DominicDominic: ]

Why should we continue to focus on the sysptoms of a problem instead of the underlying cause. A good doctor doesnt just give meds to mask the symptoms he finds out what is underlying and works to fix it...why not the same approach?

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:07 Dominic

12:07

Susan Nielsen:

In terms of what gun owners "should" be able to possess, it's useful to look at what the Supreme Court's Heller decision said ....

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:07 Susan Nielsen

12:07

Susan Nielsen:

... In the Heller case, the court ruled in favor of the individual right to possess a firearm, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The court also held (and I'm quoting from the syllabus here): " Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." Pp. 54–56. ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:07 Susan Nielsen

12:07

[Comment From GuestGuest: ]

I found Mapes' piece this morning on Australia's experience with gun law reform interesting. I too wonder if the United States has a prayer of changing our culture. How would we contain or get back all of those semi-automatic weapons that people now legally own?

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:07 Guest

12:08

Susan Nielsen:

... I think the Heller ruling is very useful, because it helps explain both why 1) the govt shouldn't jerk law-abiding citizens around when it comes to owning some traditional means of self-protection and 2) the govt can, in fact, regulate and limit your right to own hard-core weaponry, including the M-16 and its civilian equivalents.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:08 Susan Nielsen

12:08

Erik Lukens:

Guest: Re. Australia. Frankly, I don't think that we should try to recover or ban semiautomatic weaponse a la Australia. I think a ban on big magazines ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:08 Erik Lukens

12:09

Erik Lukens:

would limit the functionality of semiautomatic weapons, regardless of whether they're classified as assault weapons or something else.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:09 Erik Lukens

12:09

[Comment From bailiebailie: ]

My point is that these controls should have taken place decades ago. This is typical of our government action. Always too little, too late. Not any differently than PERS. All that is left is grandstanding by politicians.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:09 bailie

12:09

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

10 years ago, Oregon basically started to de-fund mental health care and turn it to counties and cities to handle. hundreds were turned out from state facilities into local communities

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:09 JohnB

12:09

Susan Nielsen:

Dominiz -- you raise a good point. Here's a useful remark about guns and violence by the NYT columnist David Brooks: "I think it is because we have a mobile, spread out, atomized society, where people with mental illnesses can fester and turn murderous. It’s notable that as murder rates have plummeted, the rate of rampage killings has skyrocketed. That’s not about gun control or any sociological trend. That’s about mental illness, the lust for media coverage among the ill and copycat behavior."

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:09 Susan Nielsen

12:10

Erik Lukens:

JohnB re mental health care. Talking about access to mental health care is a good idea.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:10 Erik Lukens

12:10

[Comment From DominicDominic: ]

So lets follow your process. We ban big mags and things dont stop or slow down. The gun control lobby will want more steps.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:10 Dominic

12:10

[Comment From GuestGuest: ]

Will Oregon’s proposed gun bans stand up to court challenges? Didn’t Chicago’s gun ban get struck down by the courts?

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:10 Guest

12:10

Erik Lukens:

Dominic re. our process: I think each proposal to restrict gun access further ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:10 Erik Lukens

12:11

Erik Lukens:

should be considered and either adopted or rejected on its own merits. Saying "yes" ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:11 Erik Lukens

12:11

Erik Lukens:

to a ban on big magazines doesn't mean you have to say "yes" to the next proposal that comes along if it's a bad idea.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:11 Erik Lukens

12:11

[Comment From bailiebailie: ]

Erik, I appreciate the intentions of limiting magazine size, but there are literally millions of them easily available. It is nothing but symbolic.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:11 bailie

12:11

Susan Nielsen:

Hi Guest -- I think the Supreme Court made clear that people have an individual right to possess guns in their home for traditional self-protection. The court also said it was OK for the government to place limits on the Second Amendment right, especially regarding 'dangerous and unusual weapons"......

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:11 Susan Nielsen

12:12

Erik Lukens:

Bailie re. symbolic: I think it's a bit more than symbolic, though it won't have any effect in the short term. Your skepticism is appropriate.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:12 Erik Lukens

12:12

Susan Nielsen:

.... but the court left open for another day many questions about the application of the Heller decision. The lower courts are duking it out.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:12 Susan Nielsen

12:12

[Comment From NomoregunzNomoregunz: ]

I also think the context of the Second Amendment needs to be considered. There were no machine guns at that time, and there was no organized police or national guard organization. Citizenry was an essential part of national defense. Today, we have several branches of the armed forces and police protection.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:12 Nomoregunz

12:13

[Comment From Thad StevensThad Stevens: ]

How about civil and/or criminal liability for gun owners who fail to secure guns. Both of the recent mass shootings involved "stolen" guns (not to mention the 11 year old kid in SE portland and hundreds of kids' accidental shootings). If there were some consequences to failing to secure weapons, maybe guns would stay in the hands of "responsible" gun owners?

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:13 Thad Stevens

12:13

Erik Lukens:

Thad Stevens: That's an idea worth pursuing, though I confess ..

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:13 Erik Lukens

12:14

Erik Lukens:

I don't know what sort of liability gun owners face now for leaving their weapons around where other people can get them. Presumably, something.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:14 Erik Lukens

12:14

[Comment From GuestGuest: ]

What do you think about requiring second- and third-parties to "vouch" for gun buyers?

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:14 Guest

12:14

Erik Lukens:

Guest re. vouch: Isn't this what a criminal background check is? Also ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:14 Erik Lukens

12:14

Susan Nielsen:

Nomoregunz - that is a good point. The idea at the heart of the Second Amendment is that individuals should be able to overthrow their government (which is why they should be able to keep guns at home and form militias). Scalia says the application of this idea gets tricky now, when the government's military might is so great that it cannot be overthrown...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:14 Susan Nielsen

12:14

Erik Lukens:

how do we know the vouchers are going to be reliable?

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:14 Erik Lukens

12:14

[Comment From Thad StevensThad Stevens: ]

How about regulation of ammunition (background checks, limits on purchases, etc.)? Ammunition has a shelf life, so we avoid the problem of the existing supply.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:14 Thad Stevens

12:15

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

it is important to not that machine guns are not illegal in a majority of states, but are very very expensive ($15K or better) and we hear little about them in crimes. CA has strick gun laws, but it does not reduce crime, just leaves some folks without protection

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:15 JohnB

12:15

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

London finally banned glassware in bars because they were being used as weapons...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:15 JohnB

12:15

Erik Lukens:

Thad Stevens re. ammunition: Apparently California is thinking about this. I think this is a bad idea that simply creates headaches for law-abiding gun owners and doesn't accomplish much ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:15 Erik Lukens

12:15

Erik Lukens:

unless you think creating obstacles for all gun owners is a good idea. Also, ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:15 Erik Lukens

12:15

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

Police have no requirement to protect individuals...it's up to the person...individually to handle that...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:15 JohnB

12:16

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

2nd amendment was to provide the citizens the ability to protect itself from the government... There was not a national guard until 1903...in 1776, the towns and citizens owned the weapons and provide the soldiers...The british went to Boston to get the community armory belonging to Boston, not the new government of the US

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:16 JohnB

12:16

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

you hear about micro-stamping...it's worthless and not a workable solution..

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:16 JohnB

12:16

Erik Lukens:

a lot of gun owners reload their own ammunition. Some even mold their own bullets. How do you regulate that?

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:16 Erik Lukens

12:16

[Comment From Thad StevensThad Stevens: ]

I haven't heard of any potential charges against the friend of Jacob Roberts, the owner of the AR-15 used at the mall.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:16 Thad Stevens

12:17

Erik Lukens:

Thad re. friend of Roberts: I haven't either, but we don't know many specifics, do we, other than the fact that Roberts stole the gun? Also, criminal and civil liability are two very different things.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:17 Erik Lukens

12:17

Susan Nielsen:

Hi JohnB -- I hear what you're saying. But even the 5-4 conservative majority of the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by someone who favors originalism, says it is reasonable for the government to put limits on dangerous and unusual weapons such as machine guns

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:17 Susan Nielsen

12:18

[Comment From LizLiz: ]

From the Washington Post: Would it be possible to tighten the law? In theory, yes. Back in 1996, Australia imposed a much stricter version of the assault weapons ban after a mass shooting. The Australian version avoided many of the loopholes in the U.S. law: Not only did the country ban all types of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, but it also spent $500 million buying up nearly 600,000 existing guns from private owners. As Wonkblog’s Sarah Kliff pointed out, Australia’s law appears to have curbed gun violence. Researchers in the British Medical Journal write that the ban was “followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides.”

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:18 Liz

12:18

[Comment From LizLiz: ]

Even though there are more weapons here, we can afford to buy them back.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:18 Liz

12:18

Susan Nielsen:

Hi Liz -- Great point about buybacks. Locally, we've had several gun buyback or giveback programs over the years, often sponsored by Ceasefire Oregon and supported by area businesses. Portland police provide assistance. A buyback in Aug. 2012 in Portland resulted in more than 240 weapons taken off the streets and melted down. People who turn in their guns get a $75 gift card to Fred Meyer. Very cool. It's voluntary, it takes excess guns out of circulation. ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:18 Susan Nielsen

12:18

[Comment From DominicDominic: ]

Erik I think you have a strong belief in the 2ndA and thank you for that. However, you yourself say banning these mags will likely have no effect. So why support it?

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:18 Dominic

12:18

Susan Nielsen:

... A Portland buyback in late 2010 resulted in taking 150 operable guns off the streets. One in the Lents neighborhood a couple years ago resulted in the turn-in of 400 weapons.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:18 Susan Nielsen

12:19

Erik Lukens:

Dominic re. magazine bans: I support it because it makes sense and can have an effect eventually.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:19 Erik Lukens

12:19

[Comment From GuestGuest: ]

AWB "ban" laws are a waste of time, for all the reasons already noted. Can we please have a regulation proposed that doesn't insult the intelligence of the common man? Insurance requirements have been suggested, as have trigger lock / gun safe requirements. Insurance requirements would drive safe storage as a financial consequence of the premiums.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:19 Guest

12:19

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

Susan- yes, states can limit machines guns...but Oregon really does not (did u know that?).

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:19 JohnB

12:19

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

oregon does not have a good law for 'assisting' or failing to act to prevent such events...Washington has a pretty good one

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:19 JohnB

12:20

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

during the buy back in Australia, gun owners were not paid for the value of their guns, they were provided with greatly reduced amounts...under threat of arrest...take it or jail

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:20 JohnB

12:20

Erik Lukens:

Guest re. AWB a waste of time: Largely, I agree with you. The 1994 ban applied only to relatively meaningless, cosmetic features of weapons, not to functionality. An AWB that might make a difference is one that applied to all semiautomatic weapons, but that's both a bad idea, I think, and unrealistic.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:20 Erik Lukens

12:20

[Comment From GuestGuest: ]

Maybe it’s missing the point to focus the debate on legislation. There’s a larger discussion that needs to be had … about what we value and why.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:20 Guest

12:21

Susan Nielsen:

Hi JohnB -- Our buyback programs, by contrast, were voluntary and resulted in reducing the excess capacity of guns. A win-win.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:21 Susan Nielsen

12:21

Erik Lukens:

Guest re. larger discussion: I think that larger discussion is being had.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:21 Erik Lukens

12:21

[Comment From Thad StevensThad Stevens: ]

The 2nd amendment was a states' rights driven amendment. The intent was to preserve states' ability to maintain a militia, not to have private citizens with weapons stockpiles, fantasizing about fighting the government. Gun rights folks look completely asinine when they talk about being able to fight off the government.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:21 Thad Stevens

12:22

Erik Lukens:

Thad re. 2nd amendment: I think that people do look pretty silly when they talk about fighting the government ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:22 Erik Lukens

12:22

Erik Lukens:

but that's a distraction here, I think.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:22 Erik Lukens

12:22

[Comment From GuestGuest: ]

A lot of people think the answer is more people being armed, not fewer. There’s really no way to change opinions on this issue.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:22 Guest

12:22

The Oregonian:

We'll go for about 10 more minutes. Send in your questions and comments now.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:22 The Oregonian

12:23

Susan Nielsen:

guest, you are right that it's hard to change opinions on this topic. Also, I've noticed that gun discussions can get pretty far removed from the horror that originally inspired them. ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:23 Susan Nielsen

12:23

Susan Nielsen:

...Here's what I think: If you're opposed to a gun control proposal, I think your opposition has to pass the "parent test." (In other words, could you make your arguments to one of the parents of one of those murdered children?) By the same token, if you *support* a piece of gun-control legislation, I think you have an obligation to make sure the change would be both effective and constitutional, not just hollow symbolism.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:23 Susan Nielsen

12:23

[Comment From bailiebailie: ]

We are facing a weak point in our society. We value freedom of almost every thing. Restrictions are a problem. It is difficult to balance both. Our tendency is to support freedoms of behavior.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:23 bailie

12:24

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

it's a lot of factors in play here, but the anti-gun crowd (and a lot of media) are rushing down the BAN BAN BAN road...while kids play violent video games, following by violent programs, home violence, limited mental health care, etc..etc..

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:24 JohnB

12:24

Erik Lukens:

Bailie: Yes, balancing freedom and other things like safety is difficult.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:24 Erik Lukens

12:24

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

Thad---The milita in 1775 was the private citizen....the citizen defended the country when called to assist the regular (limited) forces of the USA.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:24 JohnB

12:25

[Comment From GuestGuest: ]

Could assault-gun legislation make it illegal to own the gun even for people who already have one? And if so, how would that be enforced?

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:25 Guest

12:25

Susan Nielsen:

JohnB -- the fact that the causes are complex and intertwined just means we *do* have to pick off pieces of the problem one by one.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:25 Susan Nielsen

12:25

Erik Lukens:

Guest re assault gun legislation: I guess it could make it illegal for people to have guns that ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:25 Erik Lukens

12:26

Erik Lukens:

they already own, but that wouldn't be a good idea, in my opinion. I don't know how you'd go about collecting all those guns ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:26 Erik Lukens

12:26

Erik Lukens:

and I'd think that you'd have to reimburse people for them. That's a little heavy-handed, to say the least, ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:26 Erik Lukens

12:26

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

You will never gets everyone to turn in all of the "proposed assault weapons"...wont happen

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:26 JohnB

12:26

Erik Lukens:

and I don't know that people would stand for it anyway.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:26 Erik Lukens

12:27

[Comment From JasaJasa: ]

Erik re: 1994 ban: Yes, and almost all of the madman shooters of the last decade have brought multiple handguns. Every bit as dangerous as an "assault" rifle at close range. Two or three handguns, fully loaded, equals a lot of trouble, even if they are six shooters. Lets propose legislation that keeps madmen from getting access in the first place.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:27 Jasa

12:27

Erik Lukens:

Jasa: Access to what? ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:27 Erik Lukens

12:27

Erik Lukens:

A University of Pennsylvania study done after the awb expired in 2004 ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:27 Erik Lukens

12:28

Erik Lukens:

found that very few crimes even before the ban went into effect involved assault weapons (no more than 8 percent) ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:28 Erik Lukens

12:28

Susan Nielsen:

Jasa -- The trouble is that mentally disturbed people often live with law-abiding citizens and have access to THEIR guns, as several recent shootings have shown.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:28 Susan Nielsen

12:28

[Comment From bailiebailie: ]

If I had my way, I would ban all guns. It is just too late to do anything meaningful. Look at the movies, TV, video games etc. We glorify violence.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:28 bailie

12:28

Erik Lukens:

and few of these involved assault rifles.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:28 Erik Lukens

12:28

[Comment From Thad StevensThad Stevens: ]

Erik, not exactly a distraction, because it relates to what is reasonable regulation - if 2nd amendment covers self-defense, hunting, sport, then the gun and ammo requirements are quite different than what is currently available.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:28 Thad Stevens

12:29

[Comment From ResponsibleGunOwnerResponsibleGunOwner: ]

bailie- banning all guns means you're taking food away from families who hunt

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:29 ResponsibleGunOwner

12:29

Susan Nielsen:

Hi Bailie We simply can't ban all guns any more than we can ban all free speech.

Oddly, the Second Amendment discussion is not different from the First Amendment discussion. This country celebrates and protects free-speech rights, including the right to say a lot of dumb and hurtful things. But there are "time, place and manner" restrictions designed to protect the public good from harm. That's why it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater or say something malicious and untrue about someone: The collective good, in such cases, outweighs your right to say whatever the heck you want. .....

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:29 Susan Nielsen

12:29

Erik Lukens:

Thad: I think it's a distraction because ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:29 Erik Lukens

12:29

Erik Lukens:

what matters a lot more is what the Supreme Court had to say on the matter.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:29 Erik Lukens

12:29

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

better background checks...require states and the US government to report folks to the national database that have mental health issues...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:29 JohnB

12:29

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

yes, we glorify violence...and want to now strike at 80+ million LAWFUL gun owners that do not commit crimes and are RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS..

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:29 JohnB

12:30

[Comment From Mark JMark J: ]

Susan lets start with violent Video games and the mainstreaming of mental ill, with annual reduced support of mental illness they have shown they are the problem but they used guns to ply out there fantisies.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:30 Mark J

12:30

Susan Nielsen:

.... and so we can't ban all guns, but we can place limits that reduce the likelihood of foreseeable deaths and injury caused by predictable irresponsible use.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:30 Susan Nielsen

12:30

Erik Lukens:

JohnB: The rights of law-abiding gun owners are, indeed, important to consider.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:30 Erik Lukens

12:31

[Comment From JasaJasa: ]

Erik: Access to firearms, of course. The latest rampage, with the shooters Mom leaving essentially an arsenal available to an unstable son, really drives home the point that gun regulation should demand trigger locks / gun safes.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:31 Jasa

12:31

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

when the PREZ says folks are clutching thier guns and bibles..and that needs to change...maybe we made the wrong choice in November...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:31 JohnB

12:32

Erik Lukens:

Jasa re. access: I think we ought to discuss legislation regarding the responsibilities of gun owners. Nothing wrong with that.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:32 Erik Lukens

12:32

[Comment From bailiebailie: ]

Too late for any meaningful restrictions. It is now political grandstanding.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:32 bailie

12:32

[Comment From ResponsibleGunOwnerResponsibleGunOwner: ]

Better background checks on a federal level, no more gun show sales w/out background checks, mandatory education about gun safety and laws to enforce them.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:32 ResponsibleGunOwner

12:32

[Comment From JasaJasa: ]

Susan: Yes, many mentally ill people do have access to parents firearms. Let's fix this where possible.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:32 Jasa

12:33

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

good suggesion Responsible...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:33 JohnB

12:33

Susan Nielsen:

MarkJ -- I know lots of people who play violent video games and are perfectly normal and law-abiding citizens. They play to blow off steam. The trouble is that there are other people (i.e. some youhg troubled and emotionally disengaged men) who play these games and do so without much of a healthy context. Their video game use (and escape into a violent imaginary world) is a symptom of the problem, probably not a cause of it.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:33 Susan Nielsen

12:33

[Comment From Mark JMark J: ]

Lets have the government supply gun safes to all gun owners and then maybe legislation that would make you responsible if they were left out of a safe while at home and were stolen

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:33 Mark J

12:34

Erik Lukens:

Mark J: That would be pretty expensive.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:34 Erik Lukens

12:34

[Comment From MarkDMarkD: ]

Hunter and gun safety should be a part of our school curriculum. There should be a gun safe program, insurance incentive a good idea.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:34 MarkD

12:34

[Comment From ResponsibleGunOwnerResponsibleGunOwner: ]

I don't believe that legislation to ban "high-capacity" magazines will be effective. A shooter could easily have multiple loaded magazines with 10 rounds or less in them. Only takes a couple of seconds to change out a magazine.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:34 ResponsibleGunOwner

12:34

[Comment From Thad StevensThad Stevens: ]

why should the government supply safes? That should be an owner's responsibility.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:34 Thad Stevens

12:35

Erik Lukens:

MarkD re. gun safety. I'm not sure forcing kids in school to sit through gun and hunter safety classes would do much except use class time that's probably better spent on math and reading.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:35 Erik Lukens

12:35

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

I remember when I went to high school and coud lock my hunting rifle in my trunk to go hunting after school...now days, we send the SWAT team and spend hours freaking about.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:35 JohnB

12:35

[Comment From JasaJasa: ]

Regulations requiring responsible firearm ownership have the possibility of actually working, as opposed to an AWB. :-)

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:35 Jasa

12:35

[Comment From bailiebailie: ]

The people who would commit these crimes could care less about any of the proposed restrictions.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:35 bailie

12:36

Susan Nielsen:

Responsible gunowner -- I think a limit on high-capacity magazines is smart because it 1) doesn't infringe on individual rights and it 2) forces people to stop and reload. Would it fix everything? No. But it might help.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:36 Susan Nielsen

12:36

[Comment From Mark JMark J: ]

Susan and I see there are 80 milion guns owners who use there guns in a responsible maner. So you arument is the same fro both sides of the issue.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:36 Mark J

12:36

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

Government safes...good idea...they would know who had them...say, just require it in the building code..for the common good...then sooner or later, all properties would have a government safe..

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:36 JohnB

12:36

[Comment From MarkDMarkD: ]

Gun technology evolves, as do most other technologies. Not too many years ago there were landlines... now not so many. Gun technology could evolve also so that only an owner could fire their weapon. Biometrics for example.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:36 MarkD

12:37

[Comment From Thad StevensThad Stevens: ]

There should be higher taxes and fees on gun owners. As a society, we're accommodating their rights at great expense to others.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:37 Thad Stevens

12:38

Erik Lukens:

Thad re. fees: Sorry, but I disagree. Why tax the bejabbers out of gun owners who do nothing wrong ... unless the purpose ...

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:38 Erik Lukens

12:38

[Comment From JohnBJohnB: ]

S&W could never get the biometric pistols to function right...they wanted to market it to law enforcement but they always malfunctioned sonner or later..

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:38 JohnB

12:38

Erik Lukens:

is simply to make life difficult for people whose pastimes you dislike?

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:38 Erik Lukens

12:38

[Comment From bailiebailie: ]

There are millions of high capacity magazines already in circulation. The shelf life is about 100 years.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:38 bailie

12:38

[Comment From Thad StevensThad Stevens: ]

Wow, all of these gun owners want government hand-outs.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:38 Thad Stevens

12:38

[Comment From ResponsibleGunOwnerResponsibleGunOwner: ]

How do you determine the limit of high-capacity magazines?

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:38 ResponsibleGunOwner

12:38

Susan Nielsen:

MarkJ -- My understanding is that there are also something like 250 million guns in this country. We are awash in guns and ammo. Is there a way to protect individual gun ownership and allow for hunting and self-defense while also limiting the ability of folks to build up major arsenals and limiting access to hard-core weaponry by mentally disturbed people? We'd sure better hope so.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:38 Susan Nielsen

12:38

Erik Lukens:

Responsible re. high capacity: Determining the limit is arbitrary, but most proposals cap it at 10 rounds.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:38 Erik Lukens

12:39

[Comment From MarkDMarkD: ]

Taxes are not a solution.

Wednesday December 19, 2012 12:39 MarkD

12:39

[Comment From Thad StevensThad Stevens: ]

I think evolving technology is one area of hope.