Osler's Razor

Yesterdays vote made me sick to my stomach. The only bright point for me was that Senator Kay Hagan had the courage to vote YES. For that I am thankful.
 

Follow the money. I have seen people paying $2,600 for AR-15s that sold for $800 two years ago. And ammo has quadrupled in price. Gun and ammo manufacturers used the fear of legislation to profit and are now blocking any actual legislation that would slow their sales. But make no mistake, they are more than happy to see new legislation introduced...just not passed. It is the perfect cycle for the bottom line.
 

If you asked the children of America if they wanted to live in a place where everyone had a gun.. they would likely say no. If you asked America's gun manufacturers if they would want every citizen to own a gun.. they would and are saying yes.

Our children and grandchildren need our help to provide a safe country and world for them.

282 Americans are killed or injured everyday, on average. Since 9/11 we have lost 3000 citizens to terrorists and 900,000 citizens have been shot by guns. We have worked hard to take weapons out of the terrorists hands. The equally real terror of gun abundance has been met with a cowardly response. The message of the gun merchants was so threatening to those cowards among us that they chose to act in self interest. Shame on them.

We have choices between more guns or fewer guns and kids or gun sales.
 

Amen to all of you.

In answer to your question, "How?", I was going to say: political cowardice.

Then I saw Sen. Mitch McConnell's disgusting Facebook post mocking the Senate's failure to pass common sense background checks--supported by 90% of the American people and 85% of gun owners--and I realized the answer is this: contempt.
 

I suppose we all define courage in different ways. For me, “cowardly” seems an odd adjective to describe elected officials who stand on principle in an environment in which the media, the President, the “children,” and, purportedly, 90-percent of the voters are marshaled against them.

It is always appealing to think of ourselves as on the side of the angels and the other side as the evil doers. In general, things are not usually that simple.
 

WF-- What is the principle they are standing on?
 

What I find most despicable of all is the argument about manipulation of the Newtown massacre from none other than the master puppeteers themselves. The second most despicable, all the senators residing inside the pockets of the gun lobby. These people do not have mere jobs, they have a responsibility to the nation and they are failing on all accounts.
 

I don't get the attraction to guns. Never have. I don't own one and can't imagine buying one. I had fun shooting .22s at targets at Boy Scout camp and shooting my BB gun as a kid, but I feel no desire to do so again.

To each his own, I guess. I do like to drive too fast and I probably eat to much ice cream... but even those activities aren't as dangerous as guns.

One article I read said that although gun sales are up, they are being sold to the same people, people who already have guns.

I heard a snippet of a speech by a Senator who opposed restrictions. He argued that limits on the 2nd Amendment should not be acceptable, just as limits on the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments are not acceptable.

But, as I have pointed out here before, limits on the "Freedom of Speech" DO exist. I can't go out and libel or slander someone. I can't package my own tomato paste and call it Heinz, I can't try to sell my car and claim I am a "Ford Dealer," etc. I can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. And there are also limits on the rights in the 4th and 5th Amendments.

So the idea that the 2nd Amendment is absolute is nonsense.

What to do? I think its a situation like the Death Penalty reform effor the Prof has undertaken. Advocates for change need to go to those who disagree and change their minds. Americans RESIST restrictions. These proposals ARE restrictions, and the vast majority of those effected are law abiding people who are not a threat to society.

These are the people reformers must focus upon. And not by calling them stupid or small minded or shameful.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I'll second Waco Farmer here. And I'll add that I think everyone, whether Pro-2nd Amendment or Anti-Gun (or whatever title the relevant sides have chosen for themselves), should work hard to tie expressions like "cowardice" and "common sense" and "we have choices" to contextualized facts.

Let me show my hand: I am a gun owner. I grew up in a gun owning household. A favorite pastime at family gatherings was (and is) to shoot together. And my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment includes and individual right to keep and bear arms--subject to reasonable regulation.

But I am not a fanatic--I am much more pro-child than I am pro/anti anything else. Indeed, if I thought that the proposed legislation would have done anything to prevent the next Sandy Hook, I'd join the chorus in decrying the cowardice of politicians on both sides of the aisle. But there was no reason to think that they would.

Tragically, more children die every year in family swimming pools than in gun violence. If you ask the children whether everyone in America should have a swimming pool, they would likely say yes. That's no reason to ignore guns, but it brings the numbers into perspective.

So let's talk about the legislation:

1) Background checks: most gun control proponents believe that 40% of firearms are purchased without background checks. This number came from a 20yr. old survey of only 300 people which concluded that because 60%-70% of guns are purchased in-store from federally licensed dealers, the rest must be purchased without background checks. This is simply not true. The only way to purchase a firearm without a background check today is to purchase from an individual--that's a loophole we can (and perhaps should) close, but it's not going to end the violence.

2) Assault weapons ban/ Ban on high cap. magazines: 3% of homicides take place with rifles of all kinds (including military style weapons). More homicides involve only bare hands. Gun violence is almost always perpetrated with handguns, and handguns are virtually untouched by either of these legislative measures. What's the common-sense here?

3) Mental health: The mentally ill are not more likely to commit acts of violence than the general population. The best predictor of violent behavior is being male. The second best is being between the ages of 15 and 24. Until we are better at predicting violent behavior, or even diagnosing mental health issues, some sort of national registry would do little to change the gun violence epidemic.

Like I said, I'm not a fanatic. I try not approach this issue as an ideologue. I can be persuaded to endorse control measures--but I when it comes to restricting liberty in this country, I want every measure to be functional, not feel-good.
 

Because it is neither popular nor reasonable! just a backdoor attempt to register all guns. And as we all know, all criminals observe the laws -

By the way, I don't here any outcry to ban pressure cookers - they are weapons of mass destruction too, you know!

Lee
 

Democrats lack the political capital to pass gun control. It is essentially a dead issue and the Dems are more than happy to keep it that way to prevent the GOP from having the wedge issue. They cannot get this passed because they really don't want to.
 

Hear, not here! Sorry - it's hard to type with a cat on your lap.

Amen to WF and CTL - these studies are outdated. The real facts are, however, not useful to drum up the mob.

My family has always had guns, and used (and still do) use them for recreation, hunting, and personal defense. I have several instances in my immediate family where a handy firearm has prevented theft and/or personal injury or death.

Lee
 

Still, no one has given me a reason to oppose background checks for online gun sales. Really-- what is the problem with that?
 

I support bg checks for online gun sales (and over-the-phone sales and classified-ad sales and over-the-counter sales and pretty much most sales). But this sudden furor over the "online loophole" is (like the vast majority of this debate) a bit disingenuous. As the law stands now, any federally licensed dealer who sells a gun online (or in any of the aforementioned venues) will need to deliver that gun in person and perform a bg check.

But, let me ask you this Mark, if we can get this law passed (universal bg check for online purchases), will that satisfy you? Are we done? Is that the big problem? That we just need to close this horrible online loophole?
 

Principles:

Life is made up of hard choices. The principle behind the gun rights faction is simple: gun owners believe we are safer with guns than without them. In a perfect world (or in a world in which men were angels) we would not need guns. But, in the world in which we live, guns are a useful tool for self preservation. While reasonable people will disagree with that assertion, the pro-gun side has tradition and the Constitution on their side, which is a great advantage in our system.

Moreover, gun owners do not trust the President, or the Vice President, or the Speaker when they insist how much they revere the Second Amendment. Gun owners believe that the President would take away guns if he could (believing sincerely that guns kill people and massive restrictions would save lives and and make a safer world for children). So, in addition to the fundamental disagreement over the place of guns in society at play in this debate, there is also a deep-seated belief that the gun restrictionists are not being entirely honest about their convictions. It is a powerful combination.
 

@ Professor Osler - Interestingly enough background checks are already required, albeit indirectly, for online gun sales. Online gun retailers are prohibited from shipping directly to the customer. Instead, the online gun retailer must ship to a FFL dealer. While the online retailers are not required to perform a background check before mailing the firearm to the FFL dealer, the FFL dealer is required to perform a background check before the FFL dealer can release/transfer the firearm to the person who purchased the gun online.

The dreaded "online" gun sale is really just a private party sale in which the buyer and seller have identified each other online. I know that the political process is often all about rhetoric, but it is still frustrating that folks refuse to call a spade a spade.

In answer to your question, only reasons loaded with paranoia can be given in response. Primary amongst those reasons is that mandatory background checks for private party sales is tantamount to federally mandated firearm registration. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your viewpoint), the practice of law, operating a business, and life in general has taught me that being paranoid saves my tail more often than not.

@ John Osler - There is a cost-benefit analysis that is missing from your reasoning. While I can understand a child's emotional desires, there is far more to the question than simply asking children what they would want. Most children would also want to have candy, cookies, cake, and ice cream for dinner. That doesn't mean that responsible adults should permit such a thing. With regard to providing our children and grandchildren a safe country and world, I am not sure such a thing is attainable, or, if it is, that firearm restrictions are the way to get there. The world is a hard, tough place. Bad people exist. Also, history shows that governments with too much power tend to abuse its citizenry, and that governments get too much power when citizens can't fight back (e.g. - Stalin). Common sense also tells us that permitting every person on the street to possess weapons of mass destruction is also a bad idea - bar brawls going chemical or nuclear sounds like an awful idea.

What we can be assured of is that the simple solutions (e.g. banning firearms or eliminating all firearm restrictions) will likely not be a workable solution in the long term. Our lawmakers simply must start reaching across the aisle and creatively compromising again.
 

I get that on-line sales go through a local authorized dealer (ha, ha...) I get the law exists and I suspect it is pretty unenforceable. Heck, the government can't track taxes owed for on-line purchases. I really don't expect they are much better at this.

Personally I am concerned about the gun show loop-hole. Perhaps there should be a booth at gun shows to process (with seriousness) the purchasers at gun shows. It is my understanding that I could have guns for sale and pay a nominal fee to have a table and sell my guns. Is this correct? and if so, as an individual making the sale at a gun show (not an authorized gun delealer (Joe Public))... do I have to obtain a background check for the purchaser? If not, then I have a BIG problem with this loophole.

CTL - you state that closing these loop holes won't end the violence - you are probably right, but for many of us, if it reduces the deaths caused by guns then it should happen.

And for the record, pressure cookers scare me, but then I can a lot of stuff and refuse to can things that require pressure cooking.. My luck - the lid would blow a hole in my kitchen ceiling.
 

What was objectionable about the Cruz-Grassley amendment?
http://www.ibtimes.com/cruz-grassley-unveil-alternative-gun-control-plan-1198251#
 

@Christine:

First of all, I completely respect your feelings on this issue. Particularly for those who do not own guns, I understand that it seems non-sensical to do anything but increase the burdens on those wishing to obtain weapons. And on background checks, I'm not going to argue with you. In fact, if I were a member of that august, deliberative body you'd see a YEA next to my name on the rolls (provided I could make a few tweaks to the amendment).

But your intuitions on this issue--which I think it's fair to say are broadly held by advocates for gun control--are somewhat unique in the regulatory context. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what your talking about is the idea that we should do whatever it takes to save lives. Or, as President Obama is fond of saying, "If there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, we've got an obligation to try."

I ask you to consider this in light of virtually every other behavior that the government(s) regulate(s). For example, we could save more children every year than are injured by guns in ten years simply by requiring that all children under the age of 14 wear helmets, neck restraints, fire suits, and six-point harnesses every time they enter a motor vehicle. If the president's statement on gun control was meant to be universal (it was not), this would not just be "common sense" it would be a moral obligation.

But we don't do it. And the reasons why we don't do it are really at the heart of the gun debate. Part of the reason, of course, is that more people rely on cars (roughly 57% percent of the population) than own guns (roughly 45% of the population). This gives both the liberty and the efficiency interests a stronger voice for cars. Second, car accidents are "accidents" and gun violence is always violence. Or is it? It turns out that about half of child deaths resulting from firearms are accidental. Another reason is that extreme car safety measures unduly burden law-abiding, safe drivers who already follow speed limits and sit their children in child seats, etc. This line of reasoning applies even more forcefully to guns than to cars because almost all gun crime is committed with illegal guns by criminals who are already acting outside the strictures of the regulatory framework.

And on top of all this, a few facts remain: 1) Guns are not simply arbiters of death, they do have a legitimate (if not universally agreed upon) purpose; 2) Like it or not, the 2nd Amendment does protect (as SCOTUS has interpreted it) and individual right, subject to reasonable regulation--there is obviously room to debate the extent and meaning of the right, but there is no such right to many other deadly activities; 3) Unfortunately, if getting stronger background checks was the objective, the gun control crowd may have overplayed its hand by including bans and other strong amendments--to the average gun-owning voter, the amendments were not considered separately.

Just some thoughts.
 

CTL said: " Correct me if I'm wrong, but what your talking about is the idea that we should do whatever it takes to save lives."

Not really. In fact I am fairly cynical about the effectiveness about many of these laws (regulations). They look great on paper but are difficult to enforce. I don't think children under the age of 14 should be "wearing helmets, neck restraints, fire suits, and six-point harnesses every time they enter a motor vehicle." That would be stupidity on steroids.

Example: How do you enforce rules about keeping guns locked up in a home and bullets locked up in a different place? You can't. There needs to be a reasonable assumption that people will follow the law. A lot of these accidental shootings involving 'young' kids happen because we have a law with good intentions that can't be enforced. The fact that it doesn't happen more often indicates that many gun owning parents do take this seriously.

That said, as a citizen of this nation I would like to have a reasonable expectation that people purchasing firearms be deemed ....(not sure of the right word) to own a gun, etc... have been background checked ~criminal record, citizenship and "wish" it included mental health.

I use to be totally anti-gun to the point I could get myself removed from a jury pool - something about the regulated militia. The genie got let out of the bottle a long time ago on this point in the constitution. But living in rural America now I have learned to accept (don't like it) that people around me own guns to hunt, shoot predators on their farms, etc... I will never be comfortable with neighbors being able to shoot AR-17's (or the like) in their backyards.

I have other gun issues - like what happens to the guns when someone dies? What if the deceased has kids that are mentally unstable? Should someone taking certain types of medications be able to own guns? Magazine clip sizes....
Should some guns only be used at ranges?

These were not part of the topic so I will leave it at that.
 

A Closing Thought. I appreciate this discussion. There was an opportunity to follow national leadership and engage in name calling and distortion. I think we avoided that trap, rejecting emotion for logic, choosing civility over toxic bile. It is a good day to be a member of the Razor community.

God Bless.
 

This blog showed the power of the gun and munition manufacturers. They got legislation preventing the federal gov. to compile statistics on injuries and deaths by guns. Strange but true.

The only statistics available that include gun violence are available from independent sources.

They campaign against registration and regulation. Things that kill so effortless should be registered and regulated.

We should be limiting the power of this industry to influence our decisions The story should not be about gun ownership, freedom to carry, or prohibiting guns as sports activities until we have faced the monster.

A coward is someone who flinches when facing power. Principle can explain flinching, sometimes.
 

Feel free to write your own headline for this story, but the word from Max Baucus that he will not seek an umteenth term as senator from Montana says something about our subject from last week. What it says, of course, is subject to all manner of interpretation.