Gun Ownership and the Tiahrt Amendment

[bascule]

Originally posted at: http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

 

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

 

This statement, posted in mid-November, was pulled shortly after it started to gain publicity among various pro-gun organizations. For all of Obama's tech savvy, he seems to have forgotten that if you post something online then change it, it doesn't go away.

 

Well guess what, IT'S BACK! As of TODAY!

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/ (they conveniently added an underscore for obfuscation)

 

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

 

What the crap is this Obama? As far as I'm concerned, the Tiahrt Amendment protects law abiding gun owners against unreasonable search and seizure. What is repealing it going to accomplish? This feels pretty Dubyaesque to me...

 

There are seriously much, much bigger fish to fry (like the financial crisis) than handing over the purchase records of all gun owners, including those who have committed no crimes, to local law enforcement. Is there any reason why they should have that information without probable cause?

 

Ugh...

[iNow]

Such an amendment also seems to punish those who purchased their guns legally and reward those who came by them "off the books."

[padren]

I have to agree with you there. If it is then repealed, where can this information end up and who can request it?

 

It strikes me as rather hypocritical if he takes a strong stand against racial profiling, but then feels it's okay to throw a dragnet that profiles all law abiding gun owners that have never committed a crime.

[swansont]

Mod note: Thread title changed to something more descriptive of subject

[Sisyphus]

What are the contentious provisions? Are we talking about something more intrusive than, say, car registration and drivers' licenses?

[DrDNA]

Uh oh.

The 2nd was my # 1 source of apprehension when I pulled the trigger in the booth for Mr Obama.

 

I wonder how you make a gun "childproof".

Is this just referring to "childproof" locks, such as the ones that currently exist or is it something else?

For example does anyone know if it is intended to refer to some, as yet not invented, technology that renders the firearm useless after it has been unholstered and, then, the firearm becomes active immediately when I go from yellow to red and shoot the perp (3 in the chest, followed by 1 in the groin and 2 in the head)?

 

"War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun."

Mao

Edited January 21, 2009 by DrDNA

[Sisyphus]

Uh oh.

 

I wonder how you make a gun "childproof".

 

Seems pretty easy. I mean, how much damage can a child do to a gun, anyway?

[DrDNA]

Seems pretty easy. I mean, how much damage can a child do to a gun, anyway?

 

Obviously you have never shot a shotgun at a squirrel that your extremely drunk buddy used as a crutch in a muddy field the night before.

[john5746]

The best child proof mechanism is the immediate death of the gun owner if a child gets access to the gun and someone is hurt.

[Sisyphus]

Obviously you have never shot a shotgun at a squirrel that your extremely drunk buddy used as a crutch in a muddy field the night before.

 

True enough. Sounds pretty Elmer Fudd-y

[SH3RL0CK]

The best child proof mechanism is the immediate death of the gun owner if a child gets access to the gun and someone is hurt.

 

Thats kinda cold.

 

I am of the opinion that teaching children about guns is the best approach. The NRA has programs in place to do this, maybe the US government should financially support the NRA in much the same way as Planned Parenthood gets funding to teach about safe sex?

 

http://www.nrahq.org/safety/index.asp

 

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ppnne/donor-faqs-17879.htm

 

Q. Does Planned Parenthood receive federal money? State funding? Support from foundations and corporations?

 

A. PPNNE does receive state and federal funding to support our medical services and education programs.

 

All most kids today know about guns is what they learn playing video games (where, b.t.w. it is impossible to really get hurt or really hurt someone). This does not provide them with the proper respect for guns nor with the understanding that reals guns are not toys and should NOT be played with.

 

You can install all the child-proofing you want on your guns, even eliminate them completely from your house. You could in theory even make guns completely illegal. But that does not make your child at all safe when they find an imported, stolen, loaded gun in the gutter that some drug dealer dropped the night before.

[padren]

You can install all the child-proofing you want on your guns, even eliminate them completely from your house. You could in theory even make guns completely illegal. But that does not make your child at all safe when they find an imported, stolen, loaded gun in the gutter that some drug dealer dropped the night before.

 

No one is talking about achieving 100% guaranteed safety - but where we can take small actions that have a big impact on safety. Washing your hands doesn't not protect you 100% from germs, but it sure helps.

 

The real issue is reducing cost to human life due to unintentional causes, as well as illegal causes... without putting undue constraints on law abiding legal gun owners.

 

Many people fight to put undue strain on gun owners because they believe gun ownership is archaic and socially irresponsible, while some gun owners fight to push recklessly loose gun laws because they feel their own justifications.

 

So the real question then is what constraints are "undue" and which are "reasonable" and I suspect that will come from a middle ground approach, considering how far apart the extremes can be.

 

Personally I sympathize with the efforts of those trying to reduce illegal gun use but I find the potential "dragnet" abuses that may come with repealing the Tiahrt Amendment very disconcerting. Secondarily to that, the disappearing/reappearing act of that text on Obama's site is a disappointment.

[DrDNA]

True enough. Sounds pretty Elmer Fudd-y

 

The squirrel thought it was hilarious.

[SH3RL0CK]

No one is talking about achieving 100% guaranteed safety - but where we can take small actions that have a big impact on safety. Washing your hands doesn't not protect you 100% from germs, but it sure helps.

 

The real issue is reducing cost to human life due to unintentional causes, as well as illegal causes... without putting undue constraints on law abiding legal gun owners.

 

Many people fight to put undue strain on gun owners because they believe gun ownership is archaic and socially irresponsible, while some gun owners fight to push recklessly loose gun laws because they feel their own justifications.

 

So the real question then is what constraints are "undue" and which are "reasonable" and I suspect that will come from a middle ground approach, considering how far apart the extremes can be.

 

Personally I sympathize with the efforts of those trying to reduce illegal gun use but I find the potential "dragnet" abuses that may come with repealing the Tiahrt Amendment very disconcerting. Secondarily to that, the disappearing/reappearing act of that text on Obama's site is a disappointment.

 

It seems we are in agreement with the basic facts here.

[DrDNA]

The best child proof mechanism is the immediate death of the gun owner if a child gets access to the gun and someone is hurt.

Correct!

Somebody got shot plus we have the death of the gun owner (by firing squad?).

Very very child proof and safe indeed.

 

Guns are completely safe.

People are dangerous.

 

Fact: The BEST child proof mechanism currently available is familiarity and EDUCATION.

 

Most accidents involving children and firearms involve children that were not taught proper firearm safety and/or never had any experience with an actual firearm....ie, the parents kept it locked in a "secret" place, that wasn't so secret or accidentally left it out.

Many had "played" with toy guns, but had never actually touched a real gun.

I'll look for the data and post when I get a chance.

 

Case in point:

I got my first 22 bolt action rifle when I was five (same goes for my son) and my first 22 pistol when I was nine, along with intensive firearm safety training that started as soon as my hands were big enough to hold a firearm.

 

I can guarantee you that the 50 -60 firearms that were in our house (of 5 family members) at any given time were ENTIRELY safe.

They were safe because:

-They were ALWAYS loaded (whether there was an actual bullet in the chamber, cylinder or magazine or not)

-Everyone that entered our house was familiar with gun safety, how to properly handle and use firearms (or they were not allowed to enter our house)

-From the time we could crawl, we knew when and when not to point a firearm at anything or anybody (ie, never point it at any thing that we didn't seriously intend to kill or put a hole in-if it was a target)

-Plus, we weren't allowed to "play" with "toy" guns

 

Another case in point:

Just a couple of weeks ago a jewelry store owner in my town shot two armed, would be burglars, trying to rob him and his wife in his store.

The TV, radio and newspaper all reported that there were 2 shooting victims at a jewelry store. They said absolutely nothing about how the guy saved his wife's life and his own life.

 

This "guns are dangerous" nonsense is one sick lie.

Edited January 21, 2009 by DrDNA

[ParanoiA]

I concur with the above. Both of my kids know what a real firearm feels like and both are well educated on them.

 

I look at it as a moral imperative to teach your family how to protect themselves. Not only should guns be quite legal, they ought to be actively taught and used. It's irresponsible to leave your family alone, counting on a bunch of strangers with badges and electronic gizmos, that can only be reached by phone.

 

No, I think I owe it to my kids and my wife to teach them how to use a weapon for defense when I'm away. I have chosen a 20 gauge shotgun, which helps to compliment size to power. I support law enforcement and the job they have to do, but it is not, nor has it ever been, able to respond during the commission of a crime.

[bascule]

There's a very easy way to childproof your guns. It's called putting them in a locked gun safe.

 

If a child dies because their parents failed to safely store their guns I'm sorry, but that's natural selection at work.

[waitforufo]

One well supervised experience of firing live rounds will teach any child that firearms are dangerous and easily discharged. If this training were performed with a 20 gauge shotgun, the lesson will be well learned. Many firearms accidents involving children occur because the children are attempting to figure out how the weapon works. Teach them and their curiosity is satisfied.

[DrDNA]

It is sad to recall, but I often have wondered what would have happened at Columbine if just a couple of teachers were packing Glocks........

 

The same goes for Univ West Va.

 

Furthermore what kind of moron would try rob or rape the cashier at a Quickie Mart at 3 AM if they know there was a 75% or greater chance that they would get their head blown off.

 

Same goes for robbing banks in grocery stores (the latest criminal fad in my area).

 

Guns are the greatest 'safety devices' ever invented.

[CaptainPanic]

Guns are the greatest 'safety devices' ever invented.

I guess I live in a very unsafe society then. I have never seen a gun that was not in the hands of the police. In fact, it was attached to their belt (they wear it, but never use it). I've never seen a gun in somebody's hands (only on TV). Guns are totally no part of our society, and nobody ever talks about them.

 

You Americans are weird. Sorry for even entering this discussion, I know that I simply cannot understand you... and I will not try to understand you either.

 

We have a saying here that people who own a gun have the biggest chance of being shot. (Not by their own gun... but pulling a gun usually triggers a response. If you don't have a gun, you cannot get this response, and you might walk away from the scene, a few dollars poorer, but alive). Could that also be true in the USA? Or are you shot faster, because people expect you to have a gun?

[Sisyphus]

I agree that proper education is probably the most effective safety method, and I have no problem with people keeping guns in their homes to defend themselves. However, I'm really not sure which statement is more accurate:

 

Furthermore what kind of moron would try rob or rape the cashier at a Quickie Mart at 3 AM if they know there was a 75% or greater chance that they would get their head blown off.

 

vs.

 

We have a saying here that people who own a gun have the biggest chance of being shot. (Not by their own gun... but pulling a gun usually triggers a response. If you don't have a gun, you cannot get this response, and you might walk away from the scene, a few dollars poorer, but alive). Could that also be true in the USA? Or are you shot faster, because people expect you to have a gun?

 

They're probably both true, actually. I know I would be less likely to rob somebody (not that I ever would, anyway) if I thought they were armed. And maybe a couple of "teachers with glocks" could have ended Columbine early. On the other hand, if I was determined to rob somebody and I knew they were armed, I might feel forced to shoot them outright. And a chaotic public gunfight seems worse than a hostage situation...

 

And again, just from personal experience, I've never been robbed or attacked myself, but I've known people who have been both in situations with guns and without, and the only armed victim ended up dead because of it.

[ParanoiA]

 

We have a saying here that people who own a gun have the biggest chance of being shot. (Not by their own gun... but pulling a gun usually triggers a response. If you don't have a gun, you cannot get this response, and you might walk away from the scene, a few dollars poorer, but alive). Could that also be true in the USA? Or are you shot faster, because people expect you to have a gun?

 

See, we think it's weird that you would think we would pull our gun over a couple of bucks. A few dollars poorer is not a good reason to escalate a conflict. The insistence on carrying guns is about neutralizing a conflict that is being escalated by the antagonist, not by yourself. At least, that's how I was taught.

 

For instance, if someone were to break in my house, I don't get my gun and go hunting for them - that's stupid. No, I dial 911 and hand the phone to my wife as I get up to get my shotgun and then get to the kids so we can retreat back to our bedroom and hold up until the police arrive. In that way, I'm armed for any violence initiated by the intruders - not myself. I take a "defensive" posture with my weapon.

 

That's going to be the similar tack by most gun owners - certainly responsible ones. And that's what I expect from any human on this planet. It shocks me that people would surrender basic, fundamental self protection. Police cannot be there during the commission of a crime. It's not their fault, they just can't be there. And my life is too important to sacrifice it because fear keeps the ignorant, ignorant about valuable tools - like guns.

[waitforufo]

Why is gun control such an important issue for the political left? Politically it has been a persistent loser for them. Even within their own base there are a significant number of pro-gun voters. In Washington State we voted out the then speaker of the house, Tom Foley, because he went against this long pro-gun voting record (NRA, A rated politician) by voting in favor of the Brady bill. For the last 4 if not 8 years the majority of the political left has recognized that this is a third-rail issue for many voters. Why try touching it again?

[ParanoiA]

I think they want Europe to admire them.

 

I was listening to the radio last night on my way home and listening to the lefties call in and whine about how we look "stupid" to Europeans. I thought that was awesome. I love that position. How many movies shove the whole "be yourself and be proud" message down our throats?

 

It's the same chemistry, most of the time. In sports, the antagonists have the slick uniforms, the tough colors, the advanced style and training equipment, and of course they're usually painted to be quite elitist about themselves. The protagonist has the crappy uniforms, dirtied colors, crappy equipment and a total lack of sophistication - yet they're the ones we root for. And in our movies they are the winner and we rejoice in the unsophisticated underdog upsetting the elite.

 

So, uh, what happened with that? All of the sudden now we're worried about appearances? We're worried about what the neighbors "would think" about our slutty daughter? We're going to sweat about what the community thinks of our family? I thought we were supposed to keep our eye on what actually matters, and to hell with what others think of it.

 

I like Europeans thinking we're stupid. That's our MO. That's how our country works.

[Sisyphus]

I don't think it is a particularly important issue for the left, actually. It's mostly a wedge issue for the right, and I get the feeling that's the way the right likes it. For example, I consider myself pretty "gun-friendly," but I still resent the NRA, because I think they constantly overstate the case and withdraw from any reasonable compromise, and I think they so so intentionally to prolong conflict. They remind me of PETA.

 

As for why liberals in general tend towards gun control, I don't really think it's about international opinion. I'm not saying there aren't bad reasons, I just don't think that's the main one, and I'm having a hard time articulating what the main ones are. Partly it's just a "common sense" thing that dangerous stuff needs to be regulated. But I think a lot of it is a sense that people who want lots of weapons are just generally bad people, who are resented. As in, what the hell do you need an uzi for if not for something bad? Or sometimes even, what kind of a person takes pleasure out of shooting animals? Isn't that just sadistic, by definition? Or, taken to a topical extreme, what kind of person's idea of entertainment is shooting wolves from a helicopter?