NRA Conference Attendees Didn’t Shoot Up the Streets
I joked to friends this weekend that if a car backfired downtown that you might get a bunch of NRA members to open fire down the street. With concealed weapons allowed in Missouri and a major National Riffle Association convention in town you just never know what may happen. Yes, I know that really wouldn’t happen but it was a fun way to joke about the NRA being in town.
As you might expect, I’m not a fan of guns. Still, I have to respect the 2nd Amendment:
“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.”Â
Militia? Oh, that doesn’t sound good. I’m glad militia is preceeded by “well regulated.”  Of course, debate often centers on what sort of arms fall within the concept of well regulated. Of course the NRA includes “rifle” in their name. I don’t know that even the most hard core anti-gun activist has any objections to someone owning a rifle. However, the fire power that is available today is so different than when the Bill of Rights was signed. Where is that line between well regulated and not infringing on the rights of the people?
My boss was in Expresso Mod on Friday at lunch and a conventioneer walked in with a holster and two guns on his hip and ordered a cup of coffee.
They didn’t sell any guns at the NRA Convention, and they never do. It’s more of a trade show. There are legal and practical reasons why they don’t sell guns at their conventions:
1. If you buy a gun from a dealer (i.e. Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer), you have to buy it from one that lives in the same state as you, while actually in your home state.
2. Missouri’s laws about transferring concealable firearms require paperwork up the giggy and a week long waiting period.
3. Because of the NRA’s size, they can’t hold these conventions in anything but big cities, with requisite hotel rooms and convention space (and attractions in the city as a draw). And when you’re dealing with big cities, you’re dealing with anti-gun politicians. Concessions have to be made.
What I am most surprised about is that, with all the Lyda Krewsons of the world at City Hall, and with Slay being anti-CCW, that Slay welcomed the NRA, and the best this town could muster for opposition was B.T. Rice.
It is true that the fire power available today is much greater, but what is the purpose of the militia. If it is to hunt there is no need for the greater power, but if it is to defend against an army, they need to be able to keep up with military fire power.
This debate could not be more poignant than it is today. This morning there were at least 21 fatalities on a college campus in VA.
I come from a family of hunters. Deer season is better than Christmas for most of them. They have a mantra: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But I have to believe that a lot less than 21 would have suffered this morning if we as nation weren’t given the right to bear semi-automatics.
I have no problem with guns. Banning guns is only a proximate solution to crime. We should look to solve the root causes of why people commit crimes, not ban the tools they use. Other tools will be used, and we cannot forget that even in societies where guns are highly regulated or banned, they are still available for those with the financial means.
“The best defense against tyranny is a well armed and literate populace” If we can only get the school board to cooperate 🙂
“I’ve yet to hear of a drive-by bow & arrow killing”
OK. Here’s one:
http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/da/press/2007/1_8_2007.html
We do not have state militias resembling the militias of the 18th & early 19th Centuries. When you sign-up for the National Guard, you are not expected to bring your own gun and ammo, serve for free, or buy your way out of service by paying someone to muster for you.
Then we should amend the Constitution, Howard. The Constitution is not something that goes out of style like powdered wigs.
EDIT
Then we should amend the Constitution, Howard. The Constitution is not something that goes out of style like powdered wigs and can just be abandoned.
I agree with Craig to a point, including the sarcasm, but without all the oversimplification.
Its true, everybody in the US lives under “The Constitution”. It is archaic, but it has inertia going for it. Can you even imagine what we would end up with if we could just write a new one whenever? TC’s stability and difficulty to change give it its power. We agree by default to live by it. Its like if we would all promise to walk around with our arms tied behind our back. It may not make sense, but at least we cant do too much damage.
What constitutes abandoning TC? There is no constitutional pregnancy test ,+ or -, its a matter of interpretation granted to the supreme court. Whether or not the right of “the People” (capital P) is a right granted to you and me or to us as a group, ie. state, is a matter of debate as old as TC. Probably right now on some NRA blog people are debating 2nd ammend commas. That debate should stay there…just wanted to point out that a debate exists.
I personally dont own a gun, but if the republic would become exceedingly tyrannical, i take some small comfort that there are those who do. If the state has interest in regulating them, I dont think thats a conflict.
Lowest common denominator wins, weakest link in the chain determines strength, or however you want to describe it: As long as another district, state or nation permits gun sales/production, no amount of legislation anywhere will prevent the distribution of weapons. Therefore, these restrictive laws only favor criminals and not law abiding citizens. Terrible situation and prosecutors/judges must be held accountable for allowing repeat offenders.
Like many people, for me, owning a gun for “protection” makes about as much sense as owning a chain saw to clean up after the next big storm. Can I find it and get to it when I need it? Will it actually work? Will I hurt myself or a bystander trying to make it work? Will a kid find it and do something stupid?
That said, it makes no more sense to try and ban guns as it does to try and ban chain saws. You can’t protect people from their own stupidity. There are plenty of laws that limit conduct for the greater good, and when a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime, it’s a tool, not a cause, and they’re still breaking one or more more-serious laws.
The one area of the debate I continue to struggle with are the technological advances and societal changes that influence today’s outcomes. Video games apparently desensitize people to the reality of mayhem and death. The internet gives them easy access to information about guns’ features and where to obtain them. Rage happens. Drunk and stupid happens. But you can only do so much damage with a bat, axe handle, knife, brass knuckles or even a revolver before either common sense or a break in the action changes things. Multi-round clips, semi-automatic handguns and assault weapons allow a whole lot of damage to happen very quickly, with the added kick of an adrenaline rush.
In theory, we, the people, should be able to limit anyone’s “right to bear arms” to a reasonable threshold. Does anyone really need hundreds of rounds of ammunition and semi-automatic weapons to adequately defend their home? (A pump-action shotgun is likely a more effective answer – intimidating in appearance and very effective in close quarters.) But the reality is that the criminals have taken the lead in this arms race, so it’s hard to justify limiting non-criminals to anything less . . .
When it comes to video games, my kid has always chosen auto racing and sports games. He’s never been into military or shoot and kill fantasy games. The readership here probably has some gamers among it. Can anyone shed light on either the allure or pleasure derived from playing fantasy games based on murder and death? I don’t get it.
“Like many people, for me, owning a gun for “protection†makes about as much sense as owning a chain saw to clean up after the next big storm.”
Actually, with our weather lately, owning a chain saw for storm clean-up makes a lot of sense.
. . . and a lot more sense than the electric one I have out in the garage 😉
I am a gamer, though not nearly as much as I used to be, and do play FPS (first person shooter) games sometimes. But I don’t own a gun, have never fired a gun, and don’t really plan on doing either anytime soon if ever.
I personally don’t think that violent games or movies are particularly harmful to your average, well-adjusted, intelligent child. I think the problem only comes when they intersect with a person with some pre-existing health issues. I suppose this point of view would fall under the “guns (or games) don’t kill people, people kill people” viewpoint.
I can’t point to any specific studies but I believe research has shown that something like 90-95% of murders are linked to drugs (use or the trade) or mental health isssues in some way.
I’m not a fan of the sale of automatic weapons either but in the end I think fighting poverty, mental illness and drug use would be a much more effective measure to prevent murder in this country.
I believe all assault/hand guns should be completly banned (except for law enforcement purposes)….here are a few reasons:
I was reading this editorial the other day saying (paraphrasing), “if the VA legislature had just passed the law (debated last year apparently) that college students could carry concealed guns on campus, then this tragedy could have been prevented.” http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11306
So let me get this straight…Many people (including college students) are depressed, distressed, have anger issues. But instead of preventing all individuals from buying guns, we should arm everyone! That’s great, now instead of having to worry about the isolated individual who plans a mass killing, I now have to worry about every potential nutbag around me who could snap at any moment w/ their concealed gun. Yeah, that makes sense.
Imagine if everyone was carrying around a hand gun. How many would be misplaced, fired off accidentally, used when they really should not have been, etc.? Perhaps most importantly, if you and I are walking down the street (w/ handguns on our belt) and someone comes out of the alley pointing a gun at us, would we even have a chance to use our guns for protection? Unlikely. And if we tried, our chances of getting shot are probably much greater than they would have been if we did not have the guns in the first place.
Also, who is to say that even if students carried guns, that the VA Tech tragedy would have been prevented? He came into the classroom and just started shooting…tough to pull out a gun to protect yourself when someone attacks you from behind.
I love the argument…”well, if we make guns illegal, only criminals will have them (just like drugs).” The problem w/ this argument is that guns (especially high powered ones) are much more dificult to manufacture than drugs. Any idiot w/ a fertile field can grow plants that yield drugs (i.e., cocaine in Columbia, poppy seed in Afhangistan). But I would guess that if we took most guns (at least the assault/hand gun variety) off the market (and in the process shut down most large corporate gun manufacturers who produce/develop those types of guns), it would be extremely difficult for the average street criminal (or wannabe physco) to get his hands on high powered guns–after all, these are high technologically advanced devices. And guns aren’t like drugs in that people are not physically addicted to guns. Thus, there would not be the inherent demand level for guns that drugs create thereby reducing the incentives to create an underground manufacturering process of high powered weapons (and reducing any incentives to continually design higher and higher powered guns). People would have to simply go back to settling disputes/anger issues w/ fists/knives, etc.
Sure, some illegal importing of guns would still occur. But the US (I believe though I would have to check) is the major manufacturer of weapons in the world-mainly due to our lax laws…The US has the highest related gun deaths among all industrial nations (and it is not even close). Check these statistics….The European Union w/ 100 more million people have one-tenth the amount of deaths from firearms as we do….
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/forum/docs/sept04lemaire.pdf. Thus, if we eliminate the manufacturer of assault weapons/hand guns in this country (except for military, law enforcement purposes), we will put a huge dent in the availability of such guns to prospective criminals…and more importantly reduce overall gun deaths.
One final argument I must address. This is the argument that if someone is determined enough, they will find a way to kill a lot of people even if they could not get their hands on guns (i.e., bombs, etc.). This may be true but how would carrying a concealed gun help protect you from a bomb anyways? Answer: It would not.
Constitutionally, it is unlikely that the founding fouthers envisioned “arms” to include the types of semi-automatic weapons that are available today. And to say that citizens need such weapons to protect themselves from govt. intrusion/invasions is just ridiculous. First of all, if the govt. wanted to oblitorate any of us, it could…I don’t think a semi-automatic weapon would do much when a B-2 Bomber is dropping a bomb on your head. Plus, we already have many other protections in place through statutes/other constitutional provisions that would offer a remedy to us if the government invades our rights. The fact is that the Constitution is a living/breathing document whose interpretation changes as society changes. We already have arms control (i.e., it is illegal to own a tank/a shoulder fired missile) which is clearly permissible under the 2nd Amendment. So the only question is, where do we draw the line? I submit that the line should be drawn much tighter than it is today.