Broncos CB Darrent Williams killed in drive by shooting

[Sonny]

A weapon such as this is not what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the second amendment.

Really? You have some insight into what they were thinking when they framed the Constitution?

That certainly sounds like a "talking point of the left" to me. Did you get that one from Michael Moore or Al Fraken?

[CATLAX MAN]

People are much more likely to die in an auto accident than by a gun, so should we take some legislative action there also? Where do you draw the line? It's not as easy as you make it out to be. At what point do you cross the line when you start limiting rights granted by the Constitution? Gee, I think that religion stinks.......let's make that illegal. You know, I don't think that people who live in swamp areas should be allowed to vote...let's pass a law against that. Granted these are extreme examples, but I think that when you start limiting basic freedoms granted by the Constitution, you are treading a slippery slope.

Do we have a problem with violent crime? Absolutely. Making ownership of weapons illegal is not going to solve that problem. In most cases, the guns involved in these crimes are already illegally owned or procured by laws that are already on the books. So what solution has been presented? The proposal of a gun ban solves nothing, except it make a lot of leftists feel warm and fuzzzy that they've done something......when, in fact, nothing was accomplished. I don't purport to know how to solve the issue of violent crime, but I do know that a gun ban is not the answer.

[sohotrightnow]

A weapon such as this is not what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the second amendment.


Really? You have some insight into what they were thinking when they framed the Constitution?

That certainly sounds like a "talking point of the left" to me. Did you get that one from Michael Moore or Al Fraken?

How is this a "talking point to the left?" I suppose they were also including blacks and Native Americans when they penned "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence as well, right? Your buffoonery is amazing at times.

[Sonny]

One thing is clear. The Framers of the Constitution had the foresight to foresee possible changes to the Constitution. They enacted ways for Americans to AMEND the constitution. it's a novel concept.

[somrandomguy]

Really? You have some insight into what they were thinking when they framed the Constitution?

That certainly sounds like a "talking point of the left" to me. Did you get that one from Michael Moore or Al Fraken?

I support the second amendment as it was originally intended, which was two-fold:

1) Have a well regulated militia for national defense.
2) Make sure the populace is well armed in order to fight the government when the revolution comes

Seriously though, the second amendment was in fact written with those two purposes in mind; it's called looking at other historical documents in order to determine the intent of the framers, something that is quite common among those who study the Constitution.

[StrykerFSU]

If you make them harder to get, they become harder for criminals to get, because you drive up the price.

That theory has sure done a heck of a job getting drugs off our streets. Banning guns would only drive up the profit margin for illegal gun dealers and remove them from the hands of responsible citizens. As a society, we can't go around forbidding everything that may cause or be used to cause us harm be it guns, alcohol, drugs, porn, etc.

I'd be interested to read studies that have shown that increasing gun control legislation lowers violent crime.

More Guns, Less Crime

Violent crime hit an all-time high in 1991. Since then, "gun control" laws have been rolled back, the number of privately-owned guns has risen to an all-time high, and violent crime has dropped to a 30-year low.

More Guns. The number of privately-owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) estimates there were about 215 million guns in 19991; the National Academy of Sciences puts the 1999 figure at 258 million2. The number of new guns each year averages about 4.5 million (about 2%).3 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 60.4 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions from 1994-2004.4 The FBI reports that there were 61.6 million approved NICS transactions from Nov. 30, 1998 through the end of 2005, and that the annual number of transactions increased 2.4% between 2003-2004 and 3.1% between 2004-2005.5

More Gun Owners. The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (296 million), and rises about 1% annually,6 and numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.7 Some surveys since the late 1990s have indicated a smaller incidence of gun ownership,8 probably because of some respondents’ concerns about "gun control," perhaps a residual effect of the anti-gun policies of the Clinton Administration.

More Right-to-Carry. The number of RTC states is at an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987 to 40 today.9 In 2005, states with RTC laws, compared to the rest of the country, had lower violent crime rates on average: total violent crime lower by 22%, murder by 30%, robbery by 46%, and aggravated assault by 12%.10

Less "Gun Control." Violent crime has declined while many "gun control" laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. Many states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of Right-to-Carry laws. The federal Brady Act’s waiting period on handgun sales expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check, and some states concurrently or thereafter eliminated waiting periods or purchase permit requirements. The federal "assault weapon" ban expired in 2004. All states have hunter protection laws, 46 have range protection laws, 46 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and Congress and 33 states have prohibited frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.11

Less Crime. The FBI reports that the nation’s total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991-2004, to a 30-year low in 2004, and estimates that it rose 1% in 2005.12 (By comparison, the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics crime victim survey found that "at the national level crime rates remain stabilized at the lowest level experienced since 1973," when the first such survey was conducted.14)

According to the FBI, in 2005 the nation’s violent crime rates were significantly lower than they were in 1991, when the violent crime rate hit an all-time high. In 2005, total violent crime was lower by 38%, murder by 43%, rape by 25%, robbery by 48%, and aggravated assault by 33%. During 2004-2005, total violent crime was lower than anytime since 1976. For the last seven years, the murder rate (between 5.5 and 5.7 per 100,000 annually) has been lower than anytime since 1965.13 Studies by and/or for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime.15

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007

[Sonny]

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.

[Rob Graff]

I'm fascinated with how this discussion developed - this group - which shares a common love of a sport and continously bands together to further it's development refuses to see any potential truth in the other sides arguments - there is no listening going on here. To simplify:

On one side we have people saying it's individual conscious choice that results in the disproportionate death statistics, so punish those and the problem goes away because everyone else will be afraid of the consequences and not commit a gun crime or be in jail for a gun crime.

On the other we have those saying removing the hardware will make the problem go away because when we're mad at aunt ethel for the meatloaf, we won't have access to a gun.

Why cannot we see the grains of truth in both these positions? Why cannot we each bend a bit and work on seeing that we each can add somthing toward a solution?

And at a larger level, if we - with our shared love of a unique sport and shared respect for all that we each do for the growth of that sport -- cannot take the time to listen to each other's point of view on political issues, and instead remain content in our own world of certainty, than I see decades of conflict ahead for our country. It is communities such as ours that share an interest outside of politics and include all different types of viewpoints that can best help our nation bind the deep 50-50 divison that has developed over the past 16 years.

Why? Because if Sonny can convince me of some parts of his view on an issue, and I bring that common sense to those I call friends, and Stryker can see wisdom in what Adam G says and speaks to his friends about it, then maybe we find the wisdom in each side's thoughts, and can shed ourselves of erroneous detritus that has accumulated in each of our thought processes. And then, once we realize that solutions likely arsise from wisdom gleaned from all sides, perhaps we can start finding solutions instead of placing blame.

Communities like this one are quite simply one of the few that are politically integrated - and one of the few where we can hear what the other side is thinking/saying from people we know and respect. I'd like to think we can do better.

[somrandomguy]

*snipped for brevity*

That's definitely a nice sentiment, and one people should take to heart, but I doubt that in the history of the internet anyone intelligent enough to form their own opinions was ever swayed by stuff on a message board.

Sitting around, having a few beers, and talking, on the other hand...

[StrykerFSU]

I think it is a little deeper than finding small truths in both sides. A debate such as this one shows how different people have fundamental differences in belief about how the world works.

In this case, if we are to believe that there are two distinct sides of the argument (I believe that to be an over simplification) one side believes that Americans have the right to bear arms without restriction and the other believes the government should control or ban gun ownership (another over simplification).

Sure, the framers of the Constitution did not have AK-47's in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment but their purpose was to allow for a citizenry that could protect itself. Now, I've never tried to buy a gun but it seems there are currently many laws on the books (20,000 by one estimate, I'm assuming state and federal) to do background checks etc. on potential buyers. Also, as I cited before, according to the FBI as gun ownership has gone up crime has gone down.

On the other side are those that wish to ban gun ownership or restrict private ownership to "hunting" guns. If we look at the government's attempts to ban things in the past all we find are failures. Prohibition did nothing to curb American's love of alcohol but did provide huge fortunes to bootleggers and resulted in violent turf battles that killed criminal and innocent alike. The War on Drugs has been nothing short of a disaster with billions of dollars being wasted in the effort to save people from themselves. In the meantime, anyone (and I mean ANYONE) can go down the street and buy a gram of coke for $50. Drug dealers are often given respect and admired by their peers while making 1000% profits on their product. We also see the same kind of violence among dealers and gangs that occurred during Prohibition. We have also choked our jail and prisons with drug users and small time dealers at a huge cost to the taxpayers.

So now let's try banning guns? The only effect that will have will be to criminalize a large portion of the population (3 million NRA member of the bat) and drive up the profit margins for illegal gun dealers. Criminals will act with even more freedom knowing that they are the only ones with guns. As previously stated, the UK and Australia have shown that this kind of ban does not work.

I am not a gun owner and haven't even held a gun since summer camp in 1993 (give or take). I ask, what are the truths we can take from both sides? When one approach has been shown to be an abject failure and the other a success, why must we march down the road to failure again?

It is always sad when an innocent person is killed but is more legislation the answer?

[laxfan25]

People are much more likely to die in an auto accident than by a gun, so should we take some legislative action there also? Where do you draw the line?

One of the first steps would be to require gun registration, just like they do automoblies.
A second would be to just ask the question - "Why do we need handguns?"
It ain't the Wild West anymore - haven't seen a good duel on Main Street in a while. If it's for personal protection, the odds are better that you'll be a victim of your firearm, ot your kid will get a hold of it - and when you look at how much violence is wrought by them - it's a bad tradeoff in my mind.

This debate has been raging in my lifetime since the period in the 60's of the string of assasinations - Kennedy, King, Kennedy, etc. When I think of the volume of handguns that have been produced and made their way to the street in the 40+ years since - it's sad.

[Adam Gamradt]

A weapon such as this is not what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the second amendment.

Really? You have some insight into what they were thinking when they framed the Constitution?

That certainly sounds like a "talking point of the left" to me. Did you get that one from Michael Moore or Al Fraken?

Thank you for the compliment Sonny, Mr. Moore, and Mr. Franken are both very funny individuals, even if their politics makes you squirm. I am proud you associate me with comic genius.

If you are actually curious, my gun control beliefs originated in high school, when a friend of mine, shot his best friend in the face, by accident.

Not once have I advocated for the outright banning of all guns, with the exception of certain semi automatic, and all fully automatic rifles, not for military use. Handguns are another topic, and I'm not quite sure where I stand. I would not own one because of the statistics I quoted previously, but have a plan in place to curl up in the fetal position, and cry my way out of any burglary or robbery.

I do not think the constituion guarantees you the right to own an AK-47 with a hell fire trigger, any more than it guarantees you the right to own a surface to air missle launcher. It isn't reasonable, and it isn't protected by the constituion as I interpret it.

You can say I don't have any insight, but then you have to admit that you don't either. So, it's a level playing field, where each one of us gets to interpret what is written, and what it means to apply that to the real world. I believe the constitution is a living document, the founding father did intended for it's interpretation to change with the times. Therefore, I have some insight in to what they were thinking when they wrote it. If not, strict constructionism makes for a short lived country, no matter how great it may have been.

It is clear to me that the times have changed.

For anyone blissfully unaware of the proliferation of gun violence in this country, please enjoy the rest of your stay on what ever planet it is that you currently reside.

It is clear to me that the times have changed.

I do not see the need for a properly armed militia as threatened. Our militia is fairly well covered by the army, navy, airforce, marine corp, and the national guard. The wonderful men and women of our armed forces would turn on any potential despot in a heartbeat. I doubt that any group attempting to take over the US, would make it to Wisconsin, much less get out of Brooklyn.

I will ask again if anyone has any ideas as to the following.

I am asking is how do we slow down, and eventually prevent the proliferation of gun violence in America?

Better enforcement of our existing laws. Crack down on guns shows, and gun dealers who continue to exploit the loopholes in our existing gun laws.

Write new laws in order to punish companies who redesign the same weapons, to get around federal gun control legislation written by weak kneed yokles like the Bill Clinton, and the current occupant, who are more worried about offending the NRA, than they are about stopping gun violence.

You seem to be offended that I'm even asking the question, so I'm not sure you are a reasonable enough person to discuss this with any further.

A wise man told me that winning an argument on the internet is like winning a medal in the special olympics, afterwards, you are still retarded.

Hope that's not too un-PC for your message board, but it pretty much sums up how I feel about where this thread has gone. I've made several points, and Cliff has added to the discussion. By the way CatLax, the car comparision is spurious, because cars have a purpose outside of putting holes in human skulls. I'm with you guys on the drug issue, we should empty our prisions for low level drug offenders, and stop persecuting people who would rather smoke weed than drink booze. Plus that way, we get huge increase in tax revenue, and McDonalds stock goes through the roof. Frankly, people like to get high, and no law is going to stop them from doing so.

It's been a fun one, thanks for everyone's input, Rob, thanks as always for being the voice of reason. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but I think I'm attempting to ask some of the right questions.

I appreciate these discussions with the lacrosse community, you guys are very bright, and this is a lot more fun than working. It's a good time to mention that my beliefs as written, do not reflect the views of the University of Minnesota, nor do they reflect the views of the Men's Lacrosse team that I am lucky enough to be a part of.

[OAKS]

I do not see the need for a properly armed militia as threatened. Our militia is fairly well covered by the army, navy, airforce, marine corp, and the national guard. The wonderful men and women of our armed forces would turn on any potential despot in a heartbeat. I doubt that any group attempting to take over the US, would make it to Wisconsin, much less get out of Brooklyn.

Assuming that despot is well-defined as such. Nazi Germany anyone? Many people, including intelligent, well-informed, free thinkers, will follow orders to the point of scariness. There have been many studies on this.

[Jolly Roger]

I doubt that any group attempting to take over the US, would make it to Wisconsin, much less get out of Brooklyn.

-with apologies to Harold Ramis-

C'mon, it's Wisconsin. We zip in, we pick 'em up, we zip right out again. We're not going to Moscow. It's Wisconsin. It's like we're going into *Czechoslovakia *.

[Adam Gamradt]

Stanley Milgram did a wonderful study, published as Obedience to Authority. Definitely worth the read.

Your concern for a despot arising in America is justified, but the odds of that are miniscule, at best.

The comparision to Nazi Germany is not quite accurate, as the nazi's were allowed to maintain power due to a populace that chose to do nothing in the face of tyranny. Only 10 percent or so of the population were actually Nazi's, the rest just went along with it. I'm not saying there is no chance of this happening here, but it's pretty far down the list of things that could happen.

For the purpose of this debate, I argue that America has very little chance of failing due to a military incursion.

The proliferation of gun violence is a very real problem, not a potential one. As such, it deserves greater weight than any imagined scenario.