Tom, I’m hoping you will talk about how the hodgepodge of state laws can make inadvertent felons of otherwise law-abiding gun owners. Firearms permits are state-by-state. Only a few states recognize permits from their neighbors. This means that, for example, a Mass gun owner who lives in Taunton, gets lost, and finds herself on the Rhode Island side of the border has committed a felony.
We’ve got several pending cases in the Massachusetts appellate courts dealing with our safe storage law and again, otherwise law-abiding folks, who are convicted of felonies because the way they stored their firearms wasn’t deemed in compliance with a vaguely-worded statute. I’ve caused long discussions in talks for groups of Mass lawyers debating how a Mass gun owner with a Class B License to Carry can legally transport a firearm from the site of the talk, across a public parking lot, by car to her home, with a stop enroute at a post office and how that might differ with a Class A License to Carry, or a Class A, restricted to Target and Hunting.
I am hoping that the Supreme Court firmly states that the Second Amendment applies to the States and that gun laws must pass strict scrutiny.

This should be an interesting show. It seems to be a case of states’ rights vs. Federal law. Usually, conservatives, if they like a Federal law, want it to be enforced; if they don’t, they want the states’ to take precedence.

I see no problem in people having guns in there home if they wish to, but walking around with concealed ones seems to me the issue, having one in a bar is even more so troubling since drinking is involved,even in collage i would be much more fearful if people were walking around with loaded weapons.

But whats funny is local and states rights vs Fed and whose side the NPR is on this time.

“A problem may be that shos like this often do not go beyond the stereotyped gun owner to folks like Pink Pistols (a gay/lesbian/bi/trans gun owners group), Second Amendment Sisters (a women’s gun owner group), or self-defense trainers who work with domestic violence victims, stalking victims, victims of rape, or others who have very serious self-defense needs for which a firearm is an appropriate option.” -L.J.S.

This is failed logic to suggest that people who want strict gun laws would feel differently if they just saw gun owners in a different light, or that some gun owners have more of a need for safety, therefore better justification to have their guns with them, loaded and concealed.

I would permit guns as long as they are utilized by members of well regulated militia formed for the protection of the security of the state. Anyone who does not belong to such militia and does not act for the security of the state has no right to bear arms.

Well, that excludes recreational or professional hunting, of course, but that’s about it.

I’m not sure we’re all that smart. Any nation in which rape, stalking and other threatening behavior are so common that people really “must” be allowed to carry a deadly weapon is a nation on a downslide. I’m into trouble avoidance: contraception as preferable to abortion; education as a way to empower people, not guns; control over our own lives rather than granting corporations that control.

Maybe NPR could be on the side of real freedom by presenting the choices clearly, even starkly.

Define weapon? If I want to install a anti-aircraft weapon on my front porch, should that be allowed? On a radically different angle, encryption technology is controlled as a munition. Should the law protect me if I decide to have my conversations encrypted? Should cell phones be encrypted to protect privacy. The federal government wants to keep the key to listen in.
Where do you stop when granting individual rights? The second amendment is to allow citizens to protect themselves from tyranny of the government. What type of weapon is needed to protect citizens from their government?

Laws like this Chicago statute are ridiculous- all they do is keep law-abiding Americans from owning and carrying firearms. This has no bearing on those criminals who would carry a gun- no law will keep them from doing so.

And Corri- if you don’t want Americans to carry weapons (no matter what kind- knives, clubs or AK-47′s), the founding fathers gave us the perfect way to relieve us of the right to do so- amending the Constitution.

The amendment Ashbrook read — the right to bear arms is based on the need for a “well-regulated militia” — aren’t they discussing how a “well-regulated militia” takes place?

Otis McDonald (and every American) must have the right to defend himself, especially in his own home.

Reasonable restrictions yes, but once people have been effectively *prohibited* from owning firearms, then the government has gone too far, obviously.

The possibility that a homeowner may be armed deters crime. Conversely, the common knowledge that homeowners can’t be armed practically provokes crime.

“Are you saying we should still have slavery.”

Slavery was outlawed by a constitutional amendment. It took a war to jam it through, but nevertheless.

On the other hand, the text of the Second Amendment is so pliable you can bend it anyway you want it. If you choose to ignore the “Well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State…” then I guess anything goes. But if you are strict constructionist and don’t like to throw words out of the text then the right to bear arms is not so broad as some would like us to believe.

I am pretty sure our founding fathers were were referencing something more like our National Guard when they wrote a of “militia”. We have that already. Regulating handguns has nothing to do with this discussion.

Guns don’t kill people! People kill people. imagine yourself or a loved one in danger of life from another, if you have gun, you have a decision to make. If you don’t will you die wishing you did?

One more thing, Vince-

If someone is so driven to kill, they will get a firearm by whatever means necessary. Again, these restrictions only affect law-abiding Americans by depriving them of their right to defend themselves. Many of the mass-killings that you refer to may have been cut short, if even one person had been carrying a gun.

Ironically, it’s Alex who’s bending the 2nd Amendment (to include hunters for instance who aren’t mentioned…) and ignoring the phrase “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Here’s an idea:

Go all out pro second amendment and reduce the dangers of (hand)gun crime by making poverty unconstitutional.

“well regulated militia” – what happened to that phrase’s connection to the issue?
I don’t have time at work to read all, and only got to hear the first half; Alex’ comment gets at it, but it’s surprisingly little mentioned

WHAT THE HELL KIND OF ARGUMENT IS “we have better medical technology now”????

I would like to know from where your guest professor from Roger Williams get his data from: all the recent shootings in universities in the USA were perpetrated with machine guns; so clearly the most effective laws are not the ones restricting small hand guns, as he said. Legislation restricting all SALW would save lives.

The premise of the case now in the Court is that guns protect people, that they are an effective self-defense tool
However they are not. There is authoritative research that proves that guns are actually detrimental to security.
When will American legislators and judges realize that the USA is the world’s arms bazaar and move to restrict civilian gun possession?

How many more shootings in universities and public places will we need? In other nations of the world, these kinds of incidents made legislators to move to more sensitive legislation, except here in our country.
What is at stake here is not municipal or federal rights, it is the quest for saving lives.
Thank you TOM. I love your show.

Have enjoyed the program on gun control and am sure the courts will overturn the ruling. When the rule was written there was no police, no military and people during this time needed their guns for hunting to provide food for the family, it was not totally intended to protect oneself from people. They need to consider the times the provision was written and do not feel the time then applies to the time now – we now have the police and military.

Do I feel safer now with people carrying a weapeon – no they are untrained and if they were faced with a criminal with a gun all we would have is a bunch of bullets flying around and more people are either killed and injured.

Rich

I agree with Patrick, thus the word “militia” since a collective militia would be able to discharge many rounds and defend themselves against an unjust government. Forefathers didn’t intend for one person to have the ability to go crazy with firearms against their govt bec they wouldn’t win.

Also, if I exercise my free speech right can you guarantee that someone won’t threaten me by sticking their gun in my face. Which right trumps the other?

I’m inclined to like this Supreme Court, which has done more for the Constitution in the last 2 years than I can remember the executive or legislative branches ever doing.

We just had the Citizens United case come down, which I feel does two things. It shuts up the talk in some political circles that we need to curtail or license freedom of speech. And it’s going to accelerate the corruption of our system unless the politicians get off their butts and do something about it. (That is, take money out of the system.)

If the expected ruling comes down in McDonald v. Chicago it will be a nice rebuff for the gun grabbers and all of these out of touch people who think we don’t need a Second Amendment. Let’s not forget that tyranny is nothing new; in fact it’s the trajectory of power. The Founders knew it, lived it, wrote about it at length, and that is why they enshrined this inalienable right into the Constitution.

Just yesterday, an elderly man opened fire on the medical staff at Danbury (CT) Hospital. Question: How will the ederly be regarded in these gun laws when it seems the DMV has more control over restricting his driving rights then his ability to own (legally) a gun.

Thank you

I think it is valid to say someone who is planning on using a gun will bring it to a situation regardless of the law. However, making gun carrying legal in any situation allows easy access in a situation where a confrontation is unexpected.

I heard one of your experts mention that gun laws don’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals only law abiding citizens. If that is so, why have ANY laws if they are all ineffective in stopping those who would break the law?

The very idea that the right to bear arms is being interpreted as a right for individuals to literally posses a firearm on their persons is laughable. The right to bear arms is the right to fight as a soldier in the military. The spirit of this right comes from the American Revolution and organizing a trained group of fighters.

Not only that, allowing people to own guns legally can and does lead to increased access to firearms in the illicit market. Why is it that we want to own firearms to begin with? We live in a culture of violence and it doesn’t help that our government is sending the message that violence is a way to solve problems.

The ‘blood in the streets’ Carl keeps talking about has just not materialized. We’ve had increasingly light gun control in most parts of the country for the past 10 years, and violent crime has fallen.

I’m disappointing On Point has let his points go completely unchallenged to the point where the CBS reporter even is taken aback.

Stone-

Laws serve to punish criminal behavior, not necessarily prevent it. It is then up to a would-be criminal to decide if the possible punishment for a crime would be a deterrence.

Is there any data that shows the percentage of firearms used in violent acts/ crmes which are stolen? It seems to me that, if guns were band, there would be a lower total number of guns in circulation and therefore fewer guns to be used for violent acts.

Wake up, Alex. The SCOTUS decided that DC could not prohibit individual gun ownership. It’s TRUE.

If the Founders wanted to restrict gun ownership to state-regulated militia members, they would have used language that was restrictive, using the word “only” prepositionally for instance. But they didn’t, and gave the inviolable rights of gun ownership to “the People.”

Infringe: verb. To break or violate a treaty, a law, a right etc.

In 1997, a British run study collected over 88,000 reports of firearm deaths worldwide. The results of this study showed that the US had more than 14 per 100,000 that year, 8 times the rate of other highly developed nations. About half of these deaths were suicides, but in other countries, suicides were over 70% of all firearm deaths.
While it is true that motor vehicles cause over 40,000 deaths per year in the US, which is a lot more than firearms, most people need to drive to work, while most do not need to own or carry a firearm, and it does not make them safer statistically to do so.

“If the Founders wanted to restrict gun ownership to state-regulated militia members, they would have used language that was restrictive, using the word “only” prepositionally for instance. But they didn’t, and gave the inviolable rights of gun ownership to “the People.””

It is a matter of interpretation and who does the interpreting. I certainly see the possibility of different outcomes. Just as long as we don’t forget that the founders saw it fit to include in the text: (1) well regulated militia and (2) necessary for the protection of a free State.

It is a matter of interpretation and who does the interpreting. I certainly see the possibility of different outcomes. Just as long as we don’t forget that the founders saw it fit to include in the text: (1) well regulated militia and (2) necessary for the protection of a free State.

Obviously it’s a matter of interpretation.

What I’m complaining about is that most people on both sides of the debate don’t seem to interpret it at all! They make no reference to it, they ignore it, or they just give it a passing nod. They focus entirely on the “shall not be infringed” part. That’s intellectually dishonest.

Any discussion of the Second Amendment must include a clear description of what (one thinks) the founding fathers intended by that clause. Otherwise it’s completely meaningless.

Jeff, I think you are incorrectly interpreting the Constitution. It specifically doesn’t spell out ‘this is OK, this is not’ BECAUSE there was no knowing of the societal and technical changes that would come through time. That allows ‘future lawmakers’ to both follow the Constitution and make law that is reasonable in their time. An outright ban on assault rifles in no way violates the 2nd amendment.

There is no period, no “this is a second item” in the text. The right to bear arms is specifically related to the needs of the “well regulated militia”. If you want to strictly follow the Constitution, only those people who are part of a militia would have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of providing security of a free state.

The “founders couldn’t foresee semi-automatic weapons” argument strikes me as a looser for three reasons:

3. At the time of the founders, private citizens could own weapons equal and beyond the state-of-the-art military weapons. Private citizens and corporations owned muskets and pistols, but also cannons, mortars and even *warships*. The first submarine, used right over in Boston Harbor, was privately owned by its inventor. If you’re telling my private citizens can own warships but not repeating small-arms, I think you’re crazy.

3. Those who argue this are seldom serious about it’s consequences. If the second amendment only applies to arms the founders could foresee, then are you willing to allow people to go about their business with a brace of flintlocks and a sword on their belt? I suspect not.

1. The founders couldn’t foresee TV, radio, or the internet, all of which make dangerous and reactionary ideas spread faster and see a wider audience. But we don’t restrict these mediums just because the founders didn’t have them.

“Guns don’t kill people! People kill people. imagine yourself or a loved one in danger of life from another, if you have gun, you have a decision to make. If you don’t will you die wishing you did?”

This post reminded me of a Mark Russell performance I watched many years ago. Here’s what I remember him saying. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Oh yeah? Did you ever try to throw a bullet”

I listened to the show. I was very irritated by much I heard (I am for hand gun control!). My mother just happened to call me to talk about my daughter and asked how I was.. I told her irritated because of what I just learned….she told me that yesterday at the hospital she works (Danbury CT) they had a shooting yesterday. An old man (a patient) shot a nurse. Luckily he was in a hospital with advanced medical technology (please read sarcasm in that) and the nurse will live.

All this talk about having people break into your home and shoot you ignores one simple fact: this sort of crime is rare. Gun owners are far more likely to kill someone they know, and victims of gun violence are rarely killed by strangers or in home invasion scenarios. You might as well argue that I should have the right to keep Tomahawk missles in my backyard in case I come under fire from hostile naval vessels.

One of the issues not addressed is firearm safety. Perhaps the most dangerous person in our society is one who purchases a handgun and carries it for “self protection” without knowing how (or when) to use it.
As an example, imagine a person who has never driven a car in their life going to a car dealership and ordering a motor vehicle, then having it delivered to their home. They put the keys away with no intention of driving unless, in an emergency, they need to drive themselves to the hospital. Anyone who carries a weapon owes it to themselves and others to train in its use and practice as often as necessary to keep up their skills.

It seems to me that instead of this knee-jerk reaction, hearing that someone somewhere was murdered in their home during a robbery and concluding that everyone should walk around with guns on their hips, we should logically and reasonably try to understand why gun violence is so much more prevalent in the U.S. than in other countries, most of which are much more restrictive when it comes to gun ownership.

This argument fails because of a false equivalency. (this is a debating term meaning that someone says ‘instead of A we should do B’, implying that A and B are equivalent.)

Working for social justice or changes in the laws or economic conditions to reduce the incidence of crime is a perfectly good thing to do, but it doesn’t address the individual’s need for self protection in the immediate term, so “instead” (above) is invalid.

“The right was put there so that we may violently overthrow the Government should it become too oppressive.”

The Communist Party believed that the government serving the needs of capitalists while oppressing workers was too oppressive. It also believed that such government should be violently overthrown. Sounds like Communists were just the thing the founding fathers were contemplating when they conceeived the 2d amendment.

The amount of people killed by legal guns compared to owners is miniscule. It’s the price of freedom. Freedom isn’t free or tidy. In fact, there are more criminals killed by legal guns than accidents, or mis-usage of legal guns. There are 100million gun owners, over 300million legal guns, and billions upon billions of legally own rounds of ammunition in the United States. Considering that, we do very well, and live very responsibly with guns. And do not compare the US crime rates to say parts of Europe until you realize that the US is larger in landmass and population than the whole of Europe. This decision is keeping guns in the hands of law-biding citizens. Criminals do not follow the law and will always get guns. Look at the crime rates of nations that have banned or severely restricted guns. Look at the same for cities in the US compared with those that don’t. The proof is right there. This will be common sense legislation. If you fear guns, that’s a psychological or ignorance problem on your part. The Founding Fathers were wise men, and do long as the 2nd is upheld and practiced by a large portion of our society, we will never become slaves.

Mr. Pike… it’s the price of freedom? So you don’t mind if innocent people get killed, as long you can keep an AK-47 under your pillow at night?

What does land mass and population have to do with rates of gun violence? We’re talking about rate stats, not counting stats. And, in fact, there is less gun violence in countries with gun bans.

I don’t buy into the conspiracy theories about the government “enslaving” us. First of all, the government IS us. Second of all, the Founding Fathers feared someone like Alexander Hamilton) who wanted to subvert the democratic process and turn our nation into a dictatorship. If we managed to survive the Bush/Cheney years, I think we can lay that fear to rest.

First of all, it’s pretty well established that far more legally owned guns end up killing people known to the owner than end up killing intruders. Second of all, Switzerland is a lousy example for a couple of reasons. First of all, ALL men in Switzerland have served in the military and have proper training in how to use a weapon, and are legally required to own a weapon. That’s why gun ownership rates are so high. Second of all, Switzerland does not have the fetishized gun culture that we have here. Third, as with most of Europe, crime rates are much lower anyway, so the odds of a weapon being used in commission of a crime are lower.

To look at Mr. MacDonald’s situation and conclude that he should own a gun is simplistic. There are larger issues here, like reducing crime generally. Also, if you “can’t apply a statistical generalization to one individual,” then you certainly can’t make law concerning everyone based on one person’s experience. Should my neighborhood drug dealer, or my neighbor with a history of mental instability (or even worse, my perfectly normal neighbor whose son is mentally unstable but undiagnosed and untreated) have the legal right to own assault rifles just because Mr. MacDonald’s home has been burgled? And by the way, Mr. MacDonald’s age is completely irrelevant.

This idea that criminals are going to break gun laws, anyway, so why have restrictions on guns is a bit ridiculous. Murderers are going to murder, anyway, so why have restrictions on murder? Law-abiding citizens don’t need laws on murder, and so on…

I find it interesting that conservatives want states’ rights applied to certain laws hoping those laws will be weakened under states’ rights [translation: RED states will chip away at certain laws enough to effectively weaken them], and when throwing it to states’ rights doesn’t produce the desired outcomes [translation: BLUE states serve to take the laws conservatives want undermined in a different direction than conservatives had envisioned], then they want to through it back to Federal law [translation: if the Federal law is better aligned with conservative views and undercuts liberal views].

I don’t have a problem with people owning guns to hunt or to protect themselves at home, but carrying them in public places? As far as protecting oneself against those who would do one harm in public? For that argument to hold water it means EVERYWHERE in public; bars, places of employment, schools, churches, courts of law, etc. Criminals would only really be deterred (based on the argument that gun power presence will protect an individual and deter criminal activity) if guns are out and in the open, i.e., owners would openly display their guns in public, therefore criminals would refrain from harming law-abiding citizens. Our legislative and judicial leaders don’t want this in their workplace. Most reasonable people would not want to see people having guns strapped to their sides in the aforementioned places.

Proponents who want to say that because gun restrictions are most prevalent in places where crime is highest, and this proves gun control doesn’t work, don’t want to look at the fact that those areas have higher concentrations of citizens. More people equals more crime.

To the one caller who said all of the states signed on to the Bill of Rights for ratification (falsely implying that states wanted to ensure for themselves what he considers rights bestowed by the Constitution): actually, only 3/4 did; and, Madison introduced the BoR to reconcile the conflict between the anti-Federalists and the Federalists to get the states to accept ratification of the Constitution itself. States saw the Bill of Rights (as well as it was Madison’s intention) as a way for them to RESTRICT the powers of the Federal government only (they feared the Constitution would allow the Federal government too much power), i.e., if a state wanted to arm its citizenry, the Federal government couldn’t at some point say no. (If this is true then the converse should also be true; if a state/munipality wants to restrict gun ownership in some way then the Federal government doesn’t have the right to supersede such laws.)

The 14th Amendment was adopted as one of the Reconstruction Amendments in 1868 to further and better define that the BoR pertained to a broader definition of citizenship and that each state could better uphold the rights of its citizens (under state constitutions) using due process and equal protection. So, effectively, not only restricting Federal government actions but giving better definition to states’ powers.

Based on Madison’s intention, and based on the 14th Amendment, the case in the SCOTUS should not be allowed to strike down Chicago’s ban on handguns. Besides, Mr. McDonald CAN own a “long gun”!

It appears to me that the Court will finally give Americans the right to pretend they are nouveau John Waynes shooting up “bad guys” (not just Nazis, but all those heathen “Injuns”) without making us into “bad guys” ourselves.

Second of all, Switzerland is a lousy example for a couple of reasons. First of all, ALL men in Switzerland have served in the military and have proper training in how to use a weapon, and are legally required to own a weapon. That’s why gun ownership rates are so high. Second of all, Switzerland does not have the fetishized gun culture that we have here. Third, as with most of Europe, crime rates are much lower anyway, so the odds of a weapon being used in commission of a crime are lower.

I agree with all that and it exactly illustrates my point – it’s not the guns! Instead it’s a whole bunch on non-gun factors which you mentioned. Whether you have gun violence has nothing to do with the guns, per se, or whether they are “assault rifles”, which in the Swiss case they really are. (in the US case an AR-15 is an assault rifle).

Anti-gun advocates have staked out a position that guns are inherently evil and dangerous to society. Ironically it’s also the liberals who are saying that “instead” of guns we should address social and economic issues. As I said above, it’s a false equivalency. But as the Swiss case shows, the way to end gun violence does not involve banning guns.

Should my neighborhood drug dealer, or my neighbor with a history of mental instability (or even worse, my perfectly normal neighbor whose son is mentally unstable but undiagnosed and untreated) have the legal right to own assault rifles just because Mr. MacDonald’s home has been burgled? And by the way, Mr. MacDonald’s age is completely irrelevant.

Even gun-owner advocates like the NRA oppose allowing criminals and the mentally ill to own guns, so I think that’s a straw man. The relevance of Mr McDonald’s age is that fighting back some other way, or flight, may not be options.

As others have already pointed out in this discussion, the courts have consistently recognized that people have a right to self-defence. So what would you tell Mr McDonald or other people living in high-crime areas who feel vulnerable in their homes to do?

“Guard with jeolous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.” -Patrick Henry

“I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people…To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them…” – George Mason

“Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed — unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms.” -James Madison

“…Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace.” -Thomas Paine

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States…” -Noah Webster

Gee Ben Pike I sense some serious hostility there.
So you think you should be able to over through the government by force. I disagree with you. So now what?
We meat at the OK coral and shoot it out?

By the way the second amendment did absolutely nothing to protect this country in the war of 1812.

sorry typo… meat should be meet…
I guess there is some irony in that however.

“well regulated” implies that said armed population should drill and practice together regularly. -peter nelson

Perhaps, but it isn’t clear that “well regulated” implies “drill and practice together regularly.” My impression is that “well regulated” is not quite so internal, that this means the “militia” should adhere to certain standards, of certain procedures, protocol, and regulations, which could be implying an outside standard by which the militia adheres. They cold have “drilled and practiced” all they wanted to but if they didn’t adhere to a certain they wouldn’t be considered a “well regulated” militia.

With that being said, I’m not against owning guns, but where/when/how should be considered for other citizens safety. When citizens’ safety are threatened by loose gun law/regulation, their “personal right” are equally stripped away.

**** since I suspect this how most guns are threatened to be used- which we have no way of tracking since there may be no physical injury, only emotional.****

Thank you for your post, can’t agree more!

Ben Pike, I agree part of what you said, it is true that even the most advanced weapons won’t defeat the million strong will. But I suppose the most deadly weapons are those explosive bombs are being used very strategically, not those guns were being used to shoot. But again, this is only assuming war and breakout battles when that happens. But in a stable orderly society, we should have strict gun law as for when/where/how to carry guns, if not, loose gun laws/regulations is equally taking away the liberty of others choose not to own/use guns.

Ben Pike are you serious? So how do you think you would stand up to a drone with heat sensors and other high tech gadgetry? Or a highly trained marksman with 50 cal?

Do you really think a bunch of hot heads with semiautomatic weapons can take on the military?

Sure one could engage in the kind of guerrilla warfare of the Taliban but it should be noted that they have decades of experience in this. Of course you could have military training, but unless you are keeping up with it the odds are pretty much against you. A loose civilian militia would never stand a chance against a well trained Swat team let alone a company of Marines.

Anyway all this talk of armed resistance is absurd.
Does Ruby Ridge ring a bell?

Most public discussions about gun laws and the consequences of their enactment, enforcement etc. produce a lot of imaginative scenarios about “what would happen if…” assertions–inherently scientifically unprovable counterfactuals.

You could add to the clarity of the discussion substantially if you would have John Lott Jr. on your program.. He is the author of various publications including, MORE GUNS LESS CRIME. He can provide empirical evidence–by state,by time frame, etc.

Ben you’re the one who said the right to bare arms was intended to be used to overthrow the government. Not me.
You are the one making some pretty extreme points, not me.

I do not think that the federal government has the right to tell my state how to enforce gun laws. I’m not afraid of guns, I own one. But when I hear people like you talk in these absolutes I find myself wondering if the person behind this rhetoric has any sense at all.

We do not live in the 18th century anymore.
Woman are not property and we do not own slaves.

Mr. McDonald should be able to keep a gun in his home.
I have no problem with that. However the odds of him shooting someone in an argument are higher than him shooting an intruder.

Do people remember a case in which a young Japanese exchange student was shot because he was in a Halloween costume looking for a party and went to the wrong address. The two parties had a language problem and the owner of the house shot and killed the boy. The outcome of that was the it was an accidental shooting but the shooter was so upset by what happened he gave up his guns.

America this nation of eternal kids, still looking up to the “Founding Fathers” for guidance.Laws are made to serve the common good, not the other way around.The supreme court should be a body that adapts the Constitution to TODAY’S REALITIES.
Other advanced countries have gun restrictions and they have a lower crime rate an safer cities( in comparison).

The Nation needs to grow up, the foundings fathers set rules according to the realities of their time, they will surely not object to us doing the same for our times.

They had gunpowder,muskets and the need for occasional militias for public protection.
We have automatic weapons of all sort, the atomic bomb,a national police force…

This is a different America, no more indians and minorities to hunt down with impunity!

Maybe that’s what some people are secretly missing??

I notice Liberals tend to do two things. They usually say they do not understand the Conservative mind-set. Then often in the same breath, they cast what they tout as light on the fact that Conservatives and Conservative Agendas are “secretly” fueled by x,y,or z (usually some kind of race based secret hate). Which is is Liberal folks? Do you understand us better than we do ourselves, or can’t fathom what we think? You can’t have it both ways. Honestly, it’s all really a deep seeded reflection of your own Freudian hang-ups that you seem to foist upon Conservatives, and then take pot-shots at. You guys don’t know if you’re coming or going, and betray your wounds constantly. You guys are the ones who think about race all day. You guys are the ones that are afraid of what you might do with a gun. You guys are the ones who skew, distort, fib, and pass blame in my observation and opinion. Is it any wonder you can’t wield power even with a super-majority? You guys need Prozac, not Power.

****The difference here in my opinion justanother is that the argument of one right infringes another does not hold water. Just because some people are afraid of guns does not mean they should be listened to. How about people who are afraid of Black People?****

We need to focus on the issue of “when/where/how to carry guns”, not whether people should or should not own/use guns, that’s not the point of debate here. Some people choose not to own/use gun not because they are afraid of guns, there are numerous reasons for that. Some just never feel the need to, not born to a environment of hunting, or feeling threatened constantly. And if some feel the need to own guns, totally respected.

But in reality, if people are allowed to carry guns in such public areas, you can’t prevent the higher chance of accidents, abuse of gun uses. And this is what I was talking about my sense of freedom and peace are being equally stripped away. And yes, my voice should be listened to.

Well that is the point is it not. Do people not remember those guys with the rifles slung over their shoulders at the Tea Party marches when Obama was in the town they were in? That’s a pretty aggressive statement, and I might add not a very smart one in my opinion.

I think gun ownership is a privilege as well as a right according to the 2nd amendment. Most of the murders committed in this country are by people who knew their victims and it’s usually the result of a domestic dispute.

I’m not against people owning weapons, I only think they need to be trained and licensed. I also do not see why anyone would need an automatic AR15 or a 50 caliber sniper rifle.

Martin Luther King said “War is a poor chisel for carving out peaceful tomorrow”. Well, if war has been fought and sacrifice has been given by our ancestors, their wish is to build a stable, orderly and peaceful society for their future generations, hoping that laws bring justice, not by arms.

I don’t wish to live in a jungle where I have to watch my back constantly. We call it a “battle field”, not a “living place”.

“justanother, you have to “watch your back” now. All this does is give you the chance to survive. It turns you from sheep to sheepdog.”

I go to my local bar pretty often. However, if patrons start arrivng under the protection of armed guard that will be the end of my going there. This is just nuts. There is a risk of being mugged, I suppose, but if people will start showing up with guns then the risk of something bad happening will turn into virtual certainty. The only benficiary of that situation will by Hollywood.

***justanother, you have to “watch your back” now. All this does is give you the chance to survive. It turns you from sheep to sheepdog.***

Ben Pike,

Thank you for your advise. But i’d rather have a peaceful mind, then a constant “anxious mind”.

Laws can only do so much to prevent crimes, it is the way of deep rooted culture and mentality need to be revolutionized.

Alot of folks talk about the police as if they will arrive in moments and will always be available. The police do a fine job, but unless you live next to the station, the response time is minutes at best, and may be a lot longer. (How many of you know the average response time for your neighborhood?) When things go badly wrong, for the most part, the police arrive in time to cordon off the crime scene and take statements — whatever happened is long over.

And there’s the assumption the police will always be there. Katrina proved that wrong. Yes, crime and disasters are frequently rare — which is a thing to be thankful for. But one may wish to plan for the worst — you have smoke alarms in your house? fire extinguisher in your kitchen? property insurance? life insurance? first aid supplies? maybe took a CPR course or know some first aid? Why — because bad things can happen, and many people take precautions. A firearm isn’t for everybody. Each person needs to think about their needs, their risks, their capabilities, in this area as in many others — the question is if you do decide given all of that the risks and burden of owning and/or carrying a firearm outweigh the risks of not owning one, and oen isn’t prohibited by a felony record, or mental illness, or other statutory disqualifiers — then why should you not be allowed to do so?

At the risk of going far off track — liberals tend to trust folks with life-n-death decisions, like trusting women to make their own decision on aborotion — so why then not trust law-abiding adults to make another life-n-death decision on whether to own and/or carry a firearm?

Ben Pike,

How do you know I’m defenseless and vulnerable without a gun?

Tell me how can you prove you were defending yourself when you shot a person in the public assuming guns are allowed in public area?? You will still need law enforcement and going through legal process to prove that, don’t you?

Jeffe, conservatives tend to trust people with different life-n-death decisions — gun ownership and jurors voting on the death penalty, for instance, but not with decisions like abortion and euthenasia. Not saying either side is right, but that it seems that trusting people to made adult decisions on gun ownership would be quite consistent with a liberal philosphoy.

justanother, Where I’m from, if a man threatens your life or property, especially on your own property, the law is behind you. You may use deadly force if you deem it necessary. Remember Police Officers are just armed citizens, not soldiers, with a rite of authority. They can not be everywhere. It is up to you to defend yourself, not the Police.

Mr. Nelson, I’ll answer your question with another question. What will you say to the neighbor or brother or child of a Mr. MacDonald who gets shot to death because of an argument with said gun owner, or because of an accident? Because that already happens way more often than burglars being shot. Putting more guns out there will only make it worse. I don’t know what the fancy debating term is for your question, but I know that it’s just a method for distracting from the real argument.

What has happened to Mr. MacDonald is awful. But his municipality needs to make more of an effort to reduce crime in his neighborhood, and a security system and a dog would probably be more effective in keeping him safe than a gun he’d most likely fumble around for in the dark before accidentally shooting himself.

justanother, your life is your own property, and it goes anywhere you go.

Paul K. I took issue with your assumption that you know better than the man in question. I did not insult you or call you a child or irrational as you have.

You accused me of being racist. How is that not an insult? Do you consider it a complient? I never brought race into the discussion, that was you. I thought it was fairly clear that I believe that gun control should extend to all people, not just people of a certain race (since, again, I never mentioned race anywhere in any of my posts). Clearly you needed that spelled out for you. No one else jumped to that conclusion.

justanother, the date for your argument is not here yet. The data for the argument against your claim is. You will just have to accept the courts decision and wait and see.

Ben Pick,

If you don’t believe life is hit and miss with odds, taking no chances, then you’d better demand your government to regulate our cars with bullet proof, or free of accidents.

I am just drawing on some ideas I have read on this blog. Like Anton Chekhov said: “if there is a gun hanging on the wall in the first act, it must fire in the last.”

The gun debate, like the race debate will go on forever. Both debates are continued on one side by well meaning, but cowardly folks that really don’t want a world without racism or fear. With racism you either treat all folks equally or you don’t – period. Zero room for any grey area. The gun debate is exactly the same – you either respect the U.S. Constitution, leave LAW ABIDING folks alone AND treast criminals liek they deserve to be treated ro you don’t. The gun debate would disappear completely if you gave swift, severe and harsh penalties to folks that kill, rape and rob their fellow citizens with extreme violence. As long as we as a nation are too cowardly to deal harshly with violent criminals then we will continue to waste our time, money and efforts on a stupid debate. Law abiding citizens are LAW ABIDING citizens so why punish them? Same with child molesters – repeat offenders!!!! Get an honest conviction then kill them. Wil a needle, a rope, electricity, sticks and stones – I don’t give a damn. Enough is enough already.

Tom,
Thank you for bringing in the opposing view to your first guest – his statistics on the circumstances where gun control works are completely false – the only place I can think of that gun control works fairly well would be prison.

Do you people REALLY think that criminals CARE what the laws are? Why then would you restrict the rights of normal, law abiding citizens?

What if there had been a concealed carry permit holder with a sidearm at Luby’s Cafeteria? At Columbine? At Fort Hood? Maybe then we would have minimized the casulties and produced a more acceptable outcome – a dead criminal. The liberals that want to ban guns like to play the ‘what if’ game, so fair is fair.

How is the crime rate in Chicago and D.C.??

One last question: Tom, do you own a firearm?

Thanks!

Hi – thanks so much for your show, always. I’m never comfortable when folks cite studies without any backup, e.g., “cities that have recently gotten rid of gun laws have seen drops in crime.” Actually, all cities since the early 90′s have had huge drops in violent crime – and to throw these sort of ideological claims out there without any specific references should be questioned.

Also – this distinction between “the criminals” and the “law’abiding people” should be questioned – Bernie Goetz was “law abiding” and permanently paralyzed a kid who asked him for money on the subway in front of many people. Crossing the line between law-abiding to criminal in a very tragic flash. Guns are a nightmare here in NYC, and allowing people to carry them means a lot more people of color are going to die unnecessarily. Oops – the speaker now is just saying this, sorry. THANK YOU!

We’ve come full circle in this nation. Tabula Rasa. Good Luck!

Whether I agree with you all or not, I want to leave this song here. I think it sums up everything almost as well as Mike Z’s great words did. I’m really happy about this day. I and people I know have been waiting for decades. It’s a real “WIN” for me today and I feel great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOA4ixV-3jU

“It’s time for American People to stand or fall on their own merit.”

I don’t think this issue is a “stand or fall” issue in the same way as the slavery issue was. The slavery issue went to the heart of the economic livelihood of the South. This gun issue is more like the smoking in public places issue, or whether you can be compelled to wear a seatbelt issue, or whether you can text while driving issue. Ultimately, it is an “I want” as opposed to “It is necessary” issue. Don’t exagerate its significance, please.

The difference is that killing and stealing are what we’re trying to avoid, that’s the primary offense. Outlawing people from having guns is only done to try to keep people from committing those other offenses. Without the potential primary offense (killing, robbing, whatever), there is no reason to want to keep people from owning a gun is there?

So that is the difference here, the gun law is ONLY there to stop another law from being broken and since the other law is much more serious, it doesn’t add up that a potential criminal would be worried about the lesser offense (owning an illegal gun) but not worried about the much worse offense (killing, etc.)

Hey Tom,

How about considering Castle Rock v. Gonzales, that Supreme Court case states that the police are not obligated to enforce a PPO, so if the police isn’t accountable for protecting us how then can you be so bias against our only sure means to protect our families from possible violence (burglaries, home invasions with other forcible felonies committed against us?

Also did you know that Justice Stephan Breyer agreed that the police are not obligated to protect us at the same time believing we should not be allowed to be armed for self protection? How crazy is that?

http://www.a-human-right.com

The “militia” argument — that the 2A has to do with the National Guard — is tired. One just has to read some of the Founding Fathers’ writings on firearms to know what their intent was with the Amendment. It is in place to keep the power in the hands of the people.

Second, on the technology question — if the Second Amendment only applies to antique flintlock firearms, then the First Amendment should only apply to antique printing presses.

Here is the current effective US Code:

10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code – Section 311: Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Now… #2 above seems to indicate that all citizens between ages 17 and 45 are militia members.

****This is true in any world or time to present.
” A Free people ought…to be armed.”
George Washington. 1790.****

Thank you for posting the year “1790″, and said by “one” person, which determined the choices of 350 million of today’s American, which were/are not just made of white American.

Relevant? http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/facing-gun-issue-starbucks-throws-up-its-hands/19381679?icid=main|classic|dl1|link1|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Ffacing-gun-issue-starbucks-throws-up-its-hands%2F19381679

How would you like to be the employee that asks the gun toting stranger to leave the coffee house or the playground? I know I wouldn’t confront the armed individual, and would leave the premises to those who bring enough force to claim it as their own.

“Of course some might answer that if one of the people in that room had gun this might never had happened.”

Sure, assuming that other person was a good shot with the nerves of steel. Otherwise he/she could have done even more mayhem in a panic.

****I’m not scared of guns so lets just drop all this male testosterone macho nonsense.****

Exactly right! But Ben Pikes makes those arguments that shows no respect even if people are intimated by guns. A sensible person is not stupid or naive, they clearly know the danger of guns, either being misused or abused by idiots. If according to Ben’s mentality, why don’t we all unleash all animals, bears, lions, tigers….etc. to our public areas. Now don’t we all have a better chance to get attacked by those powerful, unpredictable animals, instead of leaving them along at their own habitats. But according to Ben, the concerned people don’t have a “voice” because they are realistic and intimated by those animals. So his argument of people are afraid of guns does not fly very well.

Ben then why is that almost every police organization in the country against the losing of gun laws?

Crime statistics have gone down all over the country due to the decent economic times before the rescission. they are starting to rise again.

You say that in states that have unrestricted guns laws there has been no problem with police and people carring weapons? Which states?

The places where it’s been done, crime has dropped.
Crime dropped drastically in New York City and they have some pretty tough gun laws. How do you explain that?

Open carry is tactically stupid, and I suspect you’d find few self-defense trainers who would disagree.

Once one advertizes having a gun, some bad guys are going to be scared off. Others may size up the owner and decide that he or she may make a good target if taken by surprise, with the opportunity to get a gun at the same time. If a confrontation looms, the person who is carrying openly has to weigh the risks of a gun grab in addition to any other risks in the incident. The person who is carrying concealed does not have to chose to draw the weapon if it looks like it will make the situation worse. It is an option, not a necessity.

Police get use special holsters that are designed to prevent gun grabs and typically get training in weapons retention. Nonpolice can get weapons retention training, but it isn’t common and needs practice to maintain the skill. Security holsters are likely available to the public, but tend to be bulkier and more expensive than what the folks at these public events likely use.

The public events are just that — publicity and politics. For the most part, you likely encounter everday folks carrying concealed many times each day, you just don’t notice because they are carrying concealed. (The FBI’s Law Enforcement Bulletin had an article on spotting concealed carry in the March 2006 issue (available on its website))

For the folks that feel unsafe with the notion of guns around — do you feel unsafe visting Vermont (which has very broad provisions for concealed cary), or New Hampshire, or Maine? How about many western states where concealed carry (and sometimes open carry) is much more common than in Massachusetts.

Curiously, Nelson Lund is Constitutional Law expert yet, most of his commentary were on sociological and criminological in nature. That is, outside his area of supposed expertise.

For example, he mentioned that crime rates “coincidentally” have gone down as gun laws have become more lenient, and he believed the two were related. Of course, any college freshman knows correlation doesn’t equal causation, but not Nelson Lund.

Here are other things that have “coincided” with lower crime rates: an aging population, an increase in seat belt laws, and the dramatic increase in organic food availability in grocery stores.

If states want to ban weapons it should be their right just as it is their right to make it legal to carry them. You can’t have it both ways. If you don’t like it move to a state that has carry laws if ti means that much to you.

The statistics pretty much point to more murders being caused by handguns by people who know each other.
No one seems to want to deal with the fact that crime and murders went down in NYC and this had nothing to do with people owning guns. How do you gun lovers explain this?

Algore well I guess that New York is one of the financial centers of the world and a major cultural center means nothing to you. That’s fine. You can pack your hand gun and walk around like you think you own the world. It’s a false sense of security. Yes murders are caused by hand guns, and your point is? What is the point that you are trying make? That is I have a hand gun and my wife has one and we have a fight we should both pull and may whoever is quickest at the draw wins?

I said, and pay attention because it seems to me you skipped a very important part of my statement, I said most murders are committed by people who know each other.
It’s not me who just made this up, it’s law enforcement agency data. You can twist this anyway you want. If you think you are safer walking around with a gun, good for you. I’m sure that get’s all the ladies hot.

As for the statement that NYC is not like the rest of the country? Well where exactly? Given that the majority of the population lives in cities or in suburbs outside of major metropolitan areas it seems that your comment is false. “Nobody cares” What is a normal city? I’m from NYC and I find LA to be weird on some levels.

Phoenix is just an unruly sprawl and has to much taupe as a color scheme. But these are my personal opinions. Which is what you posted here. You are just one person. Saying nobody cares is a bit much considering over 20 million people live in the greater New York City area.

By the way I don’t live in New York anymore, but I did live their for the first 25 years of my life.

Very funny algore. I love this statement. “Guns don’t kill people, people do”. Well duh, being inanimate objects they can’t. This statement is a bumper sticker that’s all.

These stats are from the FBI web page for 2008, 2009 is not complete so I chose to post this year.

I’ll point to a few interesting facts:

71.9 percent involved the use of firearms. Of the identified firearms used, handguns comprised 88.3 percent.

This is what I was talking about, notice that if you add up the 23.3% and the 54.7% you get a total of 78% of murders are committed by people who know each other.
I rest my case.

Concerning the relationships (if known) of murder victims and offenders, 23.3 percent of victims were slain by family members, 22.0 percent were murdered by strangers, and 54.7 percent were killed by acquaintances (neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.)

* In 2008, law enforcement agencies submitted supplemental homicide data to the FBI for 14,180 murders.

* Of the 14,137 murder victims of 2008 for whom gender was known, 78.2 percent were male. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 1.)

* Concerning murder victims for whom race was known, 49.0 percent were white, 48.6 percent were black, and 2.3 percent were from other races. Race was unknown for 239 victims. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 2.)

* Single victim/single offender situations accounted for 48.9 percent of all murders for which the UCR Program received supplementary data. (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 4.)

* Of the offenders for whom gender was known, 90.0 percent were males. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 3.)

* Of the offenders for whom race was known, 51.5 percent were black, 46.2 percent were white, and 2.4 percent were from other races. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 3.)

* Of the homicides for which the type of weapon was specified, 71.9 percent involved the use of firearms. Of the identified firearms used, handguns comprised 88.3 percent. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 8.)

* Concerning the relationships (if known) of murder victims and offenders, 23.3 percent of victims were slain by family members, 22.0 percent were murdered by strangers, and 54.7 percent were killed by acquaintances (neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.). (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 10.)

* Among female victims for whom relationships with their offenders were known, 34.7 percent were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Tables 2 and 10.)

* Concerning the known circumstances surrounding murders, 42.0 percent of victims were murdered during arguments (including romantic triangles) in 2008. Felony circumstances (rape, robbery, burglary, etc.) accounted for 22.9 percent of murders. Circumstances were unknown for 35.3 percent of reported homicides. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 12.)

* Law enforcement reported 616 justifiable homicides in 2008. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 371 individuals, and private citizens justifiably killed 245 individuals. (See Expanded Homicide Data Tables 14 and 15.)

Nobody believe them trumped up numbers. Numbers are unreliable. Enron cooked the books, Wall Street cooked the books. Everybody cooks the books. Nobody has any faith in that stuff no more. It what ya see with your own eyes that counts. Ain’t nobody takin’ my guns, I’ll tell ya that right here.

****“Guns don’t kill people, people do”****

What an idiotic statement and argument! Only an idiot would think guns have arms and legs and walk around killing people. And who invented guns, ahhhh….. let me think, humm…… think hard, think hard, ohh… I get it, it is human!!!!!!!

Please do me a favor, don’t use this lame old, intelligence insulting slogan anymore! Hummm…. sounds like one political party which is not very progressive.

****Nobody believe them trumped up numbers. Numbers are unreliable. Enron cooked the books, Wall Street cooked the books. Everybody cooks the books. Nobody has any faith in that stuff no more. It what ya see with your own eyes that counts. Ain’t nobody takin’ my guns, I’ll tell ya that right here.****

Humm…… typical case of “selective” hearing. When the numbers don’t add up to your subjective sense, you refuse to believe or block your ears. A sign of childishness, can we trust you with your beloved deadly toys??

****There are several studies dealing with guns and crime rates — Google will turn up many of them. The better ones are properly done, and account for differences in demographics. Supporters of gun ownership point to those that show that crime in states that allow more folks to carry concealed decreases faster than in similar areas with strong gun control laws. So yes, the better done studies do recognize the overall fall in rates.****

Please post those links you would recommend.

I don’t know the FBI stats seem pretty good. I mean we can spin this anyway we want to. L.J.S you just mentioned high crime areas. Well most of us do not live in East Baltimore or South Central LA. Still with all the shootings they have it is still interesting to note that from what I have been reading most crimes are done by people who know each other. The kind of person who is living in a rural area as algore is not likely to come across a gangbanger. He might come across a meth lab, and chances are they will be armed. I agree with you that crime stats can be misleading on some levels but if you work in law enforcement would you not agree that a high percentage of murders are committed by people who no each other.

Here is a reminder for the slow-witted amongst us here. This is why. You go ahead and glean it now!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyUu-8nbd58

Jeffe — thanks for the link. It is easier to debate if one is working from the same data.

Justanother — I’ll see what I can find, it may take a bit as I’d prefer to give cites to the underlying study, not to discussions of them.

If you want something sooner, I’d likely start with John Lott’s studies which were some of the first in the area, then look for those which followed him.

Jeffe — I work in criminal defense, not law enforcement, so I see a different subset of crime. It depends on what you mean by “know each other”. Let’s take my current open files involving assaults or homicides, which is in no way a statistically valid sample.

1 — Victim and accused were acquaintances, lived in same building, had friends in common. Accused was visiting victim when victim picked a fight with accused (accused won self-defense case)

2 — victims were three drug dealers. Accused is said to be another drug dealer and business rival. Obviously they know each other.

3 — victims were witnesses to a shooting. Accused is said to have killed them to prevent their testimony. They knew each other by sight and name, not directly acquainted.

4 — victim was a store owner. Accused is said to have committed an armed robbery in which store owner was killed. Some indication accused was a sometimes customer of the store and didn’t like the owner.

5 – victim was drug user. Accused is said to have shot him in a dispute over drugs. Accused and victim knew each other by sight and nickname.

At some level, all of these folks knew each other. None of the accuseds have firearms permits. Most of them have prior convictions that would prevent them from getting them. I don’t think they are a meaningful comparison to the licensed gun owner with no criminal record, no record of serious substance abuse or alcohol problems, no record of serious mental illness, etc.

Jeffe — it is hard to make decisions from single incidents. There are people who manifestly shouldn’t own guns, drive cars, sit on a jury, vote, etc. But there are trade-offs here — if you restrict gun ownership to try to eliminate the irresponsible folks, you risk responsible folks getting harmed because they don’t have the ability to protect themselves in a legitimate self-defense situation. Both events — the irresponsible idiot with a legallly-owned firearm (which Bishop was not, I can’t find a link that Bedell had a permit and lawfully bought his handgun) and the responsible person placed in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm where a firearm would be an appropriate response, are thankfully rare. I prefer to trust adults to make an individual decision for themselves about risk of harm by not having firearm vs. cost, inconvenience, and risk of having one, with society limiting ownership based on lack of criminal record, lack of treatment for seriouse mental illness, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, etc.

You didn’t say where your friend was or when, both of which can make a difference in the licensing rules. Or if the incident was reported to the police or if there was an investigation. If nobody present called the cops, it is hard to say that society is at fault for not restricting or removing the guy’s license. If the cops were called, investigated, and declined to cancel the license, I’d be curious if any reason was given. As I mentioned upthread, carrying while intoxicated in Mass is itself a felony.

L.J.S., the incident happened in New York in Nassau county. I left the scene as soon as this idiot stopped shooting. I’m not sure why he was not arrested as he was fighting with his girl friend. I did witness other incidents with this person doing dumb things with his gun and being under the influence of both drugs and alcohol. It’s moot now as he drove his car into a tree some twenty years ago. The amazing thing as I look back on that guys sad life is that he did not hurt anyone.
Lucky I guess, or maybe he knew how to take up to the edge and pull back. You never know.

Bishop bought her gun somewhere and she went to a shooting range to practice. The Bishop case has so many twists and turns and from what I have been reading about it there seems to be some real law enforcement problems. She should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter at the very least after she shot her brother, but she was let go.

Bedell also had no trouble buying a gun.

I guess this is an issue of people with mental disorders and how the rights of individuals in general cross paths.
However I don’t see why we can’t have some kind of registration process that does a good background check.
Also a waiting period is not a bad idea. I’m not advocating that because of a few crazy people getting a hold of firearms we should ban them, far from it.
I do think we need to regulate gun shows, they are the wild card in this country and are under the radar.
Anyone can buy almost anything at some of these shows.

Jeffe: Problem is you don’t know what story was told to police if you weren’t there. Without knowing what story they got, hard to fault them. Similarly, hard to fault them for not investigating and pulling a license if no one is reporting the problem to them.

Until we have some info that Bishop and Bedell lawfully purchased their firearms, they aren’t useful examples of whether the existing gun laws work. In most, if not all states, you can’t just buy a handgun the way you buy a loaf of bread. Most states require a permit, which is, as noted way up-thread state-by-state. Federal law regulates sales of firearms across state lines.

There already is a background check system — that’s the NICS check.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm

Waiting periods have other issues — collectors, estate sales, folks who need to purchase or replace a firearm for competitions or training classes, and folks who do have an urgent self-defense issue. (In places where there is a required training course before getting one’s firearms permit, you have a defacto waiting period before one’s first purchase to take the class as well as the time needed to process the permit — which can take a couple of months in Mass.)

The point of NICS was to replace waiting periods with a federal background check. Most handguns, and many long guns, are too expensive to be impulse purchases.

Have you been to a gun show? These are mostly dealers selling to other dealers, collectors, and the public. There may be some private sales of folks who have an old rifle or handgun they want to sell and either dealers won’t give a decent price or the seller needs more than a dealer will offer.

The rules vary state by state. In Mass, _every_ transfer of a firearm requires state forms to be filled out documenting the transfer. The forms must include the gun license numbers of both parties, which means the seller needs to see the license to fill out the paperwork. There is no gun show loophole in Mass — private sellers have to document sales to the state gov’t. They don’t have to do a NICS check (and can’t because the system is limited to dealers). As I recall, outside of an executor selling a collection in an estate sales, private sellers are also limited to 4 sales to private persons per year — after that one needs to become a dealer, with more paperwork and the requirement to do NICS checks.

See
http://www.goal.org/handgunsales.html

That’s not to say there are not folks who don’t follow the law and likely well-meaning folks who don’t know to do it, but that’s going to be a problem in any system. It likely doesn’t affect many sales — there aren’t many private sellers out there. The folks who do lots of under-the-table sales seem to show up on police and ATF radar pretty quickly.

Other states may have different rules for private sales.