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: gun control
.jpg)
But that is democracy, doing what you have to do to get elected. So the problem is with the electorate not the people who do their bidding. I think there is movement today to re-instate the assault weapons ban. We have a second term president who does not have to worry about re-election etc.
But that is probably about 25% of solving the problem the discussion about mass shootings and violence in this country is much broader than assault weapons.
“So the problem is with the electorate not the people who do their bidding.”
Mervel, I think there’s a case to be made that the problem is gerrymandered districts. If district lines were drawn in a rational fashion, representatives would be beholden to a much more diverse set of voters.
I agree.
I just think that it is not hopeless, I think we may see an assault weapons ban and I would favor that, now is probably the time to move on it.
“You can ban mags holding more than 5 rounds, limit access, limit anything you want. What will happen is the determined nut or criminal will go to Akwasasne or Syracuse or where ever and get what he needs.”
Maybe so, Arlo. But if one shooter was deterred (and if you’re honest, you know more than a few would be) then many more would live.
After all, the guy who killed these kids just grabbed his mother’s weapons. Would she have gone to the trouble of circumventing the kind of laws we’re discussing? Would her son have been resourceful enough to acquire these weapons if it had been more difficult?
Some of these killers would. But some wouldn’t.
Mevel, It looks like the guns he used had standard clips. Like I said I can support an assault weapons ban but I doubt it will change anything. But let’s give it shot (again). Brian, those who support unfettered access to guns do not seems to be very numerous around this discussion? One country where they have a ban on assault weapons and has very stricken gun control laws, Columbia, has a higher rate of gun ownership (95 per hundred) and a higher number of gun killings per capita and even in just numbers.
But like I said I can support an assault weapons ban and even federal hand gun rules that are as strict as we have here in NYS. Let’s do those things and THEN let’s see if we can really figure out what the problem is and do something about it.
This attack took planning, early warning systems are critical, take this stuff seriously.
This was going on the same day as the Connecticut killings.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20121214_11_0_BARTLE641724
Here is another one:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/t/story/police-gunman-wounds-alabama-hospital-17984409
A few simple suggestions.
1 – don’t vote for anyone who has a high rating from the NRA because it shows they are political cowards.
2 – Anyone guilty of domestic violence should have all of their guns taken away and destroyed.
3 – That popular TV program that I like to watch, Criminal Minds,” should have its name changed to “Insane Minds.”
4 – When you know someone who needs some mental help, make certain they get the help they need.
5 – Ban all automatics and semi-automatics. If you are a hunter and you can’t hit your target with one bullet, you need to stop hunting or learn how to shoot straight.
6 – All gun sales should require a background check and all first time owners of guns should be required to take a gun safety course. We do it for hunters and drivers.
Yes, I own a rifle. Yes I like violent TV programs and movies. In fact, going to see Sky Fall tonight. But remember, just as guns don’t kill people, it’s people who kill people. Same is true for movies and video games. They don’t kill people. People kill people.
There’s no debate going on here – how can there be when one side accuses the other of being far into the “mass-human killing zone”? When you accuse “gun advocates” of that it is a stupid and offensive statement. Remember that statement the next time someone uses the phrase “baby killer” in an abortion discussion.
Rifles, Gun, and FireArms are specialized tools. The ones designed to fire rapidly, copius rounds,”specialized” calibers and piercing ammo are design to kill people, shoot thru vests or walls. They should be left to the military.
The second Amendment, i feel, was to have at the country’s call- or that of it’s citizenry an immediately armed Militia. It should stand, but even the NRA (I’m a member since a teen) has to draw a distinction between the types of firearms that should and should never be available on the street.
If you need to fire 7zillion rounds of jacketed rounds in a second- join the military, or a club, but you shouldn’t be able to bring the thing home with ya.
I don’t like my ability to keep a shotgun, 30 cal rifle, some handguns-( i don’t particulary have a need) threatened in a blanket attempt to stop a horrific scenario like mass shootings.
If they weren’t his guns, but his mothers, then shouldn’t she have secured them safely as required, and taught at safety courses?
Should the irresponssible gun owners be put to the flame?
How resposible can you hold an inanimate object for the deeds of a mentaly ill brain?
Ken Hall,
Earlier in this thread you said that I “vilified” gun laws. I don’t; I was pointing out that many of the regulations people propose already exist in New York State and especially New York City, both of which have arguably some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US. Criminals aren’t affected by these laws; but if they have any positive effect, so be it, leave them in place.
So because one statement goes too far, you’re ready to say that there is no debate. Boy, that makes it mighty easy to ensure no debate takes place.
Will’s next sentence was “Anyone who cannot see that, on its face, an assault rifle capable of shooting numerous bullets in quick succession should not be easily obtainable by anyone, including unstable 20-year-olds, cannot be reasoned with.”
Again, possibly a bit too strongly worded, but it seems to me you could debate a statement like that. All you have to do is show how it is good for society for everyone and anyone to be able to buy such a weapon, and you’ve made your case. I’ve been seeing folks on Facebook saying things like “we need these weapons to defend ourselves from governmental tyranny.” Maybe there’s a better argument. Go for it.
“don’t vote for anyone who has a high rating from the NRA because it shows they are political cowards.”
But you scream when the right says don’t vote for anyone who favors abortion. That’s twice now I’ve mentioned abortion. I do so because it aptly illustrates liberal hypocrisy: gun advocates are murderers but abortion advocates are pro”choice”. A high NRA rating indicates political cowardice but pandering to abortion supporters is what….political bravery?
See, Larry, the debate’s not over till the fat lady sings. (Or someone calls someone a Nazi.)
I agree with the general idea, expressed by many people here, that addressing the cultural reasons for gun violence will have a greater impact than making the guns themselves harder to get. You put a gun in a normal person’s hands, it’s not going to turn them into a killer. The problem is, we have too many violent people. There are separate things at play here, in my mind – the sort of insane, horrible, pointless massacres as we saw yesterday, and the more “normal,” for lack of a better term, gun violence we see in cities across the country every day, that we’ve gotten so used to, we largely ignore it, but that’s where most of the carnage is. The first kind I think can be at least partially addressed with improvements to the mental-health care system, maybe strengthening involuntary treatment/commitment laws for the worse cases, and better outreach to people and groups we know are at-risk. The second can be helped with better schools, youth programs, and job opportunities, things that give people better and more easily available options than drugs and violence.
At the same time, though, you can’t ignore the tool that’s used to kill thousands of people a year in this country. People who shouldn’t have guns can too often get them easily, and people can legally buy, in many states, large magazines that serve no other purpose than mass slaughter. You don’t need a 32-round mag to hunt, to shoot targets, or in self-defense situations outside of a Bruce Willis movie. And I think we need to look at handgun purchases – I know there’s federal law requiring backgrounds checks for buying them from gun shops, but still, a large number of handguns that are bought legally in states with lax laws end up on the streets of states with stricter laws. I don’t know enough about how this happens to say I have the solution, but it’s something we need to look at and try to do something about. Maybe a federal waiting periods law for handguns, or restrictions on how many you can buy in a week or month.
Assault rifles are already banned in many states and are not easily obtainable by anyone. Anyway, how can you debate with someone who thinks you are beyond reason and thinks you’re in the “mass-human killing zone”? That, right there, is a fairly strong Nazi association, and I am offended by it. And I thought being accused of nostalgia for slavery was the limit!
How can there be any real debate here when people shamelessly exploit the deaths of 20 children to demonize those on the opposite side of the issue?
I came late to this conversation and have yet to see any demonization of the “other side”.
Let’s wait and have the conversation later. Sure good idea. I believe this is the 7th mass killing in the USA this year. Where has the “later” conversation been?
I long ago gave up on the gun control issue. Nothing effective can or will happen. Even if a law banning large magazines is passed, what about the tens of thousands of high capacity magazines that are already out there?
As for abortion being murder….go for it. Be brave, make it the law. Let’s lock up anyone who has an abortion for life.
Larry, you don’t get to call a halt to debate every time you get offended. It doesn’t work like that. I’m sorry you were offended. Now let’s see if we can move the discussion forward together.
For starters, what do you think of the idea of making large magazines illegal? If not, why not?
(And remember, a proposed measure doesn’t have to be able to prevent each and every massacre. Just one would be good. Especially if someone you cared about was one of the victims.)
PNElba,
Will Doolittle said: “gun advocates have drawn the line so far into the mass-human killing zone that it does no good to argue.”
You want to explain how being accused of being in the “mass-human killing zone” is not demonization?
One out of 69 comments? Larry, you are easily offended.
Walker, I didn’t call a halt to the debate, I said there was no debate to begin with. Let’s be honest, if possible. Many of the “anti-gun” posters here want to exploit this tragedy to advance their agenda of banning all guns. They won’t say so, but the false appearance of reasonableness isn’t fooling anyone. And yeah, when it comes down to an implication that somehow I am in the same “zone” as a mass murderer, I am offended.
How many people posting so far want to ban all guns? I’ve yet to see a single comment that makes me think anyone wants to ban all guns. But then, maybe I’m just being fooled.
So, Larry. What do you think of the idea of making large magazines illegal?
I don’t want to ban guns. I would like to see the mentally disturbed get some treatment and not be allowed to own a gun.
I don’t think anyone posting here, and few reasonable people in politics, seriously want to ban guns. Saying that people who favor stricter gun-control laws want to take away everyone’s guns is a scare tactic. It’s not true. It’s no different than saying “Republicans want to take away old people’s health care and let them die in the streets.”
But we have a lot of violence in this country, and a lot of it’s gun-related. Compared to any other modern, post-industrial country we have an astronomical level of violence. I think it’s reasonable to talk about ways to reduce that. And the ease with which people who shouldn’t have guns get them needs to be a part of that discussion.
Pete, Lanza didn’t own a gun. Those were his mother’s guns.
I do think the majority of Americans want to make it impossible to obtain military weapons; machine guns, specialized ammo for killing humans, grenades, bombs, etc, they are all in the same boat. Most Americans also want to let regular long guns and pistols remain legal.
The issue however may end up to be just like the drug issue. We can ban them all we want and even have a “war on guns” but people have a demand for them and will get them, just like drugs. Guns are not that hard to make for someone with moderate skill you can make an AK-47 from a pretty simple kit. So do we want to have them and regulate them or drive them underground? In the end the problem is our desire to own military guns, our culture of murder and violence will drive some of this. Will passing laws against having assault weapons work any better than passing laws against pot? With pot people say well how well did prohibition work, could not the same argument be made for assault weapons? I am still in favor of an assault weapon ban, but I do wonder about the long term issue?
The key to stopping these sorts of school shooting and mass shootings seems to be early warnings by friends, family and people who come in contact with very disturbed young men.
Good conversation — a couple of points.
1. It is my default as a journalist to believe that policy debates and good information can and does eventually lead to progress. Call me naïve, or idealistic. I think my view reflects the historical reality. If enough Americans reach agreement that some form of gun regulation is important to protect people, it’ll happen. Not quickly, not overnight, but faster than one might think. The opponents of gun control clearly agree. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be so adamant about forestalling a civic discussion.
2. Obviously violence is not ALL about guns. But mass killings of this kind are, to echo my original argument, contingent on efficiency. You can have mentally ill people, people without moral values, people without solid family structures — all things that warrant discussion and remedy. But unless a violent person has access to an extremely well designed, efficient and accessible means to carry out mass violence, the impact will be limited.
–Brian, NCPR
“Will passing laws against having assault weapons work any better than passing laws against pot?”
Yes, Mervel, it will. You don’t have to get all the guns. It would be worthwhile just to reduce the total.
After all, one person smoking pot doesn’t kill twenty children. But if we can get one gun out of the hands of a killer, the effort will have been worthwhile. We’ll never get rid of all the guns, and we needn’t try. We just need to start reducing the total.
We require licensing and insurance to drive a car. Why not for owning a gun? It’s harder to buy sudafed than a handgun in some states.
Again, we’ll never stop all the killing. But if we can keep one gun out of the wrong person’s hand, it will have been worth it to try.
“The key to stopping these sorts of school shooting and mass shootings seems to be early warnings by friends, family and people who come in contact with very disturbed young men.”
Yes, sure, that’s important too. But that does not negate the importance of trying to reduce the total number of guns in circulation. Each and every gun has the potential to cause death, accidentally or otherwise.
And yes, I know, you can say the same of knives and automobiles. But they have other useful purposes, and they were not designed first and foremost to kill.
There is also the cultural change that goes along with policy action. Just focussing on gun violence while doing something minor like banning assault weapons can change attitudes. Doing things like making it legal to take guns into national parks does the opposite.
We need to get to the point where being a “gun enthusiast” is seen as a personality disorder.
The best reason to own a gun other than hunting is self defense, right?
So Google “man shoots intruder.”
Your results may vary, but I’m finding the guy who shot his granddaughter, the guy who shot and killed his son, the guy who killed an intruder execution style, etc., all in the first two pages.
Now, obviously, there are times when guns prevent crime and/or protect gun owners and their property. But just scanning the news stories, it looks like most of these folk would have been better off without their guns.
As Peter says, we’ve got to recognize that guns create as many problems as they solve, and that this idea that we’d all be better off if we were heavily armed at all times is BS. And if you don’t think that gun manufacturers have something to do with promoting the idea that guns are safe, essential tools…
well, you probably believe that Glenn Beck’s doomsaying has nothing to do with selling gold.
Larry, speaking of being offended, what do you think of this, from Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America, who said that “Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to ensure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones.”
Walker – that is sick
We have always been a violent country, but maybe less so today. Arguments, even among politicians, were once settled by duels. The wild west mentality is slowly receding. But it will still be many years before our culture has a mature approach to guns. When our important belief in individual freedom is added to the mix the fact is there will always be deranged people out there capable of going off at any time. We need to recognize that and to a certain extent accept it. But Brian Mann is right, we need to remove the efficiency from the equation of violence. There is no justification for civilians owning automatic guns or similar weapons with the capacity to quickly slaughter many human beings. I know there are nuts out there – we can’t lock people away without cause. But we would all be better off if there was no individual access to efficient mass killing machines. The kooks will still kill but hopefully the human toll would be limited.
Mervel, re your ridiculous 12.15 9:30AM post, let me make this clear- NO ONE in the US legally owns a bazooka or flame thrower!!! Where in heavens name did you get that crazy idea? MSNBC? And the only people owning machine guns are a few people who are specially licensed by the BATF who pay big bucks and go through extensive investigation.
I realize this is an emotional subject, but really, machine guns, flame throwers and bazookas??? Give me a break.
Brian M, regarding your comment- “It is understandable that people who believe in the principle of largely unregulated gun ownership prefer not to grapple with the complex, morally fraught real-world implications of that stance.”
I would counter that those who believe in removing the ability of a person to defend themselves, their family and their property, not to mention to punish anyone who thinks differently than themselves and to violate one of the basic ideals in our Constitution and Bill of Rights prefer not to grapple with the complex, morally fraught real-world implications of that stance. It is as morally wrong to take away a persons right to defend themselves and their property as it is to commit a crime with a gun. I doubt you see that, but I have seen what happens when the defenseless are preyed on.
Large magazines and assault weapons should be banned. If those proposals save only one life, it will be worth it.
Nonetheless, I think much of the problem involving mass killings revolves around two related issues: mental illness and the fact that US culture, in many ways, can be intolerant and cruel to people who are different and that leads to a lot of angry people who end up acting violently. I think that truly universal health care would help solve the first problem by ensuring the mentally ill get treatment. The second will require a culture change, particularly in our schools, so that people treat others how they would like to be treated (and that most definitely is not how a lot of kids in schools act today).
Walker, you point out that this kid took his mothers gun. Am I alone in thinking his mother was irresponsible? She knew her kid was a nut job and yet she apparently allowed him access. I had an unstable relative living with me for some time. I locked up my rifles and removed my handguns to a friends house. IMO that is the responsible thing to do when you have a drug addict living in the house. So once again we’re back at the problem being a human one. Had she lived, I would think she should have been charged with negligence if nothing else.
Regarding Larry Pratts statement about gun free zones. I agree completely.
Regarding Peter Hahns “gun enthusiast” being a personality disorder- I think people who cower in fear of a gun as you seem to do have a much larger disorder. Freud covered that pretty well. VIOLENT PEOPLE has the disorder Peter, not the people who admire a fine tool.
Walker, studies indicate that firearms are used to stop a crime more than 2 million times a year in the US and that often the mere presence of the firearm is enough to stop the crime without a shot being fired. Now, that’s the NRAs stats based on a variety of data sources. Even if it’s only half true, it significant. Each month there is a column called the Armed Citizen published about reports of people legally defending themselves. You seem to think it doesn’t ever happen, yet I know several people who have defended themselves, some on multiple occasions. I’ve had to do it too, not to mention defending my livestock- with a semi auto rifle and handgun among others.
I’d like to offer a couple of thoughts. A good friend of mine was shot by a nut job who illegally obtained a rifle. He had been released by the counties mental health dept a day or 2 days before. They did not notify the police in the area he was living there and was violent. HIPA laws maybe prevented it. In the end the shooter was killed by police and the mental health people accused the police of not attempting to contact them to deal with the subject and said that they were under no obligation or responsibility to advise anyone of anything. They were completely exonerated by the local media. In the same county the probation dept failed to notify police of a very violent probies actions, they basically ignored this guys threats and actions. He later went on to kill 2 police officers before being killed himself. The director of that probation dept was promoted to a higher level position in a larger county. My point is that very often is seems the legal and mental health system either ignores or is incapable of dealing with problem clients. We have laws that allow certain sexual predators to be incarcerated after serving their sentence for their crimes. Maybe we’ve gone too far to the soft side in dealing with mentally ill and violent people. When Cuomo Sr started closing down places like St Lawrence Physc and Sunmount, plus the dozens of institutions down state, our homeless population and the crime that went with it ballooned. I think we need to work on that. I think we need to have our medical industry start looking at the drugs they prescribe that seem to cause more problems than they solve. Our society is growing more violent, our citizens more desperate. We’ve lost our collective souls to consumerism, our 30 seconds of fame, our hate and fear. We need to bring back the reverence for human life we once had. We need to work on our society’s ills. You can ban guns altogether and not make a dent. Look at Washington DC and Chicago. You can hardly posses a gun, let alone carry one. Yet they both lead the nation in shootings. You can pass new laws, it won’t change. Even i f you took all the guns somehow they’d just go to killing each other with knives and clubs and rocks and fire bombs.
People who believe they need to keep military grade weapons in their houses to “defend themselves” are dangers to themselves and society, unless they keep their guns safely locked up and with the ammunition locked in a separate place. And then what’s the point? Why should we indulge these paranoid delusional people. Arlo – there is something deeply wrong with many of them. That mom of the killer was a “gun enthusiast”. She is dead now shot by her own son with her own guns. She probably thought those guns were there to protect her family. Delusional thinking.
There are an estimated 300 million guns in circulation in the US. As a practical matter, the NRA and the gun extremists have won. Even if there were restrictions imposed on purchase, it would still be extremely easy for anyone to acquire a gun illegally. Any measures taken now (an unlikely development ast best) would have an effect at the margin and would not have any significant impact. The toothpaste is out of the tube.
Deaths by firearms will continue unabated. It is just an ugly aspect of ‘American Exceptionalism’.
“http://abcnews.go.com/US/t/story/calif-mall-lockdown-shots-fired-17987389”
Another one.
Look there is a problem that goes well beyond guns. We should do things to make them less accesible and dangerous since so many folks thinks this is an answer, but that is not the core of this problem. What else should we do?
Peter, did she have the guns for “protection”? Handguns, maybe so?
Arlo, actually makes a great point that we should look at. Mental health is covered by the same privacy rules as anything else. Like with the guy in CO it has to be kept private. We know about it now only because he is dead.
Well, we might be making progress here. This afternoon I was in the mass murder zone but it now seems I just have a personality disorder. Am I allowed to be offended yet? Hey Brian Mann, where’s your usual admonition about keeping the discussion civil? What bullshit this “debate” turned out to be!
Larry sorry to hear you have a personality disorder. Are you saying you are one of those guys who keeps military grade weapons in your house that aren’t locked up safely with the ammo locked in a different place?