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
We are more violent today than 50 years ago as far as murder goes. Now is that from the increase in guns or do a nation of violent people just demand more guns? Do we have more drug abuse because of the supply of drugs or because people like drugs?
My personal opinion is that it is demand driven but that a decrease in supply would help.
But I don’t know the answer I think both sides need to be equally looked at. I see this as becoming more political on both sides. I see the anti-gun people grabbing on to another anti-tea party issue and the Gun crazies grabbing on to the opposite extreme.
I don’t believe either are helpful in solving the issue of mass killings in the US and murder in general in the US. I would think we should certainly ban assault weapons that for all practical purposes ARE machine guns. Lets face it, you have to be kind of a sleazy person to own an assault rifle, I have known many people all of my life who owned guns. I own guns, my family owns many guns, I don’t know even among this group anyone normal who owns a Bushmil or an AK-47 style weapon, these are always weird people in my personal experience. So yes ban them all.
But that is just a small step I doubt if it would end or slow our murder rates or stop any of these mass killings.
Someone pointed out that this is the 7th mass shooting this year. But that isn’t correct. It may be the 7th bizarre and inexplicable mass shooting this year but there are multiple shootings every week of two or more people, and there are shootings of 3, 4, 5 or more regularly enough that they dont even get much attention beyond the local community usually.
Maybe NCPR could keep a list or a map like this one:
http://data.baltimoresun.com/homicides/
I happen to know a guy who is a pin on that map. A man with a PHd who was coming home from choir practice and shot down in the street for no apparent reason.
But if we all put our heads together we can probably think of lots of local multiple shootings in the last year or two. There was a guy who shot three family members and fled with his girlfriend to NH, There was a guy who took his two young daughters camping in Lake George and killed them and himself. As I’m writing this the radio is reporting someone spraying 50 bullets in a Mall parking lot somewhere.
It is time for the NRA to get serious about doing something and NRA members must pressure the organization to call for a set of NATIONAL regulations.
If you are the NRA and you don’t support greater gun regulations then don’t ever talk about being Pro-life again.
But the gun nuts are correct about one thing, at least in part. Guns don’t kill people by themselves. If you look at Afghanistan, a country where there is an AK-47 in virtually every house, there is a very low murder rate. Yes there are war related killings, but common domestic murder is pretty rare. Simple assault and petty crime is pretty rare there too.
The sad thing is that our society is more violent and more dysfunctional in many ways than Afghanistan which has been essentially at war for over 30 years. We are one of the richest and they are one of the poorest and we are more violent than they are. Sad.
“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.”
Arlo, you might want to look into those statistics: Wash.Times’ Emily Miller Downplays Gun Violence With Debunked Statistic.
“[Banning assault weapons] is just a small step I doubt if it would end or slow our murder rates or stop any of these mass killings.”
Mervel, the reason not a single one of the twenty kindergardeners lived is that they were all shot multiple times, some of them up to eleven times. That’s a lot of firing in what appears to be a very short time. If the guy had had to change clips after every five shots, there’s a much better chance some of these kids would be alive today. And, of course, there is the comparison to the madman in China who attacked 22 schoolchildren with a knife– they’re all alive today.
So look, yes, we need to do more than just try to control the proliferation of assault weapons and large capacity clips. But we really need to do that.
Incredibly, according to some accounts, sales of assault weapons, clips and ammunition surged yesterday. That’s how some view this tragedy.
Arlo, here’s another look at that “two million times a year” figure: Do guns make us safer?
It suggests that the true number is probably well under a hundred thousand times a year, most likely sixty or seventy thousand times. And the FBI counted an average of 213 justified firearm homicides per year over the period 2005-2010.
In other words, there’s a good reason that when you Google “man shoots intruder” you don’t get a lot of stories that make you thing “it’s a good thing he had a weapon.”
And in any case, we don’t need assault weapons with thirty-round clips in every bedroom closet.
Not that it is critical to the discussion, but according to FBI statistics reported here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/mass-murder-rate-rising-newtown-shooting_n_2302590.html
murder rates in the US overall have declined 40%, and continue to do so. MASS murder rates (counted as 4 or more), have only slightly increased since the 80s. I suspect 2012 will show a large increase in the latter.
I think Brian’s idea of limiting firearm efficiency is a good one, and if enacted, may have a small effect over the long term.
I think Arlo’s comments about probation and social service agencies failures to report possibly dangerous clients, and not being held accountable for it, are (if accurate, and statistically germane), perhaps the most relevant comments here. Very few firearms used to murder people in the U.S., and, very few Americans commit murder. Can we do a better job identifying, and controlling potentially dangerous people? Maybe the pendulum needs to swing more in that direction.
How about a discussion on it?
“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.”
Yes, but so what? She’s paid for her irresponsibility. You can’t prevent irresponsibility, in gun owners or anyone else.
But you can limit the sale of assault weapons and large capacity clips.
So what do you say? Any real argument for why we shouldn’t?
So there are two threads here I want to respond to.
First, to Arlo, I think it is absolutely appropriate for gun-rights folks to articulate their values, and priorities. It just needs to happen in the context of the real-world consequences of unfettered access to highly efficient killing machines. Then we can all decide as a democratic society what the appropriate responses and policies might be. If we decide that it’s so intrinsic to American culture that these devices be widely and inexpensively available that it’s okay — or at least tolerable — for there to be mass killings (using these devices) every few months, then so be it.
Secondly, to those who argue that the matter is already decided, or settled, or that there is some kind of foregone conclusion here – nonsense. People have said the same thing about every social question or problem that has arisen in American society, from extreme poverty for seniors, to polio, to the use of leaded gasoline, to the use of ozone-depleting chemicals in household products, to Jim Crow laws, to abortion to climate change. And then people get busy arguing for policy changes and new laws and regulations, and things evolve.
Finally, bring it back to civility, folks. I don’t have access right now to the comment delete function from the computer I’m working on, but quite a few of these posts cross the line. Talk to each other, listen to each other. NO name calling, no personal stuff, and no profanity. This is a tough topic, at a tough time. We owe it to this moment to have a civil, reasoned discussion. Talking is necessary, shouting is offensive.
–Brian, NCPR
Okay, Brian can’t delete anything you say so this is the time to really get nasty and there’s not a DARNED thing he can do about it! WOOOO-HOOOO!!!!! I”M SHOUTING!!!! And running with scissors!
Off topic, but I just want to point out that journalists often talk about how we are free to say anything in America but Brain is ready to pull the plug on profanity. Just sayin’.
I don’t own what I think of as a so called “assault gun”, but I’m sure that most of the people here would think most of my guns qualify either as “assault” or “sniper” guns, or Mervels mythical “machine gun”. Still waiting for an explanation on just where you got the insane idea people can buy flame throwers, bazookas and machine guns Mervel. Anyway, since most of you see no “need” for me to own any of these horrifying, dangerous weapons that are designed to kill, kill, kill people, then I’ll make you a deal. I’ll give them all up when you all give up everything I feel you don’t “need”. Since I’ve never committed a crime with a gun or any crime for that matter, and since my “needs” are open to being judged by you all, then conversely, your needs should be judged by me. I’ll just start with no more tobacco, beer, wine and alcohol. There’s no need for it, it kills millions each year and that should be proof enough for anyone. There’s no need for cars anymore. We can all move to within walking distance of our jobs and we can order food and clothing on line and have it all delivered. No more canoes, kayaks, skis, swimming pools, foot ball, baseball, basketball, sports of any kind. Injuries and deaths from sports are numerous and it’s clear no one needs to engage in any of them. It’s pretty clear contact sports encourage bullying and most sports involve people getting their sick, twisted jollies from beating someone else. There are plenty of cardiovascular exercises that can be done in a safe, sterile, OSHA approved environment where proper medical attention can be on hand at a moments notice. We’ll end all shopping altogether other than for basic food and clothing. There’s no needs for any of us to have anything other than gov’t approved foods, no sugars/meat/dairy, or anything beyond the standard grey work suits and shoes. Consumerism breeds sloth and decadence, violence, hurt feelings, pride, arrogance, is wasteful and unneeded. No more television or radio beyond gov’t approved news and music which will contain subliminal messages of calm. Disturbing news like that issued by Fox and NPR is said to be the cause of stress and anxiety and violence, we’ll end it. There;s no real need for people to be informed of what’s actually happening. The gov’t can decide what we should hear and see, they will protect us from unnecessary stress and anxiety with messages of how good everything is going. Calming music and art will bring peace and tranquility to most people. Those that don’t find Karen Carpenter, Neil Sedaka and Roger Whitaker 24/7/365 calming and serene obviously have severe personality disorders and will be institutionalized. Sex of any kind will be outlawed of course except for procreative uses when the population of workers falls below expected numbers. There’s no need for it and look at the disease, violence, hurt feelings, etc. that can be avoided. Primal, hormone driven urges can be handled through drug therapy.
There’s no arguing that lives will be saved by following these and other common sense, compassionate and very needed guidelines. I for one am tired of these nut jobs killing themselves and others with their selfish attitudes and adherence to outdated ideas like personal freedom, choice, privacy and self awareness. It’s beyond time that we ban entirely all activity that doesn’t lead to the creation of a serene, tranquil, peaceful society. The police will be able to protect us from all crime when 3 officers are stationed at every home and workplace, monitoring and recording all activity. The disgruntled, unhappy worker can be removed long before any harm can be done and drugged into submission. It will all be worth it if even one life is spared. To say otherwise just shows your callous disregard for human life and makes me think you should be among the first to be drugged into submission.
Arlo, using the argument above you could justify those bazookas, flamethrowers, hand grenades, bombs, etc. I don’t think you want to go there. Maybe I’m wrong. You haven’t answered where you stand on thirty round clips. Are they essential to your sense of freedom and security?
Back to those 2.5 million defensive uses of guns.
The NRA maintains an archive of news stories giving accounts of cases where an armed citizen was able to defeat an attempted crime. It’s called Armed Citizen. I’d be surprised if they miss many.
Take a look. The typical month has well under 10 stories. That suggests that there are probably fewer than 100 successful gun defenses per year nationwide.
Check out this entry:
[Note that the guy got himself and his friends shot at for no good reason.]
Meanwhile, according to the IRA’s own figures, there are approximately 600 accidental fatalities per year.
Then there’s the nation’s 18,000+ suicides per year:
* Although most gun owners reportedly keep a firearm in their home for “protection” or “self defense,” 83 percent of gun-related deaths in these homes are the result of a suicide, often by someone other than the gun owner.
* Firearms are used in more suicides than homicides.
* Death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide.
* Firearms account for 50 percent of all suicides.
Uh, that’s 18,000+ firearm suicides. Total suicides was twice that number. This was 2009.
There are also studies showing owning guns does not reduce crime levels:
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014481889800012X
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=245849
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=john_donohue
I have no issue with 30 round magazines or 500 rounders or million rounders- as long as they are used legally. I also have no issue with cars that go faster than 55, alcohol, etc. as long as they are used legally. I don’t have a desire for mags holding more than 12 or so, that’s the biggest one I have I think. But I don’t think mag capacity has anything to do with violence. People are violent, not inanimate objects.
Like I said, those were NRA figures. You can go to Handgun Control and get skewed stats that claim pretty much everyone will die if there’s a gun anywhere within 100 feet. Take it with a grain of salt.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/7589-guns-used-in-self-defense
http://gunssavelives.net/
Yeah, people kill themselves. Take the guns away they use a rope or pills or jump. Something you want to remember with FBI and CDC stats is that they include the criminals shot by police, etc. I’m not saying stuff doesn’t happen, it does. I’m saying you have no right to disarm a law abiding, sane person.
And no, my argument above doesn’t allow hand grenades, etc. My argument above simply points out the absurdity of basing your argument on perceived “need”. You are right in one sense- I don’t “need” gun. I can let the coyotes eat my livestock, let someone harm me or may family or take my property. I can stop taking my kids target shooting in my sandpit. Even though it’s a basic right according to the Bill of Rights, I have no “need” to defend myself or to simply own a gun of any kind. You and I have no “need” for freedom of speech or assembly or religion or of being secure from unlawful search and seizure. We can just exist. No need to go to the movies or watch TV or listen to the radio or participate in The In Box. We don’t “need” any freedoms whatsoever since every single thing I can think of can have a negative effect in one way or another.
Maybe it’s you who should be careful of what you wish for.
BTW- I read that report of the old folks and don’t see the guy getting himself and friends shot at, I see a criminal likely returning to take more and maybe kill them. Look at some of the other reports-
The Armed Citizen December 11, 2012
12/11/2012
Scott Stith was in his bedroom when he heard a loud crash coming from the first floor of his home. He grabbed his .45 cal. pistol and crept downstairs to investigate. He spotted the silhouette of a man, but did not fire because he had teenage sons in the house and was not 100 percent sure of his target. He called out only to discover the man was an intruder who had broken through the glass of the back door. Stith held the 29-year-old intruder at gunpoint until police arrived. Everyone involved was reportedly unharmed. (Sandusky Register., Milan, OH, 9/29/12)
Just before 2 a.m., a 25-year-old man shot another man in the head at Bonnie’s Food and Spirits after he was asked to leave. He then fatally shot another customer outside the pub. When he pointed his pistol at Mark Ktytor, however, Ktytor produced his own firearm and fired multiple rounds, leaving the assailant in critical condition. The suspect will be charged with criminal homicide and attempted homicide upon his release from the hospital. (The Times-Tribune, Plymouth, PA, 9/11/12)
Read More
Comments (0)
The Armed Citizen December 4, 2012
12/4/2012
Two armed men stormed into a Dollar General store one evening and attempted to rob it. While the men held the store manager at gunpoint, a 57-year-old man carrying a concealed .45 cal. handgun, who had been shopping at the store at the time of the robbery, took action. The customer did not hesitate to draw his gun and fire at the suspects. One of the men robbing the store suffered fatal wounds to the head, chest and shoulder. The second suspect fled, but was later caught and charged with robbery and felony murder. There were reportedly no other injuries. (The Florida Times-Union, Jacksonville, FL, 8/29/12)
From The Armed Citizen Archives:
December 1985: Willie Griffin had forced a robber out of his Florence, Calif., store and was phoning police when the man returned. As the robber came at him with a piece of steel pipe, the shopkeeper mortally wounded him with a single shot from his handgun. (The Times, Los Angeles, Calif.)
Read More
Comments (0)
When the ex-husband of a woman living at Windmill Cove Apartments was not granted access to his ex-wife’s home by employees of the apartment complex, he warned that he would kick in the door. His ex-wife and a 35-year-old male friend were inside when they heard yelling and someone violently kicking the door. When the door gave way and the man came inside, the friend fired several rounds from his handgun. The man suffered multiple gunshot wounds that proved fatal. (KSL, Sandy, UT, 9/2/12)
Read More
Comments (0)
The Armed Citizen November 20, 2012
11/20/2012
Brianne Rodriguez heard a knock at her front door just before 9 a.m., but ignored it. A few minutes later, Rodriguez heard loud noises coming from her bedroom. When she went to investigate, she discovered a man wearing a ski mask in her home. The confrontation led to a struggle and Rodriguez was pushed to the floor and kicked in the face and ribs. The masked man then grabbed her screaming 2-year-old daughter and bolted for the door. Rodriguez quickly retrieved a shotgun she kept in her bedroom and followed. Upon seeing the gun, the man dropped the child and fled. He escaped with Rodriguez’s purse and some jewelry, but Rodriguez and her daughter sustained no serious injuries. (KSEE 24 NEWS, Fresno County, CA, 8/28/12)
Comments (0)
The Armed Citizen November 13, 2012
11/13/2012
John Mutter was asleep in his bed around 2:15 a.m. when he was awakened by a man with a shotgun pointed at his head. Mutter, a paraplegic living alone, kept his own gun nearby for protection. He quickly grabbed his gun and fired multiple times killing the intruder. Police investigating the incident believed the man had entered the home looking for medication, money or anything of value. (The Columbus Dispatch, Johnstown, OH, 7/22/12)
Gerald Mirto, 67, heard noises coming from his backyard and went to investigate. When he noticed the screen door had been broken, Mirto spotted the culprit standing just outside. The 25-year-old suspect was not wearing any clothing and was asked to leave repeatedly. There was a struggle in which Mirto was bitten in the arm and punched in the head. Mirto was able to escape and retreat to the second floor of his home where he retrieved a handgun. He then found the intruder attempting to steal his television. The intruder reportedly instigated a second physical altercation. That is when Mirto shot the man in the chest. Police apprehended the intruder a short time later. (Milford Patch, Milford, CT, 7/23/12)
Read More
Comments (0)
The Armed Citizen November 6, 2012
11/6/2012
Guns and Ammo Gunsmith was targeted by three burglars shortly before 4 a.m. The store owner, Stephen Bayazes Jr., 57, and his wife were asleep in their apartment at the back of the business when they heard a loud crash accompanied by the activation of a silent alarm. Bayazes grabbed a rifle and found three men loading guns into a van that had crashed through the side wall of the store. Bayazes fired multiple times after being threatened by the men. He then retreated to his bedroom to reload. When Bayazes emerged, he witnessed two of the men drive away leaving behind their accomplice who was badly wounded; the burglar later died at the hospital. The other two burglars were found a short time later when they sought help for injuries of their own. (The Augusta Chronicle, North Augusta, SC, 8/9/12)
Two women were taking a walk in their neighborhood one morning when they encountered two loose pit bulls; a male and female. The male dog attacked one of the women, 48, biting her right elbow and leg. The aggressive dog had the victim on the ground when a neighbor heard her screams. He came outside to assist the injured woman and her friend when the dog reportedly turned on him. When the dog came at the neighbor in an aggressive manner, he shot the dog in the shoulder with his pistol. The dog ran off, but was later found and euthanized. The female pit bull was not involved in the attack and was taken to a local animal shelter. The victim of the attack had suffered a broken elbow and was taken to the hospital to be treated. Neither the woman’s friend nor the neighbor had been injured. (The Ranger, Riverton, WY, 7/6/12)
Read More
Comments (1)
The Armed Citizen October 30, 2012
10/30/2012
Martha Lewis was at home with her two daughters when she heard a loud noise. It was 3 a.m., so Lewis immediately called police and grabbed her gun. She went to her daughters’ room and told them each to get something with which to defend themselves. They were at the top of the stairs when a man, who had kicked in the door and entered the home, spotted them. When the man started up the stairs toward them, Lewis warned the intruder that she would shoot him. When he ignored her warnings, Lewis fired causing him to stumble outside where police found him. The 25-year-old male was hospitalized in stable condition. After the incident, Lewis said, “There’s so much talk about banning guns and gun control, but they’re for protection. There’s no way that I could have fought him off.” (The Blaze, Dora, AL, 8/17/12)
From The Armed Citizen Archives
September 1985: Dino Starn awoke to find a man climbing through the bedroom window of his New Jersey home. “He picked the wrong window,” said Starn, who, for the second time in two years, used a handgun for protection. He shot once at the intruder, who was apparently hit in the arm and ran. Starn had previously used the gun to capture two burglars in his home. (The Press, Atlantic City, N.J.)
Read More
Comments (0)
The Armed Citizen October 23, 2012
10/23/2012
When a 23-year-old male followed a woman from the garage area of an apartment complex and assaulted her, the woman went to an apartment for help. The tenant, a friend of the woman’s, was home with his young son. The woman told him the man following her had tried to grope her and made unintelligible statements to her. When the tenant allowed her inside his unit and closed the door, the man began pounding on the door. The tenant grabbed a gun from his bedroom for protection. Before he was able to call police, the perpetrator kicked in the door of the apartment. When the intruder took several steps toward the woman and the boy, the tenant shot him. He was pronounced dead at the scene. (San Jose Mercury News, Oakland, CA, 8/9/12)
Lisa Goude called police when she noticed a man lurking outside her house at about 1:15 a.m. Just two minutes into the call, the man broke through the glass of a kitchen window and entered the home. The 28-year-old intruder refused to leave and attempted to enter Goude’s bedroom. Goude retrieved a handgun and shot the man once before instructing him to leave her home once again. Despite suffering a gunshot wound, the intruder reportedly came at Goude causing her to fire two more rounds. After suffering two gunshots to the neck and one to the abdomen, the intruder was pronounced dead at the scene. (The Gaston Gazette, Gastonia, NC, 8/10/12)
Read More
Comments (0)
The Armed Citizen October 16, 2012
10/16/2012
A 36-year-old male wearing black gloves and a mask over his face entered a Dairy Queen restaurant carrying a samurai-style sword. The man approached employee Michael Wehbe, 20, unsheathed the 41-inch blade and swung it into the cash register several times. When Wehbe’s older brother, Christian, 23, also an employee, witnessed the man’s violent behavior on the surveillance cameras from the back of the restaurant, he immediately took action. Christian emerged from the back with his 9 mm handgun and shot the assailant twice. Police found him lying wounded just outside; he later died at the hospital. There were no other reported injuries. (Las Vegas Review-Journal, Las Vegas, NV, 8/21/12)
From The Armed Citizen Archives
October 1964: Alone in his Little Rock, Ark., beverage store, Floyd Strickland was approached by 2 thugs, one of whom was carrying a single-shot rifle with a sawed off barrel. Without saying a word, the armed bandit fired at Strickland, wounding him in the arm. Strickland pulled out his pistol and fired 5 shots at the intruders. Both robbers were felled—one was dead and the other had 2 broken arms. (Arkansas Gazette)
Read More
Comments (1)
The Armed Citizen October 9, 2012
10/9/2012
When a homeowner heard noises coming from the first floor of his home, he called out. One of two intruders reportedly identified himself as a police officer so the resident descended the stairs to investigate. One man hurled a hatchet at the homeowner, but missed. The resident fought back and fired a shotgun striking one of the intruders. Both men fled upon hearing the gunshot. The wounded suspect was later arrested when he sought medical treatment. (Kitsap Sun, Tacoma, WA, 6/28/12)
Arlo, I did read them. I concluded that store owners in bad neighborhoods, and maybe homeowners too, may need handguns. But you’re continuing to act as if such stories justify having legal assault rifles with thirty round clips. None of the stories, that I can see, justify that.
Do you really think it’s likely that the Connecticut guy could have gotten multiple bullets each into 27 people if he’d had to reload after every five rounds? Don’t you think a law limiting the legal size of clips might have saved some lives yesterday? Wouldn’t two or three living schoolchildren be worth that limitation on our freedoms?
John Mutter said the intruder who prodded him awake with a poke to the head with one of his own shotguns was interested in finding more guns.
The man told Mutter, “I have some of your property,” and wanted to know where other guns could be found, Corbin said. At least two gunshots fired by Mutter struck Dyer in the upper body, he said.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/pages/data/crime-safety/crime-stats/crime-stats.html
There are lots of anecdotes. The only ones who really need guns for protection are the guys in the illegal drug trade.
You can find heartwarming stories about people who’s lives were saved because they weren’t wearing seat belts.
I have a hard time really worrying about our rights to these sorts of weapons versus the damage they do or have the capability to do.
Like many other parts our culture we may be at a point where yes we can move to outlaw assault weapons, but they are so popular and so easy to make and obtain, that the law will be like many of our other laws, it will simply drive the whole thing underground. Not that we shouldn’t do it, just that it will be a small part of the total solution.
The real laws of any country are written on the hearts of the people, not on paper.
Someone mentioned above that sales of assault weapons went up the day after the shooting, why? Well because people think they are going to be outlawed so they wanted one, the demand is there thus there will always be a supply. What do we do about the demand is the question?
Once we let all of the petty drug users out of jail, there will be plenty of room for the illegal gun dealers (if we can ever muster up the political courage to outlaw over-the-top weaponry).
These stupid, misleading and inflammatory comments serve only to polarize opinion and drive people further and further away from a place where meaningful and reasonable compromise might be reached. The continued chanting about banning things that are already banned, from people who don’t know what they’re talking about, makes one wonder: what’s their real agenda? People get nervous when they see ill-informed, vicious and self-centered people begin to tamper with constitutional guarantees, especially when they exploit tragedy and indulge in gratuitous, sleazy insults to do so. It makes people dig in their heels and resist any approach to compromise. Continuing the back-door assault on constitutionally guaranteed freedom is a dangerous business. Individual rights and freedoms bring with them the risk that someone may abuse those rights, but that’s hardly a cogent reason for abridging people’s rights. Fascism always looks reasonable at the start.
“…ill-informed, vicious and self-centered people begin to tamper with constitutional guarantees…”
Gee, Larry, you can’t take it, but you sure can dish it out. From what I could see, you folks showed no sign of compromise at all. Maybe I missed it.
Larry the agenda is public safety. We dont allow people to drink and drive but they can drink all they want. Its no more complicated than that. People can put themselves in danger, but when it involves danger to others we try to do something.
“We need to get to the point where being a “gun enthusiast” is seen as a personality disorder.”
After making an inflammatory and demeaning statement like that do you really expect me to believe you don’t want to ban all guns in the name of public safety? You make my point for me every time something like this comes out of your mouth.
From the NY Times, 15 minutes ago:
A man in Indiana who had 47 guns hidden in his home was arrested for threatening to “kill as many people as he could” at an elementary school, the police said.
The key was people acted on his threats. I don’t know man you read this stream of just absolute darkness from people who just want to kill children, it has to do with a lot more than some detail of our gun laws.
Larry – personality disorder.
By “gun enthusiast” I mean the kind of person who feels the need to have loaded military grade guns in the house, “just in case”. That is very different from a (responsible) gun owner or a gun collector. I dont think this should be insulting to you nor is it an inflammatory demeaning statement. It is not uncommon for children to wander into someones house and play with loaded guns that they think are toys.
Do you think it is reasonable to have loaded weapons lying around the house? Especially ones that arent locked up some way?
If you read the entire article in the Times you would know that this guy was also charged with threatening to set his wife on fire and that many of the firearms were collectibles. Walker, never missing a chance to pour gasoline on the fire, quoted only the part that made this look like an incipient mass-murderer who was stockpiling guns and ammunition. Keep fanning those flames!
“…you read this stream of just absolute darkness from people who just want to kill children, it has to do with a lot more than some detail of our gun laws.”
Of course it does, Mervel. But I’ll say it again: the madman who stabbed 22 schoolchildren in China had the same impulse, but those kids are alive today. What’s not to understand?
I know exactly what you mean, Peter Hahn, and your half-hearted attempt at “explanation” does not fool me, nor do I think it fools anyone else. You do this all the time and it’s tiresome. Let’s stick to common english language usage. If it always requires an expanded explanation after someone objects then there’s a problem.
“…many of the firearms were collectibles…”
Oh, well, that’s OK then! What a relief! No problem! He’s just a harmless gun collector! That’s great!
You know what, Larry? All I’m talking about is trying to reduce the number of assault weapons and large capacity clips. I don’t care how many guns you’ve got, as long as none of them is designed to fire 30 rounds in 30 seconds, I’m good to go. You and Arlo want to make it about Freedom and everything else under the sun.
No explanation needed Larry. Plain English. The End.
Walker,
Yes the guy in China “only” had a machete. But that has nothing to do with this country, my point was we are never going to outlaw long guns (rifles and shotguns) or handguns, so yes we can limit the magazine sizes and get rid of assault weapons, I think that is a real political possibility and I would support that. But you are still going to have full access to rifles, shotguns and handguns. Certainly in these horrible mass shootings maybe less would have been killed, maybe not. I think the argument over guns actually overshadows really solving some of this, its about the politics and frankly the minutia of styles of guns, which I think is a side issue. But it is easier than addressing our culture at large, its obsession with violence, our media, our bad mental health system and family problems.
OK, Walker, hypothetically, how about we round up all the mentally ill and terminate them? Nobody can deny that all the perpetrators of these massacres are mentally ill, so why not remove the threat? I guess we can’t: people would make it all about freedom and all those other troubling concepts.
Yeah, Larry, that’s a real helpful suggestion.
So let’s see. Your point is that since we can’t kill all the crazies, we can’t do anything about assault rifles? Is that it?
So doesn’t the fact that we can’t have hand grenades mean that we’re not free?
“…it is easier than addressing our culture at large, its obsession with violence, our media, our bad mental health system and family problems.”
If I had Clue One how to start to work on any of that stuff, I’d be happy to advocate it. But if you think people go nuts protecting their gun collections, try locking up someone’s borderline psycho son…
And if you try telling the media not to produce films or TV glorifying violence, you’ll get called a Nazi or a Communist for sure.
And if you try to do something about the mental health system, you’ll be accused of “throwing money at the problem.”
So hard as tinkering with gun laws is, it may be the only approach possible, at least until people get fed up with some of the more extreme forms of our national obsession with “freedom”.
How do you think we should proceed, Mervel? Have a conference?
And Larry, come on. What do you think we should do? Are shootings like this just part of the “cost of freedom”?
“One failed attempt at a shoe bomb and we all have to take off our shoes at the airport.
Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and still no change in our regulation of guns.” -John Oliver
Walker, lets look at your question to me in a different light- Do you really think it’s likely that the Connecticut guy could have gotten multiple bullets each into 27 people if there had been some armed teachers there? Don’t you think the law establishing “gun free zones” cost some lives yesterday? Wouldn’t two or three living schoolchildren be worth re-establishing our freedoms?
You look at it as no one needs the ability to protect themselve because we can simply pass a law and criminals will comply. I’m sure some laws will be passed and the people that will comply are the ones that never would have been a problem in the first place. I look at it as being a God given (YES! I said GOD!), natural right and law that people have the right to defend themselves. While I hope that I will never have to use a gun (or anything else) to take a life, I know that should it come to it I should have the right to protect myself, family and property from violent people. So should you and everyone else. Passing harsh laws hasn’t eliminated murder, assault, DWIs, drugs, speeding, reckless driving, child abuse, robbery, burglary, sexual abuse, child porn, poaching, picking trilliums or much of anything else. Peter says that we don’t allow people to drink and drive, right. Like that doesn’t happen. We;ve outlawed a lot of drugs and yet our addicted population seems to be growing. Laws only work well when people are willing to comply. In the case here, the coward attacked a large group of completely defenseless people. At Columbine the cowards attacked defenseless people. The Batman shooter attacked defenseless people. Do you see a pattern here? Do we ever see mass killings at police stations? Gun stores or other establishments with well armed occupants? Criminals, like any predator, prey on the victim least able to defend themselves. Can anyone actually try and make a coherent argument tot hat fact?
Look, some of you people probably mean it when you say you don’t care how many guns a person owns as long as they don’t have the high cap mags. Some probably just don’t know enough about the tool to make an accurate judgement. Some are probably like Bloomberg, Schumer, etc. and want to disarm the American people entirely. God as my witness, every step they take is just one more step towards their goal of having absolute power. It’s the same with taxes, with healthcare, with food and the internet. Their goal is to have the power in their hands alone. We will be their useful idiots and they will have armed guards, paid for by you and me. I know some of you mean well, but it’s all part of the game started over 100 years back.
Walker, no one advocated hand grenades, did they? We have more than enough laws on the books regarding guns already. One estimate puts it at 80,000 gun laws in the US. What we need is people obeying the laws we already have. But how do we do that, what incentive is there to obey the law, when we see our own Attorney General walking off scot free from an illegal gun running operation in Mexico? What incentive is there when our gov’t attempts to cover up an illegal arms deal in Libya that results in 4 Americans being left to die and no one even thinks it’s worth looking at? Isn’t 4 deaths the minimum to be considered a mass killing? Then why are we letting our President walk on his mass killing?!!!
You talk about how we should be willing to give up some of our freedoms. Well maybe the freedoms we should be looking at lessening are the search and seizure laws and mental health records. Maybe the answer is to curb the movie industry and video game industry. Maybe we should start going after some of the people that actually preach the hate and incite the violence like Louis Farakan, Samuel L Jackson, Chris Mathews, Ed Schultz, etc. How about we actually go after the illegal arms dealers instead of letting the AG and ATF play James Bond and causing the death of a lot of Mexican citizens and some USBP. Why not shut down the rap music industry that glorifies violence? Maybe we should start seriously going after the drug trade instead of playing patty cake. Maybe we should declare cities like Chicago failed experiments and simply remove it’s gov’t and anything connected with it and start over. None of this is any more egregious than what some of you propose.
God, Arlo, I can’t believe you’re going there!
Let’s start with the fact that the shooter’s first victim was a gun owner. You really want kindergarten teachers bringing handguns to school?!
“Passing harsh laws hasn’t eliminated murder, assault, DWIs, drugs, speeding, reckless driving, child abuse, robbery, burglary, sexual abuse, child porn, poaching, picking trilliums or much of anything else.”
Right, so we might as well tear up all those freedom-encroaching laws, right! AAAAACCCHHHHGGG!!!!
Walker:
We aren’t “free” until citizens are allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s “my right” to possess weapons capable of destroying the world and any law that prevents me from doing so is evil nanny state socialism.
The solution is to send the kids to school with a gun each. That way, at the very least, no one will take their lunch money.
Walker,
As far as how to proceed, yes we need to look at guns including restricting the things we have been talking about.
But then what?
I would say we could indeed look at more money for targeted mental health strategies. The people doing these things are not people who have “snapped”, this took planning, it took preparation. Families are desperate for mental health help particularly for young men and women at this age. Also what should we look for what are warning signs; there are warning signs.
Also frankly I think we could also look at our gun/violence culture, that can happen across the board, in our churches, families and schools, how do we practice non-violence in our speech our actions our attitudes. I think we can speak out against all of the very dark media programing that glorifies murder, death, suicide and pain.
Its a long term effort to change the country and how we view violence in general.
So yeah
This is getting a bit tiresome. A perfectly reasonable request to discuss a limitation on the sale of large magazines and assault weapons (or “tools”) is going to result in fascism and the overthrow of the USA by godless, liberal, commies.
We have just jumped from Reagan’s guess of 20,000 gun control laws to 80,000 gun control laws. A Brookings Institue estimate in 1999 found about 300 federal and state laws having to do with guns.
http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf
Next we are going to hear a proposal to arm kindergarteners.