In mass shootings, it’s all about the efficiency

The latest mass shooting in Connecticut follows in a long and despair-provoking line of murder-sprees that stretches from Columbine to Virginia Tech to the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, with many nightmarish detours along the way.

As we begin to process this latest event, I think it’s fair to say that it’s not human nature that has changed.

People in America have been committing despicable atrocities from the moment Europeans touched toe on Plymouth Rock.

What’s different is efficiency.

When the Founding Fathers were talking about the 2nd Amendment — stipulating that the the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed — a highly trained soldier could fire three rounds per minute.

These days, it’s an entirely different world.

Average citizens are able to purchase firearms that put many of the combat weapons used by the Greatest Generation during World War II to shame.  These guns fire faster, with larger magazines and more destructive rounds.

The translation is simple:  Scientists and engineers have produced new generations of extraordinarily well designed machines, which have the single function of killing other people, with fluid ease and simplicity.

Under our Constitutional rules, created during the age of the Minuteman, those machines are cheap and widely available.

Defenders of the status quo stand on what they view as principle.

Whatever the dangers and moral quandaries posed by these ubiquity of machines designed solely for the purpose of killing other humans, they view unfettered gun ownership as a fundamental American right.

I’m guessing that this principle will come under increasingly ferocious scrutiny, as the death toll mounts.

If nothing else, it seems reasonable to discuss whether the firearms sold in the US might not be designed intentionally to be less efficient.  Why not ban large clips for everyone except law enforcement?

Why not design clip and cartridge mechanisms so that they require a significant amount of time to reload?

It’s hard to imagine that a person defending their home in good faith needs more than five or six bullets, or the ability to discharge hundreds of rounds per minute.

The bottom line is that we regulate dangerous machines in many ways in our country, requiring that they be designed for public safety as well as efficiency and utility.

Those modern rules prevent many of the deadly horrors that once plagued our society, from factory fires in locked work areas to mass poisonings caused by contaminated food.

Regulating firearms in a coherent and logical way might accomplish much the same.  In the wake of the latest carnage, it’s time to have that conversation.

Tags:

325 Comments on “In mass shootings, it’s all about the efficiency”

Leave a Comment
  1. Arlo T. Ledbetter says:

    Whoa, let me get this straight- The NRA is able to restrict the Justice Dept from releasing information to whomever they want? Am I supposed to believe that? Pardon my French, but that’s bovine fecal matter. Remember those advocacy/agenda driven reports you were talking about the other day?…………

    I would also note that a scientific consensus might be reached on any number of things. That doesn’t mean that the consensus should over rule a civil right as enumerated in our Bill of Rights. If a scientific consensus determined that doing away with free speech was the best way to address an issue, would that mean we should abandon our rights?

  2. Marlo Stanfield says:

    Last time there was an assault weapons ban, existing ones were grandfathered in, and could still be sold.

  3. Marlo Stanfield says:

    Last time at the federal level, I mean, since there still is one in New York.

  4. Walker says:

    Arlo, well-funded lobbyists have been known to exercise all sorts of strange powers in Washington, often through threatening funding.

  5. mervel says:

    Confiscation is crazy.

    Why don’t we just use confiscation for heroin? What planet do people live on that they think we have the resources, ability or really desire to do some sort of house to house search for weapons that people bought legally? To me that really is going to far. If we limit new sales of the guns that are outrageous we can move toward reducing the number, kind of.

    Keep in mind prohibition has not worked for any other illegal thing Americans want and desire, why would we think it would work for guns?

  6. mervel says:

    Yes lets send a message that in the US our laws reflect our values and that one of those values is that people don’t need to own assault weapons or military weapons. I would agree with that. But gun violence reflects what is going on in a culture, not the laws that happen to be on the books. Mexico has much more restrictive gun laws than the US, Switzerland has much more LIBERAL gun laws than the US. Mexico has much higher rates of murder and Switzerland has much lower. Does this have anything to do with the law or what is happening in the culture?

  7. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    Ledbetter. Is that a Swiss name? Because it doesn’t sound very Swiss. I happen to know some Swiss people, in fact my great grandmother came from Villers-de-lac and Im pretty close with several people who are dual Swiss/US citizens so I’ll have to let them know your assessment of them.

    Here is an interesting chart showing gun violence per 100,000 in population. You will see that among industrialized nations we are the tops! Mexico is not too far ahead. Among first world countries you will find we are far out front but Canada, Switzerland, and Finland are hanging in there at about 1/3 our rate of violence.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

  8. Arlo T. Ledbetter says:

    Is Liberal a Swiss name? I don’t mean to hurt your feelings, but as a parent, naming my child “Knuckle Dragging Liberal” seems a bit cruel. Arlo T. Ledbetter was an unusual guy I served with in another life. Like you, I don’t use my real name here. But please, go ahead and ask your relatives if the Swiss people are a bunch of pacifists that let the world walk all over them. I doubt they’ll verify that assessment. Please don’t tell me you were unaware of William Tell being Swiss? Shot the apple off his boys head, escaped the tyrannical Sheriff, assassinated the Sheriff and started a rebellion. William Tell is the Swiss version more or less of Robin Hood and our cowboys (Wayne, Eastwood) would be the American version of Tell and Robin. I can’t think of a nation that has a reputation for pacifism, humility, etc.

    On the gun violence chart- does that prove in any way, shape or manner that lawful gun owners are the problem? Or does it prove we have a cancerous society filled with social misfits and criminals? It’s not just guns Knuckle, it’s everything else too. I’m sure that between Cuomo and Obama we’ll have all sorts of new restrictions that law abiding gun owners will suffer from. The criminals will not suffer at all, in fact, they’ll just have more victims to choose from.

    Tell me, if gun control works, then why in cities like Chicago where handguns are not allowed do we have so many handgun shootings? Why in Washington DC where no one can carry a gun are there so many shootings? In NYC, where only the “right” people can have a gun, are there so many shootings? If gun free zones work, then why do we have shooting in gun free zones? Your argument is emotional, not logical. Logic dictates that if people are being preyed on, you need to remove the people doing the preying, not remove the victims means of defending themselves.

    Mervel, what do you mean by military weapons? Does my WW1 03 Springfield count? It’s surely military. What about my Mausers? They’re all military and every modern bolt rifle is patterned after a Mauser which makes them all more or less military. The military used 22 bolt guns for training, that makes them military. Winchster 94’s were used by the military in reserve units as were pump shotguns, so they’re all military. Colt 1911’s, 38 + 45 DA revolvers, Smith 38+45 DA revolvers, H+R DA’s, Colt Single Action Armys, Krags, Enfields, M1’s, Remingtom 700’s, Winchester 70’s, Savages, Kimbers, Rugers……it’s easier to find a gun that was used at one time or another by the military than not. And they were all state of the art at one time. Better re-think what you’re asking for because chances are the laws can be written in such a way that pretty much everything would be affected.

  9. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    Yes! Let’s debate fictional stories! Heidi and her grandfather vs. William Tell. Clint Eastwood and a chair vs. Sean Penn.

    I have noticed that many of your posts lean heavily on fiction to support your arguments but over here in the real world we try to use actual facts. And if you pay attention to facts you will find that owning a firearm puts you, your family and your friend at greater risk.

  10. Arlo T. Ledbetter says:

    I’ll tell you something else Knuckle, if you can find a way to determine what percentage of gun violence on all those charts is actually from legal, legally owned firearms then I’ll buy you lunch. I’ve tried for years to determine from those stats how many are police shootings, accidental shootings, suicides, shootings by criminals and shootings by the legal, lawful owner of a legal, lawful firearm. I’ve taken the number of reported police shootings, accidental shootings, etc. and added them all up and they don’t come close to equaling out. If you can find the raw numbers somewhere you’re doing better than I. As it stands it’s impossible to determine accurately just what the numbers mean or if they are even really accurate to begin with. Having played my small part in producing those statistics for many years, I know that the old line of “garbage in, garbage out” is in play here. It’s just more advocacy/agenda driven statistics. Just like how the rain forest was supposed to be one vast clear cut by now, how sea levels were supposed to be 10 feet higher and how the ozone layer was supposed to have disappeared. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

  11. Arlo T. Ledbetter says:

    Holy crap Knuckle, so William Tell doesn’t count, but movies do? What, “Red River” was a historical documentary? “Dirty Harry” was REAL???!!! Get a grip on reality pal. I am in no more danger from my guns than you are. I stand a far, far greater chance of getting killed by my chainsaws, trucks, tractor, heart attack, cancer, falling down the stairs, electrocution, etc. than from a gun. Stop with the hysterics. Of the leading causes of death in the US 4.4 % comes from accidents, .7 from firearms. Both are too high, but no one is talking about outlawing swimming pools, trampolines, bicycles, cars, skateboards and ladders.

  12. Arlo T. Ledbetter says:

    BTW- Sean Penn was wading around post Katrina with a shotgun, a weapon meant to kill, kill, kill!!!! Shouldn’t he have been jailed for that? Shouldn’t the cops have beat him up and confiscated his guns like they did that elderly lady down there? Or do the rules you make only apply to certain people? You know, like the way it’s okay for celebrities to have guns and armed guards, or for politicians to have impossible to obtain permits for guns in DC or NYC, but not for the peons. How’s that work?

  13. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    Hysterics?

    I hope you use your chainsaw safely too. Driving is, of course, highly dangerous and you should own a safe vehicle with mandated safety equipment and use your seatbelt. Stairs are dangerous and we have building codes to try to make them safer. Electrocution! Good God, be careful with electricity, Arlo. And I support Universal Health Care. I sincerely hope you dont get cancer but please get your check-ups so that any health problem can be dealt with quickly. I hope you live a long and healthy life.

    While many things can be dangerous we try hard to make them as safe as possible. And none of the things you mentioned were designed specifically to kill. That is the design function of firearms.

  14. Paul says:

    “Here is an interesting chart showing gun violence per 100,000 in population. You will see that among industrialized nations we are the tops! Mexico is not too far ahead. Among first world countries you will find we are far out front but Canada, Switzerland, and Finland are hanging in there at about 1/3 our rate of violence. ”

    Again here we need to be careful with these statistics. I don’t think they are very good as far as backing something like and assault weapons ban or a ban on high capacity clips. Also, you are faced with the fact that Mexico has some of the toughest gun restrictions in the world.

    Like I said above these bans are not going to move the needle on these stats. I think they may move the “mass shooting” needle but that is a tiny tiny portion of the total. The largest percentage come from suicides.

  15. Paul says:

    “BTW- Sean Penn was wading around post Katrina with a shotgun, a weapon meant to kill, kill, kill!!!!”

    Arlo, could you go back through this huge pile of comments and pull out a number of them where there was any suggestion to limit the purchase or use of a standard shotgun?

    They are designed to kill, kill, kill!!! – Birds.

  16. Arlo T. Ledbetter says:

    Hey folks, remember how everyone here has been saying no one is talking about gun confiscation? Well guess what? Andrew Cuomo, out NYS Gov, IS TALKING ABOUT GUN CONFISCATION!!!!!! “In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=0

    So here we go, Cuomo will attempt to use force to deprive NYS residents of their property. And when the next shooting happens it’ll be handguns, and then scope sighted “sniper” rifles and then shotguns and then 22’s. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. The evidence is right in front of you. Confiscation, registration, imprisonment.

  17. Arlo T. Ledbetter says:

    Paul, the point is that while the N.O. PD was confiscating guns from helpless citizens, celebrities were allowed to roam the streets well armed for photo ops. Class warfare, peons don’t count.

  18. Paul says:

    Alro, he said all those things could be an option. That is called how you start a rational discussion. Suggesting something don’t make it so. This idea that we won’t even have the discussion because there is one outcome that you don’t like is silly. Don’t call most of the folks on this discussion a fool. That isn’t very civil now is it? One suggestion that I have heard (and it is a good one) is to try and focus on the kind of values we want in our society. That isn’t accomplished by insulting people.

  19. Arlo T. Ledbetter says:

    Violating our civil rights is not an option Paul. Even suggesting confiscation is outrageous. The outcome of confiscation would be an illegal act by a tyrannical gov’t. Civility has not been a part of this discussion since day one. Insulting gun owners as people with severe social disorders isn’t civil at all, nor is “gun nuts”, etc.

    I’ve tried to focus on the root causes but people here say my rights are based on their perception of my “needs”. Please demand the same focus and civility from them as you do me.

  20. Walker says:

    “Hey folks, remember how everyone here has been saying no one is talking about gun confiscation?”

    Arlo, I said several times that no one here was talking about confiscation. But I’m sure it gave you a warm glow when Cuomo said it, as it justifies your sense of victimization.

  21. Arlo T. Ledbetter says:

    Walker, several people have stated that no confiscation was being talked about. In the context they were using they were referring to politicians. And in the normal sense of the word, if my rights are taken from me, I would be the victim of an unjust, oppressive gov’t, would I not?

  22. Walker says:

    Well, Arlo, some would say that your right to bear arms, as written, is entirely dependent upon your membership in a well-regulated state militia. That’s not where SCOTUS stands at present, but things change.

    In any case, I don’t think even the current court decision holds that the government couldn’t limit the size of legal clips, yes? For that matter, is there anything in current law that would prevent a state from mandating that only bolt-action rifles were legal? I think the 2nd amendment is satisfied if citizens have a right to own some kind of gun. I could be wrong…

  23. Walker says:

    “Tell me, if gun control works, then why in cities like Chicago where handguns are not allowed do we have so many handgun shootings?”

    Easy: it’s only the cities with the worst level of handgun violence that enact gun control. So even if it is fairly effective, it’s not going to reduce gun violence to the level that a smaller city might have.

    Also, cities with gun controls are surrounded by states with few to no gun control; New York City’s illegal guns come from mostly PA and VA.

  24. Rancid Crabtree says:

    I don’t mean to bump in here but what part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand? If I follow your logic then free speech means the government can restrict my free speech to speaking in an empty room only. Or that my freedom from unreasonable search means as long as they don’t do a full body cavity search on Tuesdays between noon and 2PM. Or that freedom of assembly means as long as it’s in groups of not more than 3 with permits that cost $5000.00. Your argument ignores the idea of fundamental rights. I’m afraid if you start restricting or in essence abolishing one right then theres no reason to think any other will not go the same way and be restricted into ineffectiveness. Why stop at bolt action rifles? Why not make it muzzle loaders only and that the powder has to be kept at the local police station and balls at the Courthouse? Make them pay a fee for every shot fired too. How ridiculous do you want to get?

    And your argument about the big cities just shows how ineffective bans are. The good people are disarmed and the crooks have guns anyway. It makes no sense to take the guns from the people that need to protect themselves.

Leave a Reply