Gun-control protest sparks chaotic scenes in US Congress

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36598736

by marcosscriven • 10 years ago

29 135 10 years ago

bbc.co.uk

marcosscriven2• 10 years ago

As noted in the article, Periscope was used to broadcast this.

jacquesm3• 10 years ago

How big a massacre would it take before a gun control law would be carried by a majority in the US?

Or is it not a matter of sheer numbers, but who gets killed? (For instance: what if some moron decided to go after a convention of one of the two large parties?)

josteink2• 10 years ago

To many people in the US, gun ownership is an as equally essential right as freedom of speech.

Assuming you can just introduce "gun control laws" and solve "the gun problem" is a very European centric way of thinking. It will not translate well into actual US policy.

ccozan• 10 years ago

Look, a normal, mental healthy person can get a gun almost everywhere in the world. He/She is checked, screened and if the reasons are not outwordly, the lethal weapon can be owned.

But I don't get how can a FBI suspect, or with a histoy of mental issues, can just simply walk to a weapon store and buy an assault riffle?! Just like that!

USA scares the shit out of me.

EDIT: to make things clear: histoy of mental issues=medical records of mentall illness.

And regarding the idea that the laws are by men and I have to protect myself from the abuse of the law: have you heard of democracy? Next time you vote, choose the ones that can revert/improve that law. I much prefer to oblige the law , bad or good, than to be "protected" by random shooters.

skoczymroczny• 10 years ago

Just as freedom of speech, there's no freedom of speech in Europe as it is in the US. You can get arrested in Europe for writing unpopular opinions on Twitter or Facebook ("hate speech").

vacri2• 10 years ago

To many people in the US, gun ownership is an as equally essential right as freedom of speech.

But that's a relatively recent phenomenon, though. The US has had a strong military history, but the 'citizens need guns to fend off our government' thing has only been frothy for the past little while.

It's not going to go away either, until the US kicks the societal idea that problems are best solved by men with guns. It's going to take a long time for that to ebb away, even if public opinion were going in that direction.

Gun control laws won't work even if they're brought in, because handguns will never be a part of them, and it's handguns that do three-quarters of the firearm murders in the US. So there'll be some pissweak restrictions eventually brought in about really fringe longarms, and they'll do nothing to solve the problem.

NhanH• 10 years ago

Additionally, it seems to me like the gun control crowd advocate in the US is not going directly for the 2nd amendment, but instead trying to go for a route that will cause valid concern (5th and 6th amendment violation for the recent bill of "no gun if you're on no fly list", for example).

When I saw on Twitter today someone saying that (paraphrase mine) "it's acceptable for some people to lose their constitutional rights if we can prevent gun-related deaths", it's not hard to see how it might be a tough pill to swallow for the more right-leaning demographic, regardless of their stance on gun control.

Ygg2• 10 years ago

One that kills every person that support such laws.

The thing is, guns are tied to American identity, you need to disentangle them, which is a HARD thing to do.

harshreality• 10 years ago

What would it take? No murders. Just a carefully reasoned persuasive argument that the people are better off without the 2nd amendment, and a realistic path to getting rid of it in a way that won't trigger riots or another civil war.

1. A majority doesn't matter. We don't have a direct democracy, and for all the bad special interests do to corrupt democracy, sometimes there are special interest groups that understand narrow issues better than the average voter, and should have disproportionate influence on legislation.

2. What gun control law? [1]

3. Between the 2nd and 4th amendments, there's not much room for an enforceable gun control law that will prohibit would-be (but not-yet) jihadists and crazy people from obtaining guns.

The good news is that the majority of domestic gun violence (excepting suicides) is related to gangs and the drug war, so a lot could be done—if anyone wanted to do something about that rather than use gun crime rates as political ammunition—without bringing up gun control.

[1] Charles Cooke on Morning Joe, late 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfcWNFPSGVA

wastedhours3• 10 years ago

Nope, it's not like the law could be amended, or anything...

rms_returns3• 10 years ago

Or is it not a matter of sheer numbers, but who gets killed?

In the UK, it was the Dunblane incident that triggered this (you can google it). In the 1990s, some madman with gun just strode inside a high-school at Dunblane in Scotland and started indiscriminate firing. Many teachers and students were killed and after this event, the UK government just outlawed the guns in the hands of civilians.

Maybe, in USA such an extreme event hasn't happened yet, so they have not banned guns yet.

--edit--

Corrected period.

robin_reala• 10 years ago

50-60 years? It was the mid-90s. And it wasn’t guns that were outlawed but pistols.

stbtrax• 10 years ago

Dunblane incident:18 people killed. There are 5 incidents in the US with more fatalities than that: http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/

djm_• 10 years ago

Around 50-60 years ago

Dunblane was 1996. 20 years ago.

Maybe, in USA such an extreme event hasn't happened yet.

It resulted in 18 deaths, which ranks it close to Columbine (15). Since Columbine there have been countless mass shootings with a higher death toll.

distances2• 10 years ago

And in Australia it was the Port Arthur massacre, 35 dead and 23 wounded in 1996.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australi...

nl• 10 years ago

If the Sandy Hook massacre didn't do the same in the US then I can't imagine any single event that will.

dudul• 10 years ago

"Maybe, in USA such an extreme event hasn't happened yet"

Really? Columbine, Orlando, Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, Virginia Tech.

viraptor• 10 years ago

While I don't think it's just who gets killed, I think there are some groups which would trigger better response than others. Most likely groups:

Republican convention. NRA meeting. Gun shows.

Maybe even a different order... The argument that good people with guns stop bad people with guns would fall pretty quickly after the first real shooting at a gun show. (especially if it results in accidental deaths if someone reacts too quickly and there's loads of people with guns around)

kasey_junk4• 10 years ago

By most polls stricter gun control is all ready preferred by a majority of Americans.

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/187511/america...

back_beyond2• 10 years ago

The death of my entire family at the hands of a gunman, while incredibly tragic, would not make me any less pro-gun. As other commenters have stated, the right to own guns is fundamental to the identity of many Americans. If the government could take away our guns, what else could they do?

jacquesm3• 10 years ago

Ok, so what would it take to sway you?

vacri2• 10 years ago

Perhaps you should look to other western democracies to see how they deal with it?

Seriously, the whole 'guns protect our rights from the government' argument is nonsense. There's been all sorts of assaults on the Bill of Rights in the past couple of decades, and there's been next to zero organised, armed resistance against the government. And those who do engage in armed resistance against the government get nowhere with it. You can keep government agents at bay for a short while with your weapon, but they're going to win.

Imagine if instead of "we need our guns to protect us from the government", there was as much passion in "we need to engage ourselves in our communities, to engage ourselves in politics". You'd have stronger community bonds, less fear, and more traction. The government would stop being seen as "those people over there", and start being seen as "that thing that we are part of".

masklinn2• 10 years ago

How big a massacre would it take before a gun control law would be carried by a majority in the US?

A majority already does but they don't really care, whereas the NRA has a relatively small numbers of highly motivated people to push against gun control bills (I believe John Oliver made that exact point recently).

The US have already got bigger massacres than the already mentioned Dunblane (18 deaths 15 injured, 1996), or Port Arthur (35 deaths 25 injured, 1996) which resulted in significant gun control increase in the UK[0] and Australia[1] respectively.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre#Gun_c...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australi...

xiaoma2• 10 years ago

It's sometimes surprising how difficult it is for a death toll to force political action a sizable minority of the population strongly opposes.

How many people had to die from tobacco before even our currently very modest restrictions were put on its use and sale? Cigarettes can't be used as defense against wildlife, they can't be used for hunting, they can't be used in guerrilla defense during an invasion. But they're addictive and so even though they've played a part in killing millions and have been estimated to kill over 40,000 non-smokers a year, it's extremely difficult and time consuming to regulate them. And they aren't protected in the Bill of Rights, either.

We're probably going to see very slow change for gun control in the US, and with increasingly sharply divided opinions among voters.

http://www.livescience.com/23562-secondhand-smoke-kills-nons...

pigpaws3• 10 years ago

you mean like dealth-tolls into the hundreds of millions when the various gov't institutions implemented 'gun control'?

You are confusing the last 50 years with the last 5000 years.

naveen992• 10 years ago

What if you ended up with a friendly massacre by a police officer or a military officer ? Would you ban guns in the military ?

ideonexus• 10 years ago

This is entirely about who gets killed or who could be killed. It was legal to openly bear arms in in California until the Black Panthers exercised that right. Ronald Reagan quickly signed a bill into law making it illegal after protesters peacefully marched through the Capitol Building bearing arms [1]. There is currently a petition to allow open-carry at the GOP convention, which many Republicans have said will not be allowed no matter how many signatures it gets [2]. The CDC has been restricted from researching gun violence as a public health issue for 20 years [3]. Take a guess as to what party is enforcing this restriction.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

[2] https://www.change.org/p/quicken-loans-arena-allow-open-carr...

[3] http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2016/2016-06-14-gu...

forgottenpass• 10 years ago

How big a massacre would it take before a gun control law would be carried by a majority in the US?

You know this is the same exact tactic the FBI is playing to advance their goal of warantless access to web history, right?

But it's different, one may say. One scenario uses the swelling of strong emotion after a news event to try and pass a law curbing constitutional rights. And the other scenario ___________________.

DefaultUserHN8• 10 years ago

We already have gun control laws, restricting guns and regulating them.

Do you mean gun banning laws? Because if you're talking about gun banning, that's never going to happen. The American citizens will not give them up without a bloody civil war. It is one of the fundamental rights of an American. It is at the core of American values, the root American identity.

onion2k2• 10 years ago

I'm really conflicted about this. On the one hand, I think that gun control is an important issue and limiting gun ownership has a very direct impact on saving lives. I agree with the law that was being debated. (Aside: I'm British. I live in the UK. It doesn't directly affect me.)

But...

The point of a democratic government is to debate an issue, vote on it, and then to enact the result of the vote. Representatives should weigh the information available, the points raised in debates, and their own consciences, and come to a conclusion of their own. Direct action like a sit-down protest undermines and subverts the process of democracy by saying "Do what we want or we'll make life intolerably difficult for you." That is not how government should work. Government shouldn't be held to ransom.

In this case it's easy to agree with the protest, but what happens if, say, the Republicans lose a debate on reducing income tax for millionaires to zero and organise a sit-in to try to get their own way?

jimhefferon2• 10 years ago

But in this case exactly what they are protesting is that the leadership of the Republican party will not bring the measure up for debate and vote.

Cyph0n5• 10 years ago

I'm astounded at how adamant many Americans are when it comes to even discussing gun control.

onion2k2• 10 years ago

I didn't realise that. I thought that there had already been some discussion. My more general point about how government works, and what representatives should and should not be able to do to subvert it, still stands though.

grondilu2• 10 years ago

If the Republican party prevented that vote inside the constraints of laws, procedures and whatnot, there is nothing to protest about.

In fact I agree with OP : politicians should never have to protest for anything. There are procedures to follow, and in politics who is right is not supposed to be whoever whines the most spectacularly.

If for one reason or an other the Democrats think the Republicans have used unlawful methods to prevent this vote, then they should file a complaint and be done with it. Not make some kind of a circus.

bilbo0s• 10 years ago

I realize this may sound like an ignorant question but I really don't know the rules in Congress.

Can you just refuse to discuss a topic at all ? I mean... is that legal ?

Like the original comment said, the purpose of a body like the congress is to "...debate an issue, vote on it, and then to enact the result of the vote..." At least, I thought that was how things worked. Is it the case that congress doesn't even consider debating certain issues ?

distances2• 10 years ago

I thought the reason for the protest was that the republican speaker is refusing to bring the issue to a vote, even though they would clearly win the vote anyway.

laumars• 10 years ago

I don't see how that's any worse than any other form of lobbying that happens.

Quite frankly I'm increasingly of the opinion that the whole political process is broken and only favours those with the deepest pockets and loudest voices rather than the needs of the majority.

kasey_junk4• 10 years ago

The point of this protest is that the GOP won't allow a vote via procedural rules & haven't allowed a vote on lots of proposed gun control laws.

The GOP used the same tactic on expanded oil & gas drilling http://heavy.com/news/2016/06/when-was-last-sit-in-longest-c...

I'm very conflicted on the bill the Dems want voted on but gun control needs open debate & voting.

LyndsySimon7• 10 years ago

It's not a "GOP only" thing, even on this topic. Harry Reid prevented all kinds of gun control bills from being discussed for years.

DanielBMarkham• 10 years ago

You are asking exactly the right question. When something happens that's unusual where you agree with the cause, but question the actions, ask yourself: what if I didn't agree with the cause? (This is Kant's Categorical Imperative - Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.)

Otherwise we're just out in the streets beating each other with clubs.

In this case, however, it's political theater during an election year. The right folks cheer, the right folks get angry, and the two-party system keeps humming along. The House has the ability to direct the Sergeant at Arms to bring order to the chamber. That's their job. Been done before.

So this goes on for a bit, the ruling party brings down the hammer, and everybody gets to be angry. I disagree with this cause, but even if I agreed I don't see much utility coming out of this aside from energizing the base in an election year where one party desperately needs an energized base. (The other party has gone off the playbook and is not appealing to its base at all. It'll be interesting what happens to their base.)

jacquesm3• 10 years ago

The whole point as far as I understand it is they don't want to vote because they'd have to vote against such a measure and this may prove to be very un-popular and with the elections coming up it will cost them (potentially) a lot of votes.

mtgx• 10 years ago

Not to mention the biggest issue here is that Democrats want to put anyone the executive suspects on a secret "terrorist watchlist," for which there's little to no redress and they won't even tell if you're off of it or not, so you could continue to be harassed by the government and you may not even know why that's happening.

Fix the terrorist/no-fly watchlist first, and then we'll talk. Other than that, I am in the camp of favoring much stronger gun control. But secret lists and a further weakening of due process in the U.S. is not the answer.

AnimalMuppet4• 10 years ago

Hmm. If it passed, though, that creates the possibility of this lovely hack: You don't know if you're on the terrorist watch list. Want to find out? Try to buy a gun.

whamlastxmas4• 10 years ago

Direct action like a sit-down protest undermines and subverts the process of democracy by saying "Do what we want or we'll make life intolerably difficult for you." That is not how government should work. Government shouldn't be held to ransom.

This is pretty blatantly wrong in regards to how the US senate works and has worked for a long time. Filibustering is a normal thing for the senate and has an important, valuable role historically. Today, unfortunately, it's mostly a cosmetic thing senators will do for good press. What the House members are doing is essentially the House equivalent of filibustering, which doesn't exist in an official capacity. Regardless, it's not really interrupting much and it's definitely not doing anything other than generating press.

Also, it's funny see a British person asking for rational behavior from foreign lawmakers considering the wigs, heckling, and jeering of UK parliament.

buserror• 10 years ago

As a shooter in the UK, with a Shotgun Certificate, I don't really understand why people are so against having some gun control -- I mean the background check the police did on me before giving me a SGC was fine; quite frankly I felt safer afterward.

Now of course, there's a case for saying that once they start putting restrictions in, they will start to creep -- and it's true, in europe now there's bans on pretty much everything, including fully deactivated weapons used by the reenactors!

So here goes, two paragraphs and no solution from me!

moron4hire3• 10 years ago

We have background checks.

PakG1• 10 years ago

If that were true, what's the debate about? As far as I can see (Canadian, so not vested in the topic), whatever checks exist are not consistent and not comprehensive.

Comprehensiveness appears to be key. I remember Obama saying only 1 week before Orlando that there was someone that the FBI knew to be an ISIS sympathizer, and yet the law wouldn't let them put his name on a list to prevent guns from being sold to him. What's the use of a background check that doesn't turn up the necessary information?

If background checks exist, they do not appear to be consistent, nor do they appear to be given the teeth necessary to be effective.

jkot• 10 years ago

in europe now there's bans on pretty much everything

Czech republic is pretty liberal (conceal carry, attack rifles...) and we have lower crime rate than UK.

I don't really understand why people are so against having some gun control

Problems:

1) not everyone lives in a big city, where police is on every corner. In remote rural areas it takes hours before cops even arrive. Some people simply need gun for living.

2) Regulations always get more strict over time. Eventually everything will be banned (knife, pepper spray...). In UK it is illegal to carry a screw driver on street.

3) People are motivated not to report crimes. There was a case when girl escaped a rape, but was charged for possession of illegal weapon, and for using a pepper spray on her attacker. With regulations, it would be best for her, not to even report that attack.

elthran• 10 years ago

2) Regulations always get more strict over time. Eventually everything will be banned (knife, pepper spray...). In UK it is illegal to carry a screw driver on street.

Not completely true. It's not illegal to be carrying a screwdriver/fixed blade knife/other dangerous implement in public if you have a valid reason for it. We are not going to arrest an electrician walking down the street, but we will question the guy in a hooded tracksuit loitering outside the bookmakers with a screwdriver

rms_returns3• 10 years ago

An anecdote tangential to the main topic: Its well known that not all states in the USA have the same gun control laws. For instance, in New York, a gun is banned in the hands of civilians.

Now suppose, you are traveling from city A to B with a flight change in New York, and suppose you are carrying arms (duly registered) and you checked out your luggage at New York to catch the next flight, then you are effectively breaking the NYC law for those few moments!

In fact, I've heard that a lot of NYC cops are just hovering around that luggage checkout counter to catch and harass as many innocent passengers as possible!

wastedhours3• 10 years ago

As cynical as it might be, then for those few moments those passengers aren't innocent according to local law.

rms_returns3• 10 years ago

But isn't that "breaking of local law" just a technicality? Its not like they are actually shooting anyone, they are just passing through an airport.

popey456963• 10 years ago

I'm looking at this with a foreign eye, so I apologise for any ignorance on my behalf, I just find it amazing that so many Americans feel that gun control wouldn't help with decreasing shootings (Kasey_Junk linked this poll [0]).

Can someone shed some light on the views of these people? Living in the UK, with rather nice gun control restrictions, means we can't just buy guns at the local supermarket but of all of the ~ 8 people I know who has wanted a gun, every single one got a license and went through little to no hassle to get it, simply filling out a few forms. Yet seemingly because of this, our firearm related death rate is 0.23 per 100,000, compared with the US' 10.54 (~45x as many deaths [1]).

[0] http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/187511/america...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...

kasey_junk4• 10 years ago

I think you need to be clear on the nuance of that opinion. Lots of Americans don't think that gun control will decrease "mass shootings" which is an imprecise term but is generally thought of as "multiple people being shot indiscriminately".

Its not even clear how mass shootings inform the firearm death rate as some places that track it include shootings with no deaths and others don't. Generally speaking mass shootings are rare everywhere, they are just less rare in the US.

So it is relatively easy to believe for instance that banning pistols (which the UK did) would have a huge impact on the firearm death rate of the US but no obvious impact on the number of mass shootings.

etendue• 10 years ago

Two points. One, these polls give one an idea of how people might feel about an idea in principle, but don't tell you how people feel about the implementation of the idea as a law. Many of the gun control bills that are proposed have flaws that disproportionately affect law-abiding gun owners, and given the general skepticism of the efficacy of gun control laws here, the bills fail to advance.

The second point is that it isn't informative to average across the US to make statistical inferences: it's too heterogenous. Most violent crime in the US (keeping in mind different countries define violent crime uniquely and report it with varying rates) is cultural and is highly focal in limited parts of cities. Even with firearms, many parts of the US are statistically similar to similar areas in Europe when considering violent crime.

Veratyr• 10 years ago

As an Australian, my general understanding of the US stance is that:

- There's a constitutional right to bear arms so restrictions can only go so far.

- If it's criminal to own a gun, only criminals will own guns.

- The sheer number of guns in the US is so enormous that it would be near impossible to remove them all.

Unfortunately even if they enacted the same gun control laws used in the UK or Australia, it wouldn't do much in the short term. Long term it'd be a good start but it could take decades to get the genie back in the bottle.

LyndsySimon7• 10 years ago

If it's criminal to own a gun, only criminals will own guns.

Note the implication here - if it becomes criminal to own a gun, many people will become criminals rather than surrender them.

The sheer number of guns in the US is so enormous that it would be near impossible to remove them all.

Reports say around 375,000,000, but most people in the firearms community seem to believe those estimates are quite low.

Unfortunately even if they enacted the same gun control laws used in the UK or Australia, it wouldn't do much in the short term.

Sure it would - it would make criminals of millions of Americans, including me. I would strongly assume that the enactment of UK- or Australia-style gun bans in the US would immediately precipitate mass civil disobedience at a bare minimum, and would be very likely to start a large-scale insurrection.

lj32• 10 years ago

Being one of "those people", sure. It's a statistical fact that the countries with the strictest gun control laws have the most murders per capita. America actually sits at the bottom of that list, with one of the lowest murder per capita rates despite having one of the highest gun ownership per capita.

Those statistics you linked are inaccurate. Up to 2/3s of those firearms deaths are suicides.

If you prefer a more emotional argument, scott adams provides a perfectly good one here[0]. tl;dl: we want firearms to protect our homes and families from the millions of violent muslims you're importing.

Something else important to consider: whether you agree with me or not, there are enough people who feel the way I do about the issue that if a gun control law was to actually pass there would be a civil war.

[0] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146307088451/why-gun-control-ca...

laserDinosaur• 10 years ago

America actually sits at the bottom of that list, with one of the lowest murder per capita

What stats are you looking at? Surely you have a link that backs this up.

LyndsySimon7• 10 years ago

Can someone shed some light on the views of these people?

I'm one of them. I see firearms ownership and self-defense as base civil rights, on par or even more important than speech or religion.

It doesn't even matter if strict gun control would decrease shootings, although I don't believe it would in the US. Abandoning the Fourth Amendment and allowing warrantless searches of homes and persons would undoubtably reduce crime as well, but proposing to do that would be met with near-unanimous protest. In both cases, it's not a matter of justification, but of basic human rights.

AnimalMuppet4• 10 years ago

The point isn't to prevent shootings. The point isn't to protect your home. The point isn't to be able to hunt.

The point of the Fourth Amendment is that the citizens should have sufficient arms to be able to form an effective military force. Anything else is a side effect.

Could we do it? Well, let's say that President Trump turns into a tyrant, declares martial law, and suspends all civil liberties. Some fraction of the military would back the president, some would want to sit it out, and some would oppose the president. Ditto for the police. But if the citizens decided that they weren't going to put up with it, they could sway the balance - if the military was divided. Against a united military, probably not - unless there was foreign intervention.

AnimalMuppet4• 10 years ago

Argh. Second Amendment, not Fourth.

marcosscriven2• 10 years ago

Reminds me of this game http://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com/

aaron695• 10 years ago

I'd wish people would stop going off topic about the stupid gun control debate and be adults talked about the article on hand.

"Republicans adjourned the House early on Thursday to try to quash the sit-in, switching off the TV cameras."

"The transmissions via Periscope and Facebook Live were taken up by the C-Span network, which provides continual coverage of Congress."

It's a interesting world we live in.

The fact cameras in many of the world parliaments are turned off in situations (not about national security) seems like a hell of a censorship of democracy we put up with.

Technology seems in part stopping this censorship (There are other examples of rouge cameras in parliaments leaking things that the plebs are deemed not fit to see)

pigpaws3• 10 years ago

so asking a question is now a 'down-votable' offense on HN? WTF people? either don't answer or point them in the direction of some research. Don't down-vote, you arrogant fucks.

Seriously people, get over yourselves.

dang• 10 years ago

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop.

If you don't want it to be banned and are willing to use the site as intended, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11960016 and marked it off-topic.

Gun-control protest sparks chaotic scenes in US Congress

Related Stories