America's shame. Again.

[cassity]

I find this interesting...

 

In April 1987 seven-year-old Michelle Snow was killed in Riverside, California by a stray lawn dart that was thrown by her brother’s playmate. These darts were part of a children’s game in the 70’s and 80’s involving large, weighted darts with sharp metal tips, designed to pierce a horizontal target on the ground.

 

Michelle’s father immediately began a campaign to ban the darts, arguing that anything less than a full-scale ban would be insufficient—after all, even if you were to ban lawn darts in your own home, nothing can stop a neighbor’s child from throwing one over the fence. The campaign led to an all-out ban in the US and Canada. To this day, it is illegal to assemble a lawn dart in either of the two countries. The problem wasn’t just that lawn darts were dangerous, it was that they were dangerous AND they were being marketed to children as a game, despite being responsible for 6,100 emergency room visits over a span of eight years. So when parents observed that these unnecessarily dangerous toys were injuring and killing their children, they did what any sensible parent would do: they complained until the government listened.

 

Now examine how differently our society treats guns in a similar context: On April 20th, 2013, a five-year-old Kentucky boy shot and killed his two-year-old sister with a gun that had been specifically manufactured for child use. The gun was called “My First Rifle”, a .22 caliber gun which marketed itself as “especially for youth shooters.” Instead of massive public backlash, the National Rifle Association (NRA) instead, days after the event, held its Annual Meeting where it explicitly marketed firearms and firearm paraphernalia to kids, including NRA bibs for children, ‘Youth Model’ firearms, and NRA publications focused on ‘Youth Shooters.’

 

Where was the outcry over the blatant militarization of children by one of the most powerful political lobbies in the United States? Where was the parental campaigns demanding that children not be subject to the propagandization of firearms? Where are the restrictions, the regulations, the bans? The NRA’s response, instead, sent a different message: “You’ll have to take my gun from my child’s cold, dead hands.”

 

 

Interesting links. Out of interest, in order for these 'darts' to be banned OUTRIGHT was there any alteration made of the 2nd amendment?

 

Did the dart owning community go out on a deathly rampage as a protest?

 

 

I'll go out on a limb to both...nope.

Edited October 19, 2015 by cassity

[RootsBooster]

Interesting links. Out of interest, in order for these 'darts' to be banned OUTRIGHT was there any alteration made of the 2nd amendment?

 

That would depend on how you interpret the word 'infringe'.

If you wanted to arm yourself with lawn darts then I would say that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" was possibly infringed upon.

 

...unless, of course, the 2nd amendment doesn't actually mean that everyone has the right to arm themselves with any type of weapon they like .

[Zamo]

Could you state one of these 'valid' arguments against tighter gun control?

I honestly don't think I've ever heard one that can't easily be countered and dismissed as flawed.

 

It is estimated that about a third of Americans own a gun i.e. over 100 million. Of those there will be a hardcore who passionately believe in the second amendment and will defend their right to bear arms by bearing arms. That could add up to millions of angry, armed countrymen who will not give up their guns quietly... how do you deal with that without the bloodshed that tighter gun controls are suppose to stop?

[alchresearch]

There's an interesting bit in Bill Bryson's new book about the US Congress not doing enough to research gun control, actively banning it:

 

Congress quietly renewed a ban on gun-violence research

A congressional ban on gun violence research backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) has been extended in the aftermath of the Charleston church shooting that left 9 people dead.

 

As Public Radio International (PRI) reported recently, the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee voted to reject an amendment last month that would have allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to study the relationship between gun ownership and gun violence.

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7?r=US&IR=T

[Happ Hazzard]

There's no ban on research of this type. The government just doesn't believe it's the role of "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" to do this kind of research. Any anti-gun group would be free to do the research, paid for by themselves and their supporters of course.

 

---------- Post added 20-10-2015 at 10:17 ----------

 

And of course there is a relationship between gun ownership and gun violence. You don't need to spend millions of dollars on research to know this. There's no argument that fewer guns would mean fewer shootings. The argument is that banning or restricting guns wouldn't mean fewer guns.

[alchresearch]

That's a good point. Here's a link to what Bryson wrote in his book, where he didn't mention that:

 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Kg_mCAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT265&ots=MNiuMJIJHu&dq=bill%20bryson%20gun%20control&pg=PT264#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Mind you, it was a pretty terrible book, mostly a Victor Meldrew style rant at anything that piqued his interest. Some of it was just downright ignorant or nasty.

[RootsBooster]

It is estimated that about a third of Americans own a gun i.e. over 100 million. Of those there will be a hardcore who passionately believe in the second amendment and will defend their right to bear arms by bearing arms. That could add up to millions of angry, armed countrymen who will not give up their guns quietly... how do you deal with that without the bloodshed that tighter gun controls are suppose to stop?

 

That's not actually an argument against gun restrictions, that's just pointing out that some won't like it.

[Zamo]

That's not actually an argument against gun restrictions, that's just pointing out that some won't like it.

 

It is an argument that those who won't like it may react in a way that results in the realisation of the opposite of the policy intent i.e. more bloodshed instead of less. If that isn't an argument against doing something than I don't know what is!

 

I don't live in the US so I may just be ignorant re the answer to the question. How do the pro gun control camp propose taking arms off hundreds of thousands of angry gun owners without bloodshed? Serious question.

[RootsBooster]

It is an argument that those who won't like it may react in a way that results in the realisation of the opposite of the policy intent i.e. more bloodshed instead of less. If that isn't an argument against doing something than I don't know what is!

It's not an argument against it, it's simply a threat. That's exactly what the NRA's motto is, a threat.

When logic fails, bullyboy tactics prevail.

 

I don't live in the US so I may just be ignorant re the answer to the question. How do the pro gun control camp propose taking arms off hundreds of thousands of angry gun owners without bloodshed? Serious question.

Seeing as there's no actual record of who has what guns, it'll come down to;

 

1. Many people (possibly a majority, who knows) obeying the law and handing in any guns that have been made illegal.

 

2. Those who ignore it and keep theirs will do so, there is no record in place (as far as I'm aware) of who has what guns. They will either keep their guns quietly and hidden away or they will be found out and have to face the consequences like any other crime.

 

 

I don't think there'd be any bloodshed to be honest, it's not like police would be going house to house across the whole of America with search warrants on the off-chance you might be harbouring an illegal weapon.

It would be a gradual thing, slowly phasing out certain guns, beginning with the sale of them first (don't forget, this has already happened in America with some types of guns, there was no uprising or bloodshed).

[Zamo]

It's not an argument against it, it's simply a threat. That's exactly what the NRA's motto is, a threat.

When logic fails, bullyboy tactics prevail.

 

Why hasn't the West marched in to retake Crimea for the Ukraine? Haven't all the Western nations said it's an illegal and immoral annexation? What's holding them back from doing what they clearly believe to be morally right? Of yes, that would be threat. You might not like the reality that threat shapes policy and strategy but it is a fact of life.

 

Seeing as there's no actual record of who has what guns, it'll come down to;

 

1. Many people (possibly a majority, who knows) obeying the law and handing in any guns that have been made illegal.

 

2. Those who ignore it and keep theirs will do so, there is no record in place (as far as I'm aware) of who has what guns. They will either keep their guns quietly and hidden away or they will be found out and have to face the consequences like any other crime.

 

 

I don't think there'd be any bloodshed to be honest, it's not like police would be going house to house across the whole of America with search warrants on the off-chance you might be harbouring an illegal weapon.

It would be a gradual thing, slowly phasing out certain guns, beginning with the sale of them first (don't forget, this has already happened in America with some types of guns, there was no uprising or bloodshed).

 

If you just leave guns deemed illegal in circulation (because the owners may resist you taking them) then what is the point of the new controls? Don't the guns just go off radar and into the underground black market? Won't this mean all the bad guys, gangsters and psychopaths alike, still have access to the weapons? I'm pretty sure they aren't going to be put off doing what they do out of fear they'll be prosecuted for owning an illegal gun. Doesn't the gun lobby have a point when they say it will just end up punishing the innocent?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the US imposing better gun controls in principle. I am just question whether it is practical and whether the outcome will be worth the pain. I fear the horse has bolted for them on this one.