As a father, I found myself, as I watched and listened to the reports, holding back tears, thankful that I knew my children were safe and sound. Realizing how precarious life really is.
National tragedies like these have a natural course. There is the shock. There is the dizzying array of reports, most of them conflicting as rumors and innuendo begin to substitute for substantiated facts. You always hope for the best, but yesterday we learned that if it was not the worst-case scenario coming true, it was its close cousin.
After the shock comes anger, and then a sense of helplessness, sadness and loss.
But I’m tired of all of these emotions. I’m tired of this heartache. I felt it when Columbine happened. I felt it when Virginia Tech happened. And I felt it when Aurora happened.
This one hit close to home. My cousin lives in the next town over. Her kids go to school in the next town over. People in their synagogue live in Newtown.
This is the 28th shooting of this sort since Columbine. And the frequency is increasing – this is the 8th mass shooting this year alone.
So the question is – are we simply going to sit around and do nothing, as we largely have done since 1999, other than upgrade some of our security measures? The school in Connecticut had just done this – but to little avail.
The thing about these shootings is that if people are willing to die when they carry out their horrible deeds, no amount of deterrence is going to work. Open carry advocates argue that having weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens is a solution.
I don’t agree. The shooter in this case was wearing a bullet proof vest to make it more difficult for him to be stopped. Teachers or principals strapped with weapons is not the kind of environment I think we want in a classroom, and would likely invite other more frequent problems.
As tragic as this is, it is still a very rare occurrence. So, for an event that happens so infrequently, the risk of introducing weapons into schools seems much more risky.
Tightening security may make us feel better, but do we really want our children to go to school in virtual prisons?
I heard a lot of talk yesterday that now is not the time to talk about gun control. My question is: if not now, when? If not us – who?
I am not a knee-jerk gun control advocate. I largely believe that we are not going to ban our way to a solution here.
But at the same time, banning is not the only option with regard to gun control.
I always hear from gun supporters – guns do not kill people, people kill people. But guns help. Observe the man standing on the corner, he is waving his arms around forming a simulated weaponry, the cars pass on the street, he pulls back the trigger and simulates firing off a few rounds, blam, blam, blam.
The man is crazy. But he has no weapon and no one dies.
The New York Times writes on Friday: “Each slaughter of innocents seems to get more appalling. A high school. A college campus. A movie theater. People meeting their congresswoman. A shopping mall in Oregon, just this Tuesday. On Friday, an elementary school classroom.”
The question is, what can we do? The New York Times writes, “What about addressing the problem of guns gone completely out of control, a problem that comes up each time a shooter opens fire on a roomful of people but then disappears again?”
For those who say, this is not the time to discuss gun control – we have tried that, and it is not working.
The problem that we have, at least in discussing the possibility of some common sense, is that Republicans, as the NY Times notes, “are mired in an ideology that opposes any gun control. After each tragedy, including this one, some people litter the Internet with grotesque suggestions that it would be better if everyone (kindergarten teachers?) were armed.”
And the Democrats are too fearful of the gun lobby and “will not support an assault weapons ban, or a ban on high-capacity bullet clips, or any one of a half-dozen other sensible ideas.”
President Obama said Friday that “we have been through this too many times” and that “we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.”
But the New York Times asks, “When will that day come? It did not come after the 1999 Columbine shooting, or the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, or the murders in Aurora last summer.”
“The more that we hear about gun control and nothing happens, the less we can believe it will ever come. Certainly, it will not unless Mr. Obama and Congressional leaders show the courage to make it happen.”
As Charles Blow, New York Times columnist, writes, “How many more deaths and mass shootings will it take for Washington to begin to lead the country in a deeper conversation about sensible gun controls? What will it take for our politicians to take firm and principled positions on gun policies and stand up to the gun lobby in this country? Surely this is a moment that calls all of us to reckoning.”
But there is something else that we are not talking about. This isn’t just about guns. You see, just as the madman can do little damage yelling “blam” on the street corner without the weapon in his hand, the gun does little damage without the madman. The madman without the gun is a spectacle, not a threat. It takes the combination of the madman with the gun to be the threat, and therefore what we have to do in this society is stop taking an either/or approach. We have to deal with both problems.
In Columbine we learned about the power of bullying. In Virginia Tech it was impotence of mental health. The same thing in Arizona and Colorado.
In Davis, we may have had our own tragic situation but the police were able to intervene in time to stop a potential tragedy.
We do not know much of the perpetrator in Connecticut, we do not know why he did what he did. We will likely learn something about that in the coming days and weeks.
But just as we need to have that conversation on reasonable gun laws, we need to understand that, as long as there are disturbed, angry and desperate people, all of whom have these images burned into their heads, we will continue to feed into this cycle until we can address not just the guns, but the mental side of the equation.
For me, now, I am all for figuring out solutions to the guns because we have too many of these shootings and not enough action. But if that is all we do, we will have lost a real opportunity here to fix a huge problem, and that is in the mental health system.
In the meantime, hold your kids tight tonight.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
In trying to make some sense for myself, and possibly to intellectualize my way past the pain of this most recent shooting spree, I came across the most clear and lucid explanation from Gregory Gibson whose 18 year old son was killed in a similar ( though far less deadly shooting) in 1992. Mr. Gibson writes in his opinion page article in the NYT :
“I came to realize that, in essence, this is the way we in America want things to be. We want our freedom, and we want our firearms, and if we have to endure the occasional school shooting, so be it.”
Mr. Gibson came to this realization after years of advocating, letter and book writing, conferencing, public speaking, and lobbying for gun control.
While I completely agree with you David that both the mental health and gun control side of this issue are vital, we are many, many years of research away from effective approaches to managing these type of mental illnesses.
Sensible gun regulations ( or ammunition regulation) would be within our grasp within months if we simply chose to value the lives of our children more than the ability to own more and more efficient ways of killing people because a document written in the 1700s is interpreted as saying that we have that right.
“we are many, many years of research away from effective approaches to managing these type of mental illnesses.”
While I don’t have that specific knowledge at my fingertips, it is not surprising and I don’t disagree that the quickest and most immediate remedy is re-examining our gun laws, I really believe without dealing with the mental health side of the equation, we will not solve this with gun laws alone.
We outlaw weapons, and they attack with fertilizer bombs or make-shift molotov cocktails. People talk about preventing the ease of these attacks – and I agree – but many of these are well planned and thought out and eliminating guns, doesn’t prevent the attack.
Roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010 were NOT used to hurt down and kill innocent children today. Evil people love unarmed potential victims. Ignorant people blame guns for the actions of people, blame cars for drunk driving killings and box cutters for crashed planes. The planes that hit the trade towers were not blamed for deaths. The Kool Aid used to kill innocent children at Jamestown was not blamed for the deaths. The poison gas used to kill Jews were not blamed for the deaths. Wise up America and think.
The schools are run by Government. When you put your child in a public school you put them in the custody of Government, which is why cops are allowed to question children without parent consent when they are in the Government custody at schools. The Government is responsible to protect them. So when the Government, Politicians fail, they use these innocent deaths to put up smoke screens by blaming and distracting those in grief, at their weakest time and when they are not thinking clearly.
What better way to conceal the fact that the Government failed to protect children in their custody. Innocent kids died in the Oklahoma bombing of a federal building and the Ryder truck used to hold the bomb was not blamed.
It is sad that the deaths of innocence has to be put on the back burner so people can use this opportunity to go after Guns using emotion, pain and grief to cover the real hidden agenda.
It this coward lunatic had used a car and ran over 50 children, no one would be calling for banning cars. If he used gasoline to burn the school down, no one would be calling for the banning of gasoline. If he had used prescription drugs to poison school lunches there would no calls for banning of food or prescription drugs.
This is a terrible day for many people and it was caused by the evil deeds of a human being. Shame on those for exploiting this terrible event for their personal hidden political agendas.
….and monies for mental health keep diminishing or become threatened. Look no farther than the cuts to our county mental health services.
The President does not need to garner support for reelection, he could be bold here……many of us woukd be proud if he would..
As to the bullet proof vest comment, cops are killed all the time and they wear vest. A gun against a gun is much better odds than a gun against unarmed adults or kids.
Time and time again I see more victims created by gun laws. LA Rodney King riots, cops surrounded the affected area and did not go in, it was too dangerous, so the unarmed people trapped inside the area in their homes not only did not have guns to protect themselves, they did not have Gov or police coming to help. In NY and NJ after the storms, no phones, no 911, no electricity and the looters loved it. Rape, home invasion, theft all were rampant and no way to call for help, so all you do is be a good victim.
New Orleans storm, same thing. When will people realize taking away the ability to deal with and confront evil only increases evil’s destruction.
If gun control is so great, why doesn’t any Government say we are doing away with our guns to defend our country? Because they are not stupid and they know others will exploit that fact.
A gun in a school is a recipe for disaster. To mitigate a small number of school shootings of this sort seems to extend the risk beyond what the danger warrant.s
You are also conflating gun control with the elimination of guns, which is not the same issue.
Roger Rabbit
Perhaps your comments were not directed at mine. I would not want to put words in your mouth. However, if you were addressing my comments, I would like to point out that your are attacking a position that I did not take.
I was raised in a hunting family. This is probably the major reason that hunger was not a part of my early childhood. I do not consider guns evil in and of them
selves. I do consider them a speedy and convenient way for someone who is mentally ill to kill many people in a very short period of time. I would like not to eliminate guns, or take away anyone’s constitutional rights, but rather to treat this is a public health issue and to minimize the potential for harm just as I encourage my patient’s to get, but do not believe in forcing people to accept, a flu vaccination.
What I advocate is some compromise solutions to limit the number of people that can be killed in a minimal amount of time:
1) More restrictions on who can purchase a gun so that the severely mentally ill have less access
( although that would have not helped in this case unless the shooters mother was also mentally ill)
2) Limiting either the types of weapons sold ( such that multiple rounds could not be shot rapid fire) or the amount
of ammunition that could be purchased.
3) Encouraging citizens to keep their weapons safely stored, such as at gun clubs where they could be checked
out for the purposes of hunting, sport shooting and the like. This kind of precaution would likely have prevented
this particular shooting where the weapons were apparently stolen from the mother and then used against her
and many others.
4) I agree that evil should be confronted, however, I feel that the best strategy to deal with evil, just as the best strategy to deal with illness
From an LA Times article ([url]http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1216-lopez-guns-20121216,0,4562115.column[/url]):
[quote]Yee told me he thinks most gun owners are responsible people who respect the power of their weapons and don’t abuse that deadly potential. But in its zeal, he said, the gun lobby lets deadly weapons fall into the hands of less-responsible citizens.[/quote]
That sums up my view here.
Though I don’t think there’s ever any good reason for anyone to own an assault rifle or 5000 rounds of ammo it will be impossible to get Americans to ever give up their arms. In many areas where government has tried to stop gun ownership crime has actually gone up. We’ll never know how many crimes or deaths are stopped by the deterrent that the potential victim might also be armed.
oops, managed to hit the send key to early
That last statement was intended to be: I feel that the best strategy to deal with evil, just as the best strategy to deal with illness is prevention. When prevention fails, the second best strategy is to limit its impact. I feel that limiting the availability of these types of weapons would be a far more effective strategy than arming a population that has no experience with guns, no ready place to keep and store them safely, and no ability to reach them rapidly and fire back effectively during the once in a lifetime event when their sharp shooting skills might be needed. Firing a gun quickly and accurately is dependent upon practice. I know, I was taught by my dad as a child. Would you for instance mandate that all of our schools be staffed by sharp shooters ? Would you want to pay the additional costs in your taxes ? Would you mandate that all teachers, or even all principles be required to attain and maintain sharp shooting skills ?
I have put forward some of my suggestions for how to approach this problem so as to maximize safety while protecting constitutional rights. I would be very interested in hearing your workable solutions.
It’s going to take a lot of money to better the security at our schools. I say we cut way back on foreign aid and use that money to protect our kids. Obama is going to send 20 F-16 fighters over to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt for free. Why he wants to send sophisticated fighter jets to a militant faction like that boggles the mind, let’s instead save that money and other types of useless foreign aid and use it at home to help protect our children and schools.
DMG “And the frequency is increasing – this is the 8th mass shooting this year alone.”
According to James Alan Fox, Professor of Criminology at Northeastern, we are not experiencing an increase in mass shootings. He writes, rather, “our collective memories seem to forget or move past other anxious times when mass shootings have clustered in time…”
Some data on this would be helpful.
“Tightening security may make us feel better, but do we really want our children to go to school in virtual prisons?”
Placing locked gates at all points of entry isn’t unreasonable. Anything that prevents people who wish harm on students from access is okay with me.
DMG, citing LA Times,
“Yee told me he thinks most gun owners are responsible people who respect the power of their weapons and don’t abuse that deadly potential. But in its zeal, he said, the gun lobby lets deadly weapons fall into the hands of less-responsible citizens.”
But how do we prevent the “less-responsible citizen” from purchasing and possessing firearms? How do we know that someone is going to use it unlawfully, at some point, in the near or distant future?
Perhaps ironic… all reports to date is that the killer exacted capital punishment on himself… everyone would have been better off if he had used the first shot for that… had he surrendered himself, he would have NOT been subject to the death penalty… Connecticut repealed that law in April… had he aimed his weapon at the police, he’d be dead… is that not Capital Punishment, or is it merely self-defense?
Had he surrendered himself, and pled not guilty, particularly due to diminished mental capacity, how many taxpayer dollars would have been spent to respond to and investigate the crime, counsel the victims, provide for his defense and trial, and provide for his housing/board/care (including, presumably, psychiatric care) for the next 50-60 years?
Medwoman,
[i]Would you for instance mandate that all of our schools be staffed by sharp shooters ? Would you want to pay the additional costs in your taxes ? Would you mandate that all teachers, or even all principles be required to attain and maintain sharp shooting skills ? [/i]
As I said before, lock the gates and don’t allow people into the office (secured point of entry) unless they’ve been identified as a parent, relative, etc. of a child attending that school or some other authorized personnel. That would prevent bad people from gaining access to the children and staff. Businesses and government agencies all over have similar low-level security measures. Keeping all the guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them is a far less likely solution.
“Some data on this would be helpful.”
I agree.
Here is a collection of some anecdotal data ([url]http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/[/url]) whether it is inclusive, I cannot say.
Superfluous man: Unless we make schools “stalags”, with the fences and gates at least 100 feet from the buildings, outcome would not be different. By all accounts, the bastard shooter broke thru a window to gain entry. It is clear he was not “allowed” into the building.
Got thinking about it, had he surrendered, there would be the expenses of the investigation and trial, but if he had been put in the ‘general population’ in prison, probably wouldn’t have had to worry about 4-5 decades of cost. Even the most hardened criminals hate those who kill/molest/hurt young children.
medwoman: I did not read your comment before posting, I only read the article.
People snap and behavior cannot always be predicted. I agree that if more money was spent on US problems and not given to other countries, the UN and bailing out private banks and companies, then maybe some progress would be made. But we all know that most politicians do not really want to solve problems, they want to get reelected, want more power and money so they keep their jobs. That was a Gov school and the Gov failed again and now people call for giving Gov more control and power and looking to them to fix what they are responsible for. You can’t fix problems that your own thinking created.
This is Michigan’s answer to the problem:
[quote]Sweeping changes in Michigan’s concealed handgun law go beyond allowing weapons in ‘gun free zones’ ([url]http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/12/sweeping_changes_in_michigans.html[/url])
….
Most of the attention on the new bill has focused on provisions allowing hidden handguns in places where they are now forbidden, such as schools, churches and large entertainment venues.
….[/quote]
What was that divorced woman doing owning an assault weapon and several semi-automatic pistols? Why weren’t the guns locked up? Why didn’t she consider the mental and emotional condition of her 20 year-old son? Did you read the part of the story that the divorce court required the parents to attend parenting classes? I’m not sure if that is a requirement in Connecticut, but it seems to indicate some problems. I understand that the father lives in New Jersey. What impact might the lack of regular fatherly influence had on this kid? There are still a lot of questions.
As a result of this tragic loss of so many innocent beautiful children, I have turned the corner on gun control and now support a ban on assault weapons, tougher gun registration and restrictions on the possession of large ammo magazines. The reason: we have too many stupid affluent people (non-affluent people don’t seem to have the same track record) lacking enough common sense and responsibility for preventing the guns getting in the hands of their mentally ill or emotionally ill 20-something children.
We need to regulate gun shows. Sorry my conservative friends… there are too many bad, crazy, stupid and evil people in our midst. Children are the most precious of things that we need to protect in life. Our right to own guns comes second.
But, if we are going in this direction, it needs to come with much tougher gun crime laws…. use a gun committing a crime and go to jail for a very, very long time. We need a zero-tolerance attitude about guns and crime if we are going to start restricting and limiting the guns that law-abiding citizens can own. If the bad, crazy, stupid and evil are going to cause the loss of this precious American right and freedom and reduce our ability to protect ourselves, they need to pay the price for doing so with a lot of jail time if they use guns for crime.
We need to support stop and frisk laws for the large cities with significant gun crime.
We need to significantly reduce the entitlement money going to well-off seniors and the chronically lazy and redirect it to mental health services.
We need to put locks on all classroom doors… the type that locks entrance but not exit. We should require that we lock the main school entrance when class is in session. Install a camera and intercom tracking the entry and exit. Direct one of the overpaid, underworked admin employees to provide door monitoring. Our kids are forced to attend public schools, so then those public schools must ensure our kids are safe.
Lastly, and I think more importantly, we need to halt this march toward collectivism and socialism where we have fewer and fewer jobs and more and more people dependent on government and without enough to do. People need to work. They need to be constantly busy surviving and climbing the ladder of prosperity. Mental health aside, we have a situation where there are way too many of these 20-something young adults without enough to occupy their mind and body. They become direction-less and develop greater risks for depression and bizarre behavior. My grandfather made a comment one day: “I think I might be going nuts, but I’m too busy to worry about it.” I think there must be a correlation with a lackluster job market and the rate of incidents of random gun violence. Too much idle time is not a good thing for young people.
I have a knot in my stomach and my heart aches for all the families horrendously damaged by the senseless acts of this obviously sick young man. Objectively, we know that the risks of this type of tragedy are still extremely low. The media sensationalizes it and amplifies it. So, we are at risk for over-reacting. However, in the case children’s safety from harm, I support some over-reaction… as long as it results in a comprehensive solution… and we don’t just make it more impossible for law-abiding people to protect themselves while the bad, crazy, stuipd and evil have greater freedom in breaking gun laws.
DMG, thanks. I still would like to see a comprehensive study before determining whether or not these incidents are truly on the rise.
hp,
[i]
Unless we make schools “stalags”, with the fences and gates at least 100 feet from the buildings, outcome would not be different. By all accounts, the bastard shooter broke thru a window to gain entry. It is clear he was not “allowed” into the building. [/i]
I didn’t know he broke through a window to gain entry. I still think locked gates, bulletproof glass windows and perhaps doors to classrooms should be locked so people can’t come in but can exit. All of this may pose other safety risks. I’m not a school safety or fire expert, so I don’t know.
It seems to me that the shooters are not impeded at all when they carry out their killings at schools. Relatively minor structural and security changes could prevent some of them. Security systems could be set up to monitor or notify authorities, school or law enforcement, if someone is attempting to gain entry by breaking in, climbing the fence, etc.
I’m just throwing ideas out there, not sure how legal or feasible they are.
medwoman wrote:
> Sensible gun regulations ( or ammunition regulation)
> would be within our grasp within months if we simply
> chose to value the lives of our children more than
> the ability to own more and more efficient ways of
> killing people
The shooter in CT broke the law when he killed his Mom, he broke the law when he stole her guns, he broke the law as a 20 year old in possession of a handgun (you have to be 21), he broke the law when he broke the window of the school and ha broke the law when he killed the kids. Does anyone really think that a couple more laws would have stopped him (the old saying is you can’t stop lead bullets with paper laws”)?
Marijuana and cocaine have been illegal my entire life, yet I know that I could have an 8 Ball of Coke or a QP of high quality Humbolt pot at my house within an hour. As someone who does not have a personal relationship with a “dealer” I’ll have to make a few calls and it will take a little longer than just driving to Nugget to buy a case of legal wine, but we are fooling ourselves if we think that any “sensible regulations” (or even a “complete ban” like we have with most drugs) will stop psycho killers and gang bangers from getting guns.
“Does anyone really think that a couple more laws would have stopped him”
you are making two different arguments here. the one you’re arguing is that the current laws did not deter him from breaking them. the one she is arguing is to design laws sufficient to prevent him from gaining access to weaponry. those are different arguments.
Wow, maybe we should spend billions of dollars and search little old ladies boarding planes since we can’t control box cutters?
The best thing to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. I wonder if that is why cops carry guns?
You can ban guns, knives, drugs, swords, sticks and stones and it will NOT disarm evil.
Evil is not in a gun or car or plane – it is in a person – make evil illegal not the things evil people use.
Lots of kids are killed by US drones ordered by the President – should we make Presidents illegal or drones or how about just make killing illegal? Can anyone see a common theme here?
This shooting, like most mass shootings, happened in a “gun free” zone? Guess the crazy guy did not know that? In the military we call gun free zones soft targets.
Criminals DO NOT obey laws – maybe a law that you have to obey laws? ? ?
J. Boone: Right, this incident changed your mind to disarm 100 million good law abiding citizens. Brilliant – I hope no one starts using pants to strangle kids, we will be a pant less society for the illusion of being told we are safe now.
Roger Rabbit: [i]The best thing to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. I wonder if that is why cops carry guns?
You can ban guns, knives, drugs, swords, sticks and stones and it will NOT disarm evil.
Evil is not in a gun or car or plane – it is in a person – make evil illegal not the things evil people use. [/i]
Where would you draw the line on restrictions on possession? Standard handguns? assault rifles? machine guns? bazookas? rocket-propelled grenades? tanks? nuclear bombs?
Why shouldn’t I be allowed to possess a nuclear bomb? I might like to collect them, the way some gun owners like to collect certain models, not necessarily to use. After all, I am a good person, a law abiding citizen, certainly not the evil type that would go off and carelessly detonate it.
Image:
[img]http://ct.politicomments.com/ol/pc/sw/i52/5/7/25/f_fd2ca89fcc.jpg[/img]
Jeff
[quote]What was that divorced woman doing owning an assault weapon and several semi-automatic pistols? Why weren’t the guns locked up? [/quote]
My father had two daughters and no sons. He was an avid hunter and wanted to share his skills with his children.
My sister had no interest in shooting. I did and he had started teaching me before he died. Had he lived, I am sure that I would have been proficient with guns. In that case, I would have been a divorced woman with several rifles, and possibly a semi automatic. Why would you think that this would be any stranger for a divorced woman than a divorced man, or a married man or woman for that matter ?
As for the question ” why weren’t the guns locked up? ” Do you know that they weren’t ? Perhaps he broke in to where ever she kept them. I agree, many unanswered questions, amongst them, why would you assume the absence of the father was an issue? Could it not equally be the case if we are making pure suppositions that perhaps the father was abusive and that is part of the son’s problem ? There are many ways we could speculate without any real knowledge….none of which are really productive since we don’t know the answers.
well, a nuke is a weapon of mass destruction. You already have gasoline that will blow up just about anyone or anything and it can be bought very easy with NO ID, kind of like voting. 🙂
They say there are 20,000 gun laws,
ref: http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf
and let’s say that figure is high, let’s say 5000 gun laws, somehow making it 20,000 will do what? Crooks don’t care about laws and laws only affect the law abiding citizens.
We have people that own tanks, old military aircraft and explosives. You have checks and balances. There are lots of gun laws, people who call for more laws don’t care about the laws they want NO guns. First it will be machine guns and automatic rapid fire guns, then high capacity magazines then killer bullets, then small handguns since they can be hidden, then hunters can buy food in the store they don’t need to hunt. Gun control is NOT about guns it is about Control.
A car going 40 mph can take out more people in a few seconds than 20 guns even if the victims are wearing body armor. It all depends on how it is used. We take cars from people who abuse their use, we don’t outlaw cars for good drivers. No difference. Only what people want to see and want to believe. Fear and perception of safety drives this. When you give up freedoms for security you have neither.
This country was not built by a bunch of pansies that were scared to face dangers wanted others to protect them, over time the Gov has done a good job of changing that and making the masses fear things and then convincing the masses that the Gov will save them and protect them. It just ain’t so and these killings at this Gov school in a gun free zone proves it. Did everyone forget about FAST and FURIOUS – remember the GOV ignored the gun laws and sold to people they wanted to sell too and then those guns were used to kill others including a border patrol agent? When the Gov has the guns and the rules they can what they want, just like they already do.
But these guys agree with you – not what I would call good company. 🙂
[img]https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS8-91GyEJdjbDTUSSvs6nS4TAgZ9U6T0RbIXvuTPg5KpiQ1WQQ[/img]
“Roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010 were NOT used to hurt down and kill innocent children today. “
that’s good but you ignore the 12,000 murders a year by fire arm
Roger Rabbit
[quote]Roger Rabbit: The best thing to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.[/quote]
Again, I think a better approach to “stop a bad man with a gun” is to prevent him from getting it in the first place.
I do not believe that this is impossible. We are able to stop people who have multiple drug resistant tuberculosis from spreading the disease by enrolling them in mandatory and monitored treatment programs. I firmly believe that prevention is much more powerful than rescue actions after the dangerous process has already begun.
And I do not believe it is impossible. We need the will to view these actions differently from those of criminals who do not have major mental illnesses as it appears was also the case here as well as in all of the recent mass shootings of which I am aware.
I am quite troubled by the use of the word “evil” in the context of these shootings. The actions and outcomes are most certainly “evil”. However, I do not believe that people who suffer from severe mental illnesses and are thus unable to appreciate the outcome and impact of their actions should be classified as “bad guys” in the same sense that one might refer to a premeditated murderer acting for profit, or to rid oneself of an unwanted spouse, or to secure one’s place in a gang. These, or terrorist actions such as the Oaklhoma City bombing merit the use of the word evil. However, to place some of these obviously very ill shooters in the same category I believe does a real disservice to attempts to manage this public health problem by over simplyfing.
in a dispute, when it gets heated, a good man could become a bad man. i don’t get the belief that the protection gained out weighs the probability of more rash acts simply due to the availability of weapons.
Roger Rabbitt, whoever you are, this is why I don’t really feel like listening to your stuff right now:
Charlotte Bacon, 6
Daniel Barden, 7
Olivia Engel, 6
Josephine Gay, 7
Ana Marquez-Greene, 6
Dylan Hockley, 6
Madeleine Hsu, 6
Catherine Hubbard, 6
Chase Kowalski, 7
Jesse Lewis, 6
James Mattioli, 6
Grace McDonnell, 7
Emilie Parker, 6
Jack Pinto, 6
Noah Pozner, 6
Caroline Previdi, 6
Jessica Rekos, 6
Avielle Richman, 6
Benjamin Wheeler, 6
Allison N. Wyatt, 6
Rachel Davino, 29, Teacher
Dawn Hochsprung, 47, School principal
Nancy Lanza, 52, Mother of gunman
Anne Marie Murphy, 52, Teacher
Lauren Rousseau, 30, Teacher
Mary Sherlach, 56, School psychologist
Victoria Soto, 27, Teacher
I’m finding your voice shrill and inappropriate.
wdf1’s poster that tells only part of the story about gun deaths. According to the CDC, in 2010, 11,078 males and females were victims of firearm homicide. Additionally, 19, 392 individuals committed suicide by firearm in 2010 (the vast majority male). In states where gun laws are looser, the rates of firearm suicide is higher than in states in which gun laws are more strict.
After a series of mass killings involving firearms a few decades ago, Australia instituted a gun buyback program that in retrospective studies been a major reason the suicide rate in Australia has dropped.
Since the 1980’s, the rate of suicide in the U.S. has not dropped much and in recent years has risen. If there were better laws about gun education, access to guns, and gun buyback programs, we would have less suicides and probably less gun homicides.
The writer that Medwoman is right, we live in a society where violence is acceptable and guns are easy to get. On Marketplace yesterday the host noted that there are 58,000 places to buy guns in the U.S. – more than there are Starbucks.
As a society we have agreed that it is OK to give a lot of people access to a lot of guns. We as a society can change that by not letting demagogues and zealots set the agenda for how much access to firearms our citizens have. Gun control is good public health policy and I for one am glad I live in a state with good (but not good enough) gun control laws.
RR,
[b]A car going 40 mph can take out more people in a few seconds than 20 guns even if the victims are wearing body armor. It all depends on how it is used. We take cars from people who abuse their use, we don’t outlaw cars for good drivers. No difference.[/b]
Much harder to conceal a vehicle, drive it into an enclosed area, then maneuver about inside that enclosed area, killing dozens of people in a very short period of time.
If cars are effective killing machines, can you explain why there are relatively few intentional vehicle-related killings?
I have a question about gun owners:
There are two types of gun owners:
1. The type who owns guns because their job or their survival depends on it. (e.g. Hunters, Polices, Criminals, Hitman)
2. The type who owns guns because they like to shoot at things, or that they want to kill people, specifically. (e.g. Serial killers, kids that dream about being Rambo, people who enjoy seeing people being shot at in movies and games)
For the gun owners here, do you see this distinction in your own mentality toward guns? Do you see this distinction in your gun-owning community?
* * *
If you look at the chain of events that leads to the shooting, there are many points that can be changed to break the chain. The following is a chain of key events of this shooting.
KE1: The shooter was in a house with semiauto rifle
KE2: The shooter knew how to fire semiauto rifle
KE3: The shooter had the intention to kill with semiauto rifle
KE4: The shooter had been prepared to be shot at
KE5: The shooter got bullet-proof vest
KE6: The shooter got the guns from at home
KE7: The shooter got to the classroom with semiauto rifle
KE8: The shooter was able to open fire with minimal resistance
KE9: The victims dies from gun shot
In principle, there are two fundamental ways to stop the chain — by making a key event less likely to happen, and by making a key event more distinct so that it can be easily detected and countered. The best solution is one that eliminates or distinguishes a key event with minimal impact to everyone else.
If you agree with this principle, then the various solution ideas so far be analyzed like this:
[b]Proposal 1: School staff should be armed with handguns.[/b]
This proposal reduces occurrence of KE8. But by doing so, more people will have handguns at school. Depending on the details of this proposal, the guns may stay at school, or that each staff will carry the gun home. One might argue that since the shooter had a vest and a semiauto rifle, wouldn’t the staff be out-gunned? The response to this argument is that the solution need not be perfect. If it is worth doing, that it should be done. The impacts are security cost, the increased prevalence of guns, and increased potential for a gun-bearing staff to be the shooter.
[b]Proposal 2: Schools should be fenced and locked.[/b]
This proposal reduces occurrence of KE7. The impacts are security cost, the prison-like architecture of schools, and potential decreased convenience to non-affiliates who needs to enter campus.
[b]Proposal 3: Ban semiautomatic rifles[/b]
This proposal reduces occurrence of KE1. The impacts are legislature cost, potential compensation to those who currently own semiautomatic rifles, and the fact that they can’t own it any more.
[b]Proposal 4: Make people see that the desire to own semiautomatic weapon could be “evil”[/b]
This proposal reduces occurrence of KE1. As I mentioned above, the mentality of owning a weapon to protect one’s self is different from the mentality of owning it because one enjoys the thrill or the imagination of shooting at people. The thrill of using a gun to shoot at people is prevalent because it is prevalent in the media as an accepted form of entertainment. The culture is trained to feel entertained when a human shoots another human with a gun. I am not proposing any laws to ban gunfights in media and games. I am just saying that when a peaceful person sees a gunfight, be it in a reenactment or in reality, the person does not feel entertained. What they feel instead is that the culture is not ready to be peaceful because people are still getting entertainment from violent conflict. The next time you see a gunfight in a movie, observe what feeling you have. Do you feel:
a) Nothing. People kills each other, that’s how it works.
b) Wow, that was a fun shot, I want to try it.
c) The bad guy got killed but they deserve it because they are evil.
d) I hope that our world wouldn’t stay like this.
If you are of type d, then naturally there are many movies you don’t watch, many games you don’t play, and many things you don’t own or keep at home. There is no law that makes you do this. You do this because that is not who you are. I don’t think that by my saying this, more people would get semiautomatic rifles. My guess is that if more people simply disclose that this is how they feel, the culture will change and people will see and talk about weapons differently.
OMG, liberals just kill me, they always know best, they are always right, and if they agree then allow freedoms, but if they don’t they twist the facts to sound righteous.
Don Shor: typical low blow trying to use these victims to push your belief – that list would be a lot smaller if someone there had a gun beside the bad guy – but I am sure there was a lot of people just like you that were scared of guns and believed in gun control and in reality that is why your list is so long smart boy.
Medwoman: I really don’t care what name you call this guy if you want call him a victim of poor health care, he is evil coward that murdered unarmed (thanks to the great gun safe zones laws) women and children, I call a low life slime evil scum of the earth. You call him whatever makes you feel better.
This is why I loved it when all the liberal loving gun control people in NY and NJ were getting robbed and looted and then were crying about no Gov help, no phones, they can’t defend themselves, tough luck, that is what you get when you entrust your safety and defense in others.
I grew up with guns, I was in the military and was a cop, I have seen cops and military with guns that could not pour piss out of boot with the instructions on the heel and they were carrying guns, and all the sheeple just ran around happy thinking if you have a uniform you know what you are doing. I have seen other people who did not carry a gun in the line of duty and they were much more responsible and safe with a gun. I have seen too many victims of violent crimes that could have been prevented if the person or house old had a gun.
If you all are so worried about guns there are lots of countries where they have lots of gun laws, take off and chase your fairy land utopia where you think as soon as the guns are gone there will be love and peace. it is a unreasonable belief that has never worked and never turned out good, ever horrible culture in history had the most strict gun control before it’s fall, yet all you anti gun people fail to study history so you are destined to repeat it.
[i]”but I am sure there was a lot of people just like you that were scared of guns and believed in gun control and in reality that is why your list is so long smart boy.”[/i]
You have no idea what my views on guns or gun control are. I didn’t espouse any views on that topic. So you are making assumptions. What I was saying is that your tone and attitude and language and arguments offend me because we have young children who haven’t even been laid to rest yet. All you’re concerned about, it seems, is your right to own guns.
Bob Dunning: Trying to make sense of senseless tragedy ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/dunning/bob-dunning-trying-to-make-sense-of-senseless-tragedy/[/url])
I think Jeff makes some good observations about the killers Mom not securing her guns.
Presumably she knew she had a mentally/emotionally ill or unstable son.
Presumably she knew she had guns registered in her name about the house.
Why did she not take steps to ensure that her son could not access the guns?
Medwoman has pointed out that maybe the son broke into where the guns were stored; if this was the case then they were not adequately secured.
So it would seem the Mom was a bit lax or irresponsible about storing her guns (I do concede we don’t know all the facts on this yet).
So to ensure against this kind of laxness by homeowners with mentally unstable children/tenants; perhaps one thing we can do is add to gun registration a legal requirement that guns must be adequately secured against mentally ill/unstable people that are living with the gun owner; and have the gun purchaser sign off on this for legal responsibility (in this case the owner is dead; but if she had not been shot and indeed if she had not secured her guns away from her mentally ill son; it would seem to me she should face legal consequences).
jimt: Why limit it. Why not require all guns be properly stored? One of the big problems is that guns get stolen and go from responsible hands to irresponsible hands. They are found by children or youths and used accidentally.
I think anyone who owns a weapon and do not properly secure it, they should face liability if the weapons gets taken and used in a crime.
Roger talked about cars being used as weapons (which they rarely are), but we have a lot more regulation over the use of cars than the use and ownership of guns.
I think we could do a lot with licensing and storage that would infringe on no one’s rights and yet make us a lot safer.
Gun control works great…..for the criminals:
“In 1976, Washington DC passed a major gun control law, banning people from owning guns in their homes. The murder rate in Washington DC went up 134%. . . While the national rate for murder dropped 2%. Safe to assume the criminal element in Washington DC never got the memo.”
“Coinciding with a surge in gun purchases that began shortly before the 2008 elections, violent crime decreased six percent between 2008 and 2009, including an eight percent decrease in murder and a nine percent decrease in robbery.1 Since 1991, when violent crime peaked, it has decreased 43 percent to a 35-year low. Murder has fallen 49 percent to a 45-year low.2 At the same time, the number of guns that Americans own has risen by about 90 million. Predictions by gun control supporters, that increasing the number of guns, particularly handguns and so-called “assault weapons,” would cause crime to increase, have been proven profoundly lacking in clairvoyance.”
“Gun-related violent crime in Virginia has dropped steadily over the past six years as the sale of firearms has soared to a new record, according to an analysis of state crime data with state records of gun sales.
The total number of firearms purchased in Virginia increased 73 percent from 2006 to 2011. When state population increases are factored in, gun purchases per 100,000 Virginians rose 63 percent.
But the total number of gun-related violent crimes fell 24 percent over that period, and when adjusted for population, gun-related offenses dropped more than 27 percent, from 79 crimes per 100,000 in 2006 to 57 crimes in 2011.”
I have some questions for those who have made points about appropriate gun storage.
If the goal is self defense, say protection against home invasion, how do you propose storing a weapon such that it is readily available, loaded and ready to go when the invader breaks in presumably already completely armed and ready to go, without endangering family members and visitors to your home ? Having been raised in a well armed home, I know that one either compromises on immediate availability, or on safety. You can teach your own family about gun safety, but can you teach all your relatives and friends, and all of your children’s friends ? Can you stop a depressed family member from using a “home defense weapon” to end their life ?
If the goal is hunting or sport shooting, what objection would their be to storing your guns and ammunition at a shooting range or club and checking them out when needed ?
If you are a collector, what objection would there be to keeping the guns well secured in a display area and simply not owning any ammunition, or keeping the ammunition at a sporting club is you occasionally like to shoot ?
In the latter two instances, do you really believe that your right to immediate access to both your weapon and to ammunition should trump the rights of others to live safely ?
RR
You wrote
“I really don’t care what name you call this guy if you want call him a victim of poor health care, he is evil coward that murdered unarmed (thanks to the great gun safe zones laws) women and children, I call a low life slime evil scum of the earth.”
and
“I grew up with guns. I was in the military a and was a cop. I have seen cops and military with guns that could not pour piss out of a boot with the directions on the heel and they were carrying guns.”
Clearly what we have are very different visions of the world.
You seem to believe that if everyone is armed, the world is somehow going to be a safer place. And yet you make the case that even those supposedly with a great deal of training are not competent to carry weapons. So the question I would have for you is, how does one ensure that only competent individuals have access to guns ?
I am much more afraid of living in a society where every citizen regardless of his knowledge, aptitude, proficiency, and levelheadedness, who happens to be paranoid and in so much fear of his neighbors that he feels the need to carry a weapon, than I would living in a society where no one had ready access to these kinds of weapons that can deliver so much death in such a short period of time.
I think the mistake that those who are adamant about banning all guns make is that they assume that nearly everyone is of good will ( as they are) and that no one will intentionally hurt them. Unfortunately, there are dangerous people ( whether one wants to call them “scum” or “mentally ill”, in the world and some degree of protection against them is warranted.
I think that the mistake that those who are adamant that everyone should be armed make is that they assume that everyone will have ready and safe access to their weapon, will never make a mistake in its usage ( leaving a bullet in the chamber when they think they have emptied it), will never have a mishap with it such as accidental discharge, will never miss their target and hit an innocent bystander in a shoot out. Now, it may be that you personally are so well trained and so responsible and consistent in your skills that none of this would ever happen to you. I think that this exacting standard is far too much to expect of the general public. However, if you see a way in which only highly skilled and responsible people have access to assault weapons, I would be interested to hear it.
David–yes, I agree also that if children reside in the house, there should be a storage requirement, but less stringent storage requirement than a mentally ill adult resident. If you do not have children or mentally ill adults residing in the residence, I’m not sure there should be a storage requirement (pro theives can break into most storage containers, except very expensive systems); since this relates to medwoman’s observation
Medwoman–good observation on the storage vs need for immediate access; I’ve thought about this too.
Seems to me if children reside in the house (but not mentally ill adult); an ordinary locked drawer with a decent lock that cannot be easily picked by a child should be fine. With the key hidden in another place in bedroom; this could slow down access to gun by 20-30 seconds; which I concede could be critical delay for an abrupt home-invasion type situation. With a mentally ill adult; something more sturdy and secure than a locked drawer would seem to be called for; which might further delay gun access time. This is a dilemna.
Hopefully finger/hand recognition technology will get less expensive and develop a reliable track record, so that only the registered owners hand is able to pull the trigger.
Good point jmt, if I hear an intruder breaking into my house having access to a gun in a locked drawer is better than having NO ACCESS AT ALL.
I wonder if there are relatively inexpensive safes/storage boxes that use the fingerprint or palm recognition technology?
If so, this might only slow down access to guns by a few seconds, and prevent access by children and mentally ill adult tenants.
I know this technology has been available for a while, not sure how reliable or if it is still expensive.
jimt
[quote]Hopefully finger/hand recognition technology will get less expensive and develop a reliable track record, so that only the registered owners hand is able to pull the trigger.[/quote]
I agree that this, along with more stringent requirements for the initial assessment, training and demonstration of competency of the registered gun owner would likely make for a much safer home defense use of guns. I still
am very skeptical of allowing folks with minimal gun knowledge and expertise to carry concealed weapons. Would any of you really feel safer if our shopping centers, schools, and freeways were full of people who had minimal knowledge and competency with their weapons ? I would be very interested to see how you would propose keeping those who have very little experience from doing more harm than good if they became frightened in the very confusing setting of a public shooting. Or how would you prevent more tragic instances such as the 13 year old recently shot by a policeman who erroneously interpreted the toy the boy was carrying with a real weapon ?
My son, in his early teens, used to carry such a toy from our home in north Davis to the open fields north of our home to play with his friends. I can easily see someone untrained mistaking this for a real weapon and deciding that they needed to take potentially lethal action, perhaps with the best, but most misguided of intentions. If a police officer can make such an error, how much more likely that a regular citizen could do the same ?
Having grown up in a household that kept guns and supported the NRA (I was certified a safe hunter by them myself), I can say that the arguments put forth by Mr Rabbit have been absolute textbook talking points made for over 40 years by said organization. Every single one: starting with the logically flawed argument that cars and gasoline can also kill people, to the poster of the world’s most villainous leaders, to the accusation of liberals wanting protection but too wimpy to do what is necessary, to the suggestion that if you don’t like it here go somewhere else.
These arguments are designed to squelch dialogue before it can even begin. This is the rhetorical tool of the NRA and it is damaging to our national health.
I want to say one thing about the logically flawed “false equivalency” argument: sure cars can be used by people to kill many–so can gasoline. However, a car’s PURPOSE is not to kill–it is to convey people distances. Indeed, cars are made so as to reduce the probability of death if they run into someone. Further, we design our public spaces to cars are less likely to be used in this way. I could develop the same arguments about gasoline or any other false equivalence you care to draw.
But guns are different. The “thing in itself”–its raison d’être–is to kill. The weapons used in the most recent killings were all developed for military usage. They have the purpose of killing many people quickly–using overwhelming force to subdue. The “end” of a gun is death.
I am not proposing an outright ban on semi-automatic weapons. If people want to shoot them in controlled environments I am willing to allow that. I am asking for them to be severely restricted and not readily available to all comers at gun shows in and states with relatively lax gun laws. I defy anyone posting here to name one essential freedom that is abrogated by such a law. There is none.
And to those (in classic NRA style) who offer some variation on “When guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns”, I say “Yes, that is exactly what I want. When an assault-style gun of any type is found in public we will know that the person who is carrying it should be subject to relevant penalities.
jimt
[quote]I wonder if there are relatively inexpensive safes/storage boxes that use the fingerprint or palm recognition technology?
If so, this might only slow down access to guns by a few seconds, and prevent access by children and mentally ill adult tenants.
I know this technology has been available for a while, not sure how reliable or if it is still expensive. [/quote]
This also would seem to be a good idea to me. However, I have a slight quarrel with the emphasis that you have twice placed upon the expense. I think that we must weight the expense not against the personal preference of the owner for frugality, but against the medical expenses incurred by those who are accidentally injured or those such as in this shooting who are killed because someone did not want to incur the cost of a truly safe system.
Robb Davis
“Having grown up in a household that kept guns and supported the NRA (I was certified a safe hunter by them myself), I can say that the arguments put forth by Mr Rabbit have been absolute textbook talking points made for over 40 years by said organization.”
And the ones on here touting gun control aren’t spewing the same old rhetoric? That being said I agree with you that there needs to be tighter controls on assault style weapons and clips that can carry way too many rounds.
I wrote:
> Does anyone really think that a couple more
> laws would have stopped him?
Then Growth issue (who must have stopped reading since my main point was that the thousands of drug laws have done nothing to stop UCD kids from using drugs in the dorms (we had an RA over for dinner last month) or stop me from buying drugs on half the corners in South Sac. wrote:
> the one she is arguing is to design laws sufficient
> to prevent him from gaining access to weaponry.
> those are different arguments.
It is not possible to design laws that will prevent law breakers from “gaining access to weaponry” when we can’t even stop people from getting drugs and cell phones in maximum security prisons (A friend’s firm was doing some work at San Quentin and the prisoner workers they sent to work with him were asking his guys if they wanted to “buy” drugs and I just read that Charles Manson was caught with a cell phone in his cell). Let’s ban all drugs and when we see we have figured out how to keep them away from college kids and gang bangers in South Sac we can talk about banning drugs).
Rusty49 – I hear you… I don’t think everyone opposing assault weapons is reading from talking points. This is clear when you consider the gradations of solutions on offer: outright bans to stricter controls. These are clearly not the same thing. In addition, and I think this matters, there is no national, well-funded “anti-gun” lobby that has, for over 40 years, developed campaigns with key messages and strategies designed to squelch community dialogue on the issue.
Whatever the case, I am glad we agree on some form of control of assault style weapons. You and I may differ on many things but it is heartening to see us walking together on this one.
Wdf1 posted a poster that shows that shows countries with less handgun deaths.
I know many liberals don’t want to go there but If you look at the map of the world below you will see that Mexico, South America and Africa have high murder rates and none of the countries in wdf1s list but the United States have a lot of people from Mexico, South America and Africa living in them. If you look at cities in the United States that have a lot of gun violence all of them have a lot of people from Mexico, South America and Africa living in them…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
I’m not sure that’s a particularly useful comparison given the political instability in those regions. A better comparison would compare like countries – industrial, capitalist, democracies as a starting point.
http://www.holypal.com/profiles/blogs/you-actually-think-that-criminals-will-obey-gun-control-laws
Focusing on the mental illness aspect: [url]http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html[/url]
DMG: [i]Roger talked about cars being used as weapons (which they rarely are), but we have a lot more regulation over the use of cars than the use and ownership of guns.
I think we could do a lot with licensing and storage that would infringe on no one’s rights and yet make us a lot safer.[/i]
[img]http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/549739_10150959387816275_981702554_n.jpg[/img]
Before I write any more comments on this topic, I would like to clarify my perspective on this issue. My expertise is not in constitutional law, or law and order, or different types of weapons and ammunition. I speak from the perspective of public health and my own 30 year experience with prevention in medicine. I view the issue of these mass shootings as very different from the issue of crime for profit, individual or gang related crime. I do not believe that these different types of incidents can be equated, and dealing with them will entail different sorts of approaches. I also am not arguing for a “couple more laws”, but rather a comprehensive, data driven approach.
Having said that, I think that it is clear that at least in the recent mass shootings, the shooters have all been relatively young white males with some diagnosis of psychiatric impairment. Again, in dealing with public health issues, the most effective and cost effective strategy is prevention not mitigation or cure once the damage has been done. So given that this conversation started out as about a mass shooting, what might be the ways we could consider preventing these occurrences ?
1) Identification and treatment of the individual at risk of becoming the shooter.
2) Identification of communities at risk of becoming a site of such a shooting. I recently became aware of some
researchers that are exploring mapping homicides in terms of identifying in the case of this research, geographic
clusters. However, I can also see a role for identifying geographic, temporal and demographic clusters not in
order to finger point or profile any particular group, but rather to understand the causative factors so as to be
able to prevent a future occurrence. We do this with cancer, STD, diabetes and AIDS prevention, so why not with
social violence prevention ?
3) Minimization of the risk by limiting exposure to the preferred means of destruction. Would limiting these kinds
of rapid firing weapons stop the perpetrator from using another modality such as a bomb or gas ? Of course
not. But it would have stopped this particular event and perhaps the “Batman” shooter or maybe saved Gabby
Gifford and the people that died at that shooting. And all without risking the lives of innocents potentially caught
in the crossfire of a shootout between well intended but inexperienced armed citizens and the perpetrator.
4) Minimization of risk by securing our schools and other public buildings. Without turning our nation into a series
of locked and armed encampments, I do not see how this is feasible. The school in the current
shooting reportedly did have a lock out system which failed in the face of superior weaponry.
I am very interested and open to discussion of positive options from anyone interested in this area.
Don S: We are all talking about guns, if there is some rule that no one can discuss any tragedy until the dead are in the ground, then let the liberal media know that, when you attack someone right to own a gun and defend their home, their family and themselves, you are going to get a push back.
Medwoman: if your belief is less guns are better then why is every Gov in the world all making more weapons, more ships and more planes? If you want peace you must plan for war. I would rather die fighting for my life than begging for my life. You or I do not control everyone around us – Guns do not cause crime or killings, cars don’t cause drunk driving, planes don’t make terrorist – humans are not predictable, so I like Israel’s way and Sweden’s way, everyone has a gun and the ability to protect themselves and that used to be the American way, but over time and programming, we now are a population of scared, weak, easy, nanny state protect me, save me keep safe attitudes that is slowly chipping away at the constitution. I love the way gun control people love to use and quote the constitution when suits their needs, but ignore it when they don’t agree with it.
To the lock up the guns crew: having a gun and not being able to grab it is just another foolish safety campaign. news flash here, if you lock a gun up so no one can use it, criminals, you know the guys that break laws, will learn to come in your house, beat you, rape your wife and kids and wife until you open the lock and give them the gun. That logic is like giving our nukes to other countries until we need them, anyone think that would work out? How about if cops leave their guns at the station locked up until they need them? Or maybe we have a LAW that requires criminals to give notice before doing home invasion robberies so people have time to unlock their safes and get their guns?
Opps, someone did not get the memo about discussing this too early, the Left never passes up a crisis to make up new laws.
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/16/durbin-says-will-reopen-capitol-hill-debate-on-gun-rights-in-coming-weeks/[/url]
For the people thinking all the cars laws are so perfect – over 32,000 people because of cars last year? As a cop 50 percent of the people I stopped did NOT have a license. 100 of car accidents each day where the driver runs since they stole the car, did not have a lic or insurance or were drunk driving, all of which there are lots of laws to prevent this. Cars kill 100 times more people that guns, if this is really about saving lives cars should be locked up not guns.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year[/url]
[i]Minimization of risk by securing our schools and other public buildings. Without turning our nation into a series of locked and armed encampments, I do not see how this is feasible. The school in the current shooting reportedly did have a lock out system which failed in the face of superior weaponry[/i]
From what I understand you are correct. However, I also have read that the security system impeded the shooter’s entry and alterted school employees that an intruder had broken in. This and other security precautions implemented by the principal probably saved lives.
32,000 people Died… by cars last year
In the late 1960’s – roughly 1968 – 1972 – commercial airplanes were hijacked very frequently. In 1969 the rate was something like a hijacking every two weeks. There was a theory then that publicity about one instance made other instances more likely, and we see some of that in the methods used in the recent mass shootings.
So the federal government implemented a number of practical regulations that were directed specifically at preventing airline hijackings. Nixon made an agreement with Cuba, in spite of a strong philosophical objection to even acknowledging Castro’s government. Safety procedures were implemented at airports, practices that we all take for granted today. Nixon even permitted and provided for armed federal marshals on planes. And the rate of hijacking dropped drastically.
Did it completely prevent future hijackings? Obviously not. The 9/11 hijackers circumvented the precautions. But we don’t read about hijackings constantly.
It’s worth noting that a fair number of the planes were hijacked by mentally ill individuals. Some by terrorists, some for financial gain. But a lot of the trials ended in acquittals due to mental incapacity defenses.
So we have a gun safety problem and an issue with our mental health resources. You can read the blog post I linked above about how difficult it is for parents to find resources for dealing with mentally ill, dangerous children as they become adults. I think most people would accept reasonable, practical, effective limitations on certain types of weapons and bullet-delivery systems.
Most of us probably don’t feel people need to be able to repeat-fire nearly endless numbers of bullets. Most of us probably don’t buy the slippery-slope argument that has prevented meaningful action in the past. Most probably consider the false analogies to be irrelevant to this discussion. They’re distractions. What can be done to prevent similar atrocities in the future? What is practical and politically possible? Those are really the questions.
I agree with most of what Jeff Boone posted in his first reply. There are broad areas of consensus and probably a unique opportunity for action.
Hammer used to kill a man –
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/16/florida-man-accused-killing-neighbor-with-hammer/?test=latestnews[/url]
Hammers are dangerous – there should be laws to own them and they should locked up and secured – schools should be Hammer free zones – the Gov should regulate and require background checks for hammers – stop hammer deaths with laws… sound familiar? Once again blaming objects for the actions of people is ridiculous
Another false analogy. But the hammer deaths in Davis and Sacramento did illustrate that mental illness is part of the equation. [url]http://www.murderpedia.org/male.J/j/jones-jeffrey-gerard.htm[/url]
LOL, what would guys do without me to give an alternative view? It would be like watching CNN and MSNBC and expecting to get different points of view? I forgot liberals are told NOT to watch FOX, for a different view, since it is presumed they are not smart enough to figure out truth from fiction and they are not trusted to have their CNN beliefs tested? Kind of like religion not wanting questions, and tell everyone to have blind belief or faith.
[b]There are none so blind as those that do not want to see.[/b]
It does not bother me that most of you do not want or like guns. I think it is a misguided belief but if it does not affect me, I don’t care. Here is some food for thought.
The safest place I go is at a [b]Gun Show,[/b] guns and ammo everywhere and no one gets shot and there are not and has never been mass killings at any gun show? Crooks do not try and rob gun shows? Could there be a reasonable reason for this?
[b]In law enforcement we call this a clue.[/b]
Let’s do an experiment: lets have two schools next to each other, one school has armed teachers and the other school is a GUN FREE ZONE and then lets go to a prison and ask all the crooks, if they had a choice, which school would enter to do a shooting or violent crime? Surely most know which school they would pick?
RR,
[i] 32,000 people Died… by cars last year [/i]
Fallacious arguments are of no value. You must understand that comparing non-intentional/negligent killings by vehicle to intentional killings by firearm is not sound.
Here are the state-by-state FBI murder statistics from 2011: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
Note that vehicle, as a “weapon,” is not even listed. You can also look at each state and figure out the ratio of firearm-related and non-firearm-related deaths.
Also, you can look at the CDC figures regarding total homicides in 2009 and how many of those were by firearm. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
Not nearly as many homicides by blunt object, vehicle or any other weapon. Regardless of one’s opinions, guns are the primary weapon used by people who kill other people.
Our society permits relatively easy access to firearms. Firearms are by far the most frequently used weapon in homicides. If we don’t do something, about guns/magazines or people who murder (before they get there), this will continue. That’s a fact.
Roger Rabbit wrote:
> For the people thinking all the cars laws are so perfect
> over 32,000 people because of cars last year? As a cop 50
> percent of the people I stopped did NOT have a license.
Then Superfluous Man wrote:
> Fallacious arguments are of no value. You must understand
> that comparing non-intentional/negligent killings by
> vehicle to intentional killings by firearm is not sound
I don’t want to speak for Roger Rabbit, but it is a fact that many people die every year in cars and on bikes and if we ban cars and bikes we will “save” a lot of lives (some criminals may still try to drive or ride but a complete ban will cut down on the number of drivers or riders).
Most right wing Fox news watching hunters have not been on a bike since they were a kid and would have no problem banning adults from riding bikes to save lives just like most MSNBC watching environmentalists don’t own guns and don’t have a problem banning them if we can save even a few lives.
I’ve got young kids and spending most of my life living around San Francisco and Davis I’ve got a lot more friends that are not gun owners than gun owners so I see the other side probably more clearly than I feel Roger Rabbit does.
It is sad that the gun issue has become political but we are not going to make any dent in the “illegal” gun issue when we have the NRA/GOP people that want to keep guns legal but have no problem with life in jail for anyone with an illegal gun or who uses a gun to commit a crime while the NAACP/Dem. people want to ban guns, but don’t want to get tough on the many (mostly minority) people with illegal guns that use them to commit crimes.
P.S. I want to point out that almost all the serial killers and mass murders in America are white males to make it clear that when I point out that almost all the neighborhoods in America that have a lot of gun violence have a lot of people from places in the world with a lot of violence and murder is not a racial thing it is a statement of fact. Medwoman has some great ideas about tracking people with mental issues, but we all need to remember that we have always had and will always have evil people that kill and sometimes the only way to stop these people is to kill them first (this is probably the main reason that most people keep a gun in their home). Just about everyone on the left seems OK that the Army, Cops and even University Police carry guns, but I don’t understand why there is a push back from so many on the left when there is talk about giving airline pilots or school principals guns.
If you want to make the analogy that’s fine, but within that analogy is the following:
1. Extensive licensing and testing requirements for drivers
2. Mandated seat belt requirements
3. Extensive expenditures on engineering to improve survival chances in a collision
4. Added safety features like airbags
So yes, there is a problem with deaths from automobiles and we have gone a long way to making cars a lot more safe.
Are you arguing in favor of similar approaches for guns? For me, i’m not necessarily in favor of banning weapons, but we need to more than we are right now.
SOD,
[i]I don’t want to speak for Roger Rabbit, but it is a fact that many people die every year in cars and on bikes and if we ban cars and bikes we will “save” a lot of lives (some criminals may still try to drive or ride but a complete ban will cut down on the number of drivers or riders). [/i]
The two are not comparable, which is my point. I’m in support of making vehicles and our roads as safe as possible. However, when one kills another intentionally, firearms are, more often than not, the weapon used while vehicles rarely are.
RR wrote at various points,
[i]The best thing to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. I wonder if that is why cops carry guns?
I have seen cops and military with guns that could not pour piss out of boot with the instructions on the heel and they were carrying guns…
over time the Gov has done a good job of changing that and making the masses fear things and then convincing the masses that the Gov will save them and protect them.
lets have two schools next to each other, one school has armed teachers and the other school is a GUN FREE ZONE…
[/i]
So government, armed, will save and protect innocent lives?
You seem critical of the public for relying on armed law enforcement officers (see: piss/boot remark) for protection, but you feel that armed school teachers would by and large be effective against an attack such as the one in Newtown?
Roger Rabbit says that automobiles kill 100 times the number of gun deaths each year.
According to the CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control’s interactive data site (see: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal_injury_reports.html) here are the number for 2010
Firearm deaths
Suicide 19,392
Homicide 11,078
Accidental 606
Legal interventions 344 (one a day)
TOTAL DEATHS 31,420
Automobile Deaths
Accidental 35,498
Since I work in the prison system I’ll offer an answer that I think many of the felons I have worked with might give to RR’s “experiment.” Most of the inmates I know would probably say they would go to neither school. This is not the place most criminals I’ve met do crimes – neighborhood stores, liquor stores, parked cars, their own home, etc. Much better pickings. That’s not much of an experiment.
RR says that 50% of the drivers he/she stops don’t have licenses. But he/she only stops a subset of all drivers and that subset probably has a much higher percentage of unlicensed drivers than the general population of drivers.
Having worked with law enforcement folks for many years now I find that they fall for many of the same biases that some people in my profession do – they assume because they work with criminals/mentally ill all day, that there must be many, many more of them out there. But that’s a fallacious argument and leads one to extreme positions like RR espouses (and some in my field also, unfortunately).
And regarding the mentally ill, the mental health profession has the means to effectively treat most major mental disorders. What we don’t have as a country is the political will to prioritize mental health services over things like military spending, tax loopholes for corporations and a variety of other things. I’m not surprised that states with more lax gun regulations tend to have lower per capita expenditures for mental health than states with more strict firearm regulations (see: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemapdetail.jsp?ind=278&cat=5&sub=149&yr=133&typ=4&sort=a)
OK, some good talk here, I will try and respond:
[quote]Note that vehicle, as a “weapon,” is not even listed. You can also look at each state and figure out the ratio of firearm-related and non-firearm-related deaths. [/quote]
This is a name calling issue, if you want to argue that a gun is used more to kill “intentionally” then I would agree. Just because a car kills more unintentionally does not change the numbers. If you judged a police baton to a bat, you could say that the police baton is used more to hit people. That has nothing to do with numbers. The “get the guns crew” argue it is to save lives and based on numbers, guns are safer than cars and you could even argue that since car deaths are accidental they are a greater threat.
[quote] NRA/GOP people that want to keep guns legal[/quote]
that is like saying the NAACP only wants to keep slaves free. Both groups say they protect and defend the constitution, although they both only seem to focus on the parts they like
[quote]NAACP/Dem. people want to ban guns, but don’t want to get tough on the many (mostly minority) people with illegal guns that use them to commit crimes. [/quote]
This point is very accurate and if you notice there is not too much data on this – for all the stat posters find and post some stats on this – I think some could argue that people for gun control are racist and sexist – guns make the weak equal to the strong – if the stats shows that most gun crimes are done by Blacks then one could argue that white people, most that call for gun control are white, really don’t want minorities to have guns – this gets pigeon holed since it does not help the cause. Women are more likely to be a victim of violent crime – it could be said that gun control is against women’s rights to protect themselves, taking away their “Choice” so to speak.
[quote]If you want to make the analogy that’s fine, but within that analogy is the following:
1. Extensive licensing and testing requirements for drivers
2. Mandated seat belt requirements
3. Extensive expenditures on engineering to improve survival chances in a collision
[/quote]
My point is to look at how much you do for cars and they are still bigger killers than guns and they are used and possess more by people that do not follow the laws.
[quote]However, when one kills another intentionally, firearms are, more often than not, the weapon used while vehicles rarely are[/quote]
Back to Intent – a vehicle has many uses – a gun is used to protect and defend by good people and used to kill by bad people – not so many uses – gun controllers think taking it away from the good will stop the bad – no evidence to support that and in fact the evidence does the opposite –
[quote]You seem critical of the public for relying on armed law enforcement officers (see: piss/boot remark) for protection, but you feel that armed school teachers would by and large be effective against an attack such as the one in Newtown?[/quote]
[b]
My point is cops, military and gov and bad guys with guns use it for power over people to enforce their will – a very big difference than citizens, and teachers who use guns for protection and defense – this is what most gun controllers miss. [/b]
[quote]Firearm deaths
Suicide 19,392
Homicide 11,078
Accidental 606
Legal interventions 344 (one a day)
TOTAL DEATHS 31,420
Automobile Deaths
Accidental 35,498 [/quote]
This is one year, over time if you look back this changes very differently, in 1980 over 50,000 died in car accidents and much less in guns –
[quote] law enforcement fall for many of the same biases that some people in my profession do – they assume because they work with criminals/mentally ill all day, that there must be many, many more of them out there.But that’s a fallacious argument and leads one to extreme positions [/quote]
This has merit, however, the opposite is also true, cops see more and may believe more evil exist, but non cops, people in safe areas and who never see violence also have a false belief that people are not bad and if we take guns from everyone then everyone would be safe, that is such a misguided belief – people don’t want to admit that the states with the strictest gun laws have the most gun crime, places that are gun free zones make crooks feel safe – places where bad guys know people are armed, like gun shows and police stations and military bases, amazingly those places don’t have mass killings – [b]people that do this type of senseless killing pick weak or soft targets, they do not pick strong or armed targets.[/b] [u]The evidence on this is indisputable [/u]
[i=http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/mother-of-sandy-hook-gunman-adam-lanza-was-a-gun-obsessive-living-in-fear-of-societys-collapse-16251468.html]Mother of Sandy Hook gunman Adam Lanza ‘was a gun obsessive living in fear of society’s collapse'[/i]
It looks like her beliefs became her reality.
Mother of Sandy Hook gunman Adam Lanza ‘was a gun obsessive living in fear of society’s collapse’ ([url]http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/mother-of-sandy-hook-gunman-adam-lanza-was-a-gun-obsessive-living-in-fear-of-societys-collapse-16251468.html[/url])
‘I Am Adam Lanza’s Mother’: A Mom’s Perspective On The Mental Illness Conversation In America ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html[/url])
Some Cases where armed citizens stopped attacks
[url]http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html[/url]
Roger Rabbit: You are right – there used to be many more deaths by automobiles. And since the 1980’s there have been many changes in design of cars, regulatory changes, and changes on roads and changes among people who drive cars. Thus, automobile deaths have declined because of better education, design, and regulation. The same cannot be said for guns and gun violence. Certainly homicides have declined, but it cannot be accounted for by changes in guns, the education of those who use guns. Possibly the environment of gun violence has changed (see for instance Frank Zimring’s recent volume The City That Became Safe about the crime reduction in NY City).
But the rates of gun homicide have not declined as much as automobile deaths.
The bias I mentioned does not work the other way. I suggest ou explore the work of Daniel Kahneman to learn about cognitive biases and how much they influence way we think and behave.
You state: “people that do this type of senseless killing pick weak or soft targets, they do not pick strong or armed targets. The evidence on this is indisputable.”
I would like to see your evidence for this statement. Unfortunately you don’t seem to understand the motives and actions of most mass killers (people who kill four or more). They don’t pick targets based on softness or weakness. Most are based on revenge, resentment. They hold grudges and ruminate about the unfairness of their situation. There are others who are psychotic or delusional, thus their motives and actions appear inexplicable to those of us who are not privy to their inner worlds. They are planful and careful. I suggest you read the article by Dr. James Knoll on mass murderers. There is no one profile that captures all these folks so it is difficult to predict who and when these events will happen. Given also that they are extremely rare, it is even harder to prevent them.
The law enforcement approach is only one way to look at these events. A broader perspective is necessary.
If this…
[quote]The mother of Sandy Hook gunman Adam Lanza who slaughtered 20 US schoolchildren and seven adults was a gun-hoarding survivalist who was stockpiling weapons in preparation for an economic collapse[/quote]
and this…
[quote]Lanza was believed to have been diagnosed with Asperger’s, a mild form of autism.[/quote]
…are both true, then the story, although no less heart wrenching, is much more bizarre. A survivalist nut-job mother with an autistic 20-something son is a toxic explosion just waiting to happen.
If these facts are true, I would start to consider that it was the mother with the mental health problems, and the actions of her autistic son were just a tragic byproduct.
If true, I think it justifies a strong tone down on the gun control crusade, and a much stronger dialog on mental health diagnosis, treatment and oversight.
JB
“If true, I think it justifies a strong tone down on the gun control crusade, and a much stronger dialog on mental health diagnosis, treatment and oversight.”
If true, it seems to me that we have two major factors that should be addressed. First, the ready availability of weapons useful for large kill numbers along with ammunition for the same purpose. Second, the need for improved mental health programs. I do not see why addressing one side of the equation should be sacrificed to the other when both are clearly contributory.
Roger R.: [i]Back to Intent – a vehicle has many uses – a gun is used to protect and defend by good people and used to kill by bad people – not so many uses -[/i]
…and guns can be used by anyone to kill anyone, good, bad, or otherwise. The weapons used on Friday performed as they were designed — to kill their targets effectively and efficiently.
[i]I do not see why addressing one side of the equation should be sacrificed to the other when both are clearly contributory. [/i]
Because gun control is going to be a big political fight and it will likely not provide much help in the short and medium term. There are so many guns in possession already. There will be a black market. The proverbial cat is out of the bag and it will not be simple to get him back in.
If we really want to make children safer with respect to mass murder by gun, we should focus on the mental health issues and not waste valuable time and effort exploiting the tragedies to win the liberal/progressive versus the conservative/libertarian gun control/freedom war.
RR,
[i]This is a name calling issue, if you want to argue that a gun is used more to kill “intentionally” then I would agree. Just because a car kills more unintentionally does not change the numbers.[/i]
The number doesn’t matter when you’re argument is fallacious. Comparing intentional killings by firearm and all vehicle-related deaths, the bulk of which are of the accidental/negligent-type, is flawed.
What we are all discussing here is the weapons used when one intentionally kills another person and not accidents. It’s not a “name calling issue,” rather it is simple logic.
You don’t have to argue logically, but that’s why your point is irrelevant re: vehicle and firearm deaths.
[i]Back to Intent – a vehicle has many uses-a gun is used to protect and defend by good people and used to kill by bad people – not so many uses[/i]
You’re not focusing on the issue here: intentional killing. Regardless of how many uses a vehicle has, firearms are by far the weapon used by people to kill others intentionally. People aren’t using vehicles to intentionally kill others on a level that even warrants its listing on the FBI’s list. Why? Because it not used very often in that manner.
Guns are what people use most often when killing another intentionally, period. Guns are the most effective killing machines. Safer for the killer (can do so at a safe distance), easier to kill your target (compared to blunt objects, knives, etc.).
[i]gun controllers think taking it away from the good will stop the bad – no evidence to support that and in fact the evidence does the opposite[/i]
What evidence? If we did not have guns, would there be gun violence? Does not limiting the number of guns decrease availability?
[i]a very big difference than citizens, and teachers who use guns for protection and defense – this is what most gun controllers miss.[/i]
So, assuming the school staff was armed with handguns, would that have helped stop the armored killer who possessed an assault riffle?
“…a much stronger dialog on mental health diagnosis, treatment and oversight.”
A common thread, as shown in the link wdf provided above (“I am Adam Lanza’s Mother”), is that resources aren’t available until the mentally ill person has committed a crime. In other words, right now our prison system is the starting point for making existing resources available to the mentally ill.
As one possible policy solution, the Affordable Care Act could be strengthened to make basic mental illness resources part of every health insurance policy.
Roger R: [i]Some Cases where armed citizens stopped attacks[/i]
Was it necessary to have a semi-automatic assault rifle to stop these attacks?
JB: [i]If we really want to make children safer with respect to mass murder by gun, we should focus on the mental health issues and not waste valuable time and effort exploiting the tragedies to win the liberal/progressive versus the conservative/libertarian gun control/freedom war.[/i]
Not worth it to restrict the sales of 30-round magazines?
[quote]When high-capacity magazines are justified ([url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171129/-When-high-capacity-magazines-are-important?detail=hide#[/url])
….
There are, however, times when a 30-round magazine is warranted. If you’re being assaulted by Mexican drug lords, for example. Or during the zombie apocalypse.
That’s pretty much it, however. And really, neither is worth the lives of 20 first-graders.
….[/quote]
[img]http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/12877/large/Zombies.jpeg[/img]
[i]One of the few scenarios were high-capacity magazines are warranted.[/i]
[quote]Not worth it to restrict the sales of 30-round magazines? [/quote]
The set of beliefs that underlie this attitude is, IMO, becoming a problem.
There was already a militant prepper nutjob fringe that believed that some kind of apocalypse was lurking right around the corner, but it seems like that since Obama came into office, this stuff has gone viral. Consider the hugely popular “Doomsday Preppers” show on Nat Geo, and the profusion of websites dedicated to prepping (and loading up on guns is certainly a huge part of this mindset) and paranoia about the coming communist/socialist government that’s going to take over.
Lanzo’s mom (as someone already pointed out) might have been a whack job prepper who thought that she needed an arsenal to prepare for the coming economic collapse (which, of course, is the fault of President Obama). If this is the case, she (and others like her) are just a few steps closer to crazy than those who constantly howl: “Oh no!!!! The ebil gubbment is coming ANY DAY NOW to take away my guns!!!!!”
This view really needs to be toned down a bit. The needless fear that can be generated from this nonsense is dangerous.
[i]Not worth it to restrict the sales of 30-round magazines?[/i]
Such a silly psuedo solution.
Yes, some people like 30-round magazines to shoot up targets without having to re-load. But let’s say we restrict the number of rounds a magazine can hold? How much time does it take an experienced shooter to pop a clip and put in a new one? What is the ACTUAL difference between one 30-shot clip and 3 10-shot clips? I’m guessing that the shooter shot more than 30 rounds… which means he changed clips at some point.
I suppose if you wanted to advocate that we eliminate all guns except single-shot… or maybe go back to cap and ball muskets… that restriction would save some lives. However, magazine size restrictions really don’t help solve any problem that I can think of.
[i]This view really needs to be toned down a bit. The needless fear that can be generated from this nonsense is dangerous.[/i]
Similar to the nut-jobs that claim 9-11 was an inside job, or those that claim Israel is oppressing and killing Palestinians for no good reason, or those that claim that oligarchs are controlling government and stealing their wealth?
I don’t disagree that we need to pay attention to conspiracy nut jobs, but the type of people in the list I provides are historically guilty of much more human misery and suffering than are any survivalist.
A little long, but this may explain where gun people are different than gun control people.
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs – Dave Grossman
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of “On Killing.”
Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? – William J. Bennett – in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: “Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident.” This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin’s egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
Part 2: on Sheep
“Then there are the wolves,” the old war veteran said, “and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.” Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial
“Then there are sheepdogs,” he went on, “and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.” If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed
Let me expand on this old soldier’s excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids’ schools.
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid’s school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep’s only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.”
The Newtown shooting makes us feel helpless. We don’t need to be ([url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/newtown-shooting-helpless-charlie-brooker[/url])
“Twenty children shot at close range with an assault rifle. You could argue that the choice of weapon is irrelevant; that a truly unhinged individual would still find the means to kill. Maybe that’s true; I don’t know. All I know is that 20 children were shot at close range with an assault rifle, and that only a lunatic nation wouldn’t try everything it could think of to make that less likely to happen again.”
Part 3: sheep
Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog. The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.
Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, “Thank God I wasn’t on one of those planes.” The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, “Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference.” When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I’m proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs. Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, “Let’s roll,” which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers – athletes, business people and parents. — from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. – Edmund Burke Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn’t have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior’s path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
Part 4: on sheep
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones. I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, “I will never be caught without my gun in church.” I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy’s body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, “Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?”
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for “heads to roll” if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids’ school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, “Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?”
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up
Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn’t bring your gun, you didn’t train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: “…denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn’t so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling.”
Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level. And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be “on” 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself “Baa.”
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
Rabid Roger: Three administrators apparently tried to confront the “wolf”… am assuming they were the “sheepdogs”… two died, one was wounded… at least one of the teachers who died (beyond the other two) put her body in harms way to protect her students… are you suggesting that the 20 6 & 7 year olds were not brave/socially conscious enough to stop the “wolf”?
If you come at me with an assault rifle, I’m most likely going to lose… if you come at me with a pistol, I’m probably going to lose… if you come at me with a car, I’m probably going to dodge you, and get your license plate number… if you come at me with a hammer, and threaten me, my family, or innocents, bring it on dude… my adrenalin will be fully kicked in, and there is at least a 51% chance that your family will be mourning your loss. Roger Rabid, get your shots before it’s too late.
Re: Roger
Sorry I didn’t post this earlier because no one was replying to me. Couple days ago DS made a comment that you seemed to only care about your own rights to keep your guns. This was the reply I wrote:
[Begin of Post not sent]
According to RR, gun-owners all over US are keeping the US from being overrun by the government. So RR’s concern isn’t just about his own rights, but the overall safety of everyone, and Liberals don’t acknowledge that.
I don’t have an argument for or against RR’s perspective. Personally I want to focus on taking care of people and making people of all kinds being accepted, so that there are no criminals and no people who get socially isolated and become mentally unstable because of that.
If the victims were older, I could read about their dreams and see if I could carry them on. But the victims were too young. So if I had a child I want to name them after one of the victim’s. I don’t know if this idea is offensive in the US, but to me it makes sense as a form of tribute.
My ideal is to help build a culture that can sustain peace by exploring how to resolve differences. When there is a culture where people understands how to discuss and resolve differences, conflicts get resolved, things get done, people become satisfied, and the world becomes peaceful.
If this is the first time you see this concept and you agree with it please carry it on.
[/End of Post not sent]
I didn’t post it because I couldn’t tell how sentimental the topic was. While I appreciate your vivid analogy with wolf, sheepdog, and sheep, I do not want to refer to it because thinking in terms of analogy limits a person’s ability to think critically for creative solutions.
* * *
For discussions like this, there is a technique to find common grounds for a solution. The technique is that when a solution is proposed, and someone objects it, you include the person who objects the proposal as a stakeholder, and record their biggest reason for objecting the proposal. Then you propose a different, or a variation of the same solution and repeat the process, while listing all proposal solutions in the order of their acceptance. The purpose of this technique is to document the stakeholders and their concerns, to avoid strawman arguments, to focus on creating a solution that no one objects instead of focusing on shooting down each other’s proposals.
For this to work, it is necessary that each person who objects a proposal speaks in terms of their own personal objection to avoid the situation where a stakeholder tries to object a proposal with hypothetical stakeholders.
Conceptually, to use this method effectively as a nation, you could do it first with just your household. Once your household have a consensus on an agreeable solution, you reach out and discuss to get a solution that your block would agree on. Then the city, the state, the nation, the world. This would take a long time at first. But once you have done it, you will know what everyone cares about, and your initial proposal will be more considerate of everyone, and the process will speed up a lot.
This is the true form of democracy. Democracy does not mean majority rule. Democracy is not power struggle. Democracy is about finding solutions that address all concerns of the people. The knowledge and skill to resolve conflicts by discussion and problem solving are fundamental to democracy, and these skills don’t need to come from school. It can start in every household, with everyone you meet. A culture that understands this as the first resort of conflict resolution, is a culture ready to sustain peace. Without this foundation, all actions are only superficial and reactionary.
Here I demonstrate this technique with what what I knew from Roger so far (as far as I understand)
Roger’s Proposal: Let there be staff armed with handguns in schools to take care of the case when an unreasonable assailant attacks.
Edgar’s Objection: None.
Edgar’s comment: I think people should be allowed to choose whether their kids should go to a school with or without armed staff. I don’t see a problem with Roger’s proposal because it is a fact that incidents can happen, and I don’t particularly worry about people carrying weapons around. Personally I do not own any weapon, but I am not afraid of people who do.
Since I actually don’t object Roger’s proposal, the next step for each of us to do, is to find the person who objects and finds the common solution. This mentality is different from what the typical citizen in the US is trained to do. The typical citizen is trained to only attack the opposition proposal, their mentality is unprepared for a truly democratic society.
If someone wants to discuss with me, then I am open for discussion.
JB
“Because gun control is going to be a big political fight and it will likely not provide much help in the short and medium term. There are so many guns in possession already. There will be a black market. The proverbial cat is out of the bag and it will not be simple to get him back in. “
Jeff, since when have Americans become afraid to take on a needed action because it will be a “big political fight ” ? Since when have we thrown up our hands in the face of horror and destruction of lives and said “the cat is out of the bag” ?
If we had followed this line of reasoning in the time of Lincoln, how much longer would people have been enduring slavery ?
If we had said “women have never had the vote in this country, it will just be too hard to change people’s minds, would women have gained the right to vote ?
When something is the right thing to do, I think we need to show a little guts and fortitude and recognize that there is no constitutional right to an assault weapon or to enough ammunition to inflict multiple injuries upon 26 innocents within a matter of minutes. I think RR may have a point with the sheep and wolves analogy. I just interpret the roles a little differently. I see the “sheep” as every one who will not stand up to the “wolves”who I would consider everyone who is willing to materially benefit from these weapons whether it is the criminals who actually pull the triggers for profit, the manufacturers who make their livings making the weapons known to have no legitimate purpose but to kill humans, the vendors who are willing to sell such weapons and ammunition, the lobbyists and politicians that these profiteers support in their bids for office.
So I would say to my fellow sheep, take off your blinders, protect yourselves by removing these weapons that the wolves and their suppliers would use to harm you from circulation. Will you still have to defend yourself from those who would stab you with a knife, shoot you with a handgun, throw a bomb, or ripen over you with a car ? Certainly. But would it not be worth it to at least lessen the risk of a single shooter taking out 20 children and those trying to protect them within a few minutes ? I honestly cannot see how one could argue against limiting ownership of assault rifles.
Another technique on finding common solution:
One problem people have in finding a common solution, is that they are too fixated on the form of the solution instead of the purpose of the solution. When two people meet and they have solutions that are in conflict of each other, the three steps that people prepared for true democracy are:
1. Let go of the form of the conflicting solutions.
2. Identifying the underlying concerns.
3. Form a new solution that addresses the concerns.
We are stuck in a culture of “politics” because people do not use this process. People do not use this process because they know that they cannot get pass Step 2, so they refuse to use this process. They know that they cannot get pass Step 2 because their underlying reasons are selfish and they did not want to disclose those reasons, because it would make them sound selfish, shameful, or dishonorable.
But now you know how this process works, so if they deny to use this process, you already know that they are selfish.
Armed personnel at schools have been used where there seems to be a need, as in some urban areas. My preference is that they be people who are trained in law enforcement and appropriate weapons use, not staff who happen to get weapons training. I think school principals, counselors, and teachers should be hired for their skill sets in those regards, not in any way related to their ability to shoot intruders.
So the proposal would be impractical, IMO, to implement, and could lead to unanticipated complications. If principals and school districts feel that more school safety officers would be useful, I think funding and programs could be developed for that.
I’m not a fan of an armed citizenry where private individuals take on the role of protecting other people. You all may be carrying concealed weapons, and I don’t know about it, and I actually don’t have a problem with concealed permits for personal security. But don’t get delusions of grandeur about keeping the rest of us safe. My enthusiasm for your possession of a weapon is inversely proportional to your eagerness to have one.
To illustrate how to defuse strawman arguments:
P1.1: Let there be armed staff at school who never had any adaquet weapon training (Accept: None) (Object: EW, DS) (Unknown: RR)
P1.2: Let there be armed staff at school who are ex-military or ex-police, who have served and had demonstrated their weaponry skill, mental capacity (Accept: EW, RR, DS) (Object: None)
For this to progress I would need to ask if anyone objects P1.2. Just to be clear, there is no reason why there should only be one solution. All the other solutions regarding gun control and mental health are concurrent.
image:
[img]http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/425615_10151180976846275_7660547_n.jpg[/img]
In terms of gun control:
P3: Ban semi-automatic rifles. (Accept: EW) (Object: ??)
P5: Prosecute people who knowingly train weaponry skills, give/sell/lend weapon to someone who has sociopathic tendencies, anger management problem, or other documented mental conditions that compromise sense of reality. (Accept: EW) (Object: ??)
Edgar
“P1.2: Let there be armed staff at school who are ex-military or ex-police, who have served and had demonstrated their weaponry skill, mental capacity (Accept: EW, RR, DS) (Object: None)
I have two objections to this plan:
1) The unreliability of making the assumption that ex military or ex police will equate to safe and protective.
The Fortt Hood Shooter, Nidal Hasan, was an active military psychiatrist at the time he murdered 12
on a military base. This contradicts two erroneous claims that have been made in previous posts.
1. That these attacks only occur at “soft” locations
2. That military people and police are by definition “the good guys”
2) I also object to having armed school staff. To me this is conceding that we want to make a fully armed citizenry the norm in our country.
I do not want my first graders being raised with the concept of violence as a way of life and see this as a promotion of that point of view.
Edgar
I can however fully support your P3 and P5.
NRA Goes Silent After Connecticut School Shooting ([url]http://news.yahoo.com/nra-goes-silent-connecticut-school-shooting-080658189.html[/url])
“Prosecute people who knowingly train weaponry skills, give/sell/lend weapon to someone who has sociopathic tendencies, anger management problem, or other documented mental conditions that compromise sense of reality.”
Certain government security, military and police organisations consider such tendencies prerequisite for employment .
I lived in wild Canada in the 1950s and 60s . Guns were everywhere in my world . I can’t remember not knowing how to use a gun . In our tiny logging camp community in Chamiss Bay, the only violence I can recall was when a neighbor used his wife’s silk scarf to wipe his hands after cleaning fish . She struck him, repeatedly, with a broomstick, while a loaded .303 Enfield was within arms reach.
Americans shoot each other at an astounding clip. IMO it has to do with a puritanical sense of self righteousness and entitlement . Whatever the cause, rectification requires the kind of societal introspection for which, historically, we have shown little aptitude or patience !
Roger Rabbit – Thanks for the sheep-sheepdog-wolf thoughts. I enjoyed reading it. I liked the analogy and related wisdom. I agree and see shades of the same in much of our collective human interaction and social issues.
There was a great WSJ article a few weeks ago entitled “The Power of Negative Thinking”. It caught my attention because I generally advocate the opposite. However, the topic was not what I expected. It was basically an article advocating for the end of the state of denial.
Some people will not easily accept the notion of bad versus good and good versus evil. They opine for the middle ground, avoid conflict and retreat when the evidence arrives. They seek a comfortable place to wait out the storm hoping that things will return to normal. They are true sheep. They don’t have to be that way, but they are.
But there is another character in your story. It is the passive-aggressive blue sheep… the near-wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is that denier that never quite denies… the fighter that never quite fights. These blue sheep are the non-committing, post-event, analyzers of the situation. They are armchair quarterbacks… They are Einsteins in hindsight. They have smart things to say after the fact… criticism comes natural and frequently but only for safe topic positions, and only with veiled and nebulous language meant to provide additional denial and retreat from conflict if required. These guys like to bite the sheepdog as he is doing his job, but tend to honor and respect the wolf for some strange reason.
These blue sheep really irritate me. They infest much of the media… especially the mainstream media. You know what side they are on by the nuance of their pitiful passive-aggressive rhetoric, but try to corner them on it and they will deny it and wiggle away in retreat. They will claim no bias and their complete objectivity, fairness and openness to all sides. They say this while tilting like a cornstalk in a windstorm… but one that tends to tilt left.
My preference is open honesty about risks, dangers and problems, and then have fact-filled debate with people that will commit to a position and state it clearly. We need to accept that bad versus good exists, and that we cannot explain the destructive behavior of people as always being justified by their crappy childhood and bad circumstances. It is fine if someone hates the sheepdog and loves the wolf… just practice admitting it. Don’t try to give garbage nuanced arguments surfing a nebulous middle-ground that provides the safe harbor of denial. Like those Israel-haters that type letters for the Davis enterprise… they need to come clean and admit that they like the Palestinian suicide bombers and dislike Israeli Jews. They love the wolf and hate the sheepdog… JUST ADMIT IT!
Instead of accepting the labeling of people for their bad behavior – accepting the existence of the wolf – the blue sheep instead direct their attention to peripheral objects that serve to provide them cover for caring about the problems. They soon become obsessed with these objects as they find themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place with respect to the heartbreak they can’t find an answer for. Guns are one of their peripheral objects. The guns do not walk around shooting people, but since the blue sheep cannot accept a more aggressive crusade against the wolves who are doing the shooting, they pick guns as their peripheral object of attention. Going after guns shows they are doing something… even though there are copious rational arguments for why the gun restrictions and control they demand will not help, and will likely make things worse for the good people.
If we are being completely honest and objective, there are clear ways to reduce gun violence. All of these ideas have us focus on the wolves. They would require us giving more support to the sheepdog. The blue sheep won’t let it happen. Hence, the blue sheep need to consider that they themselves share some of the blame for the destruction and heartbreak caused by wolves.
Boone-look up monomania and get help with that bleating problem . Your typical scapegoating response, in lieu of any sensitivity or perspective, wearies me . Gun violence is not unknown in Yolo County, but as with most social issues, you choose to denigrate those seeking a solution and deflect any responsibility for the problem onto left leaning blue sheep . Once again, a familiar aroma exudes from the benighted banker .
biddlin, I can tell I hit the mark when I hear from you.
What is your position on stop-and-frisk?
“What is your position on stop-and-frisk? “
As relaxed as possible . I find an effeminate giggle, appropriately timed, usually speeds the process .
LOL! biddlin, as much as you grouch, I suspect you are just a funny teddy bear.
Now seriously, what do you think about the Stop-And-Frisk laws in New York that reduced gun crime, but that was fought and overturned?
Seriously, if you’ve flown much in the last few years, you’ve gotten used to certain intrusions . I found the New York law more reasonable than TSA . That said, it’s a matter of reasonable application. I’ve had “Pat downs” that were as brief and non-intrusive as possible, at recent courtroom visits, for instance . I had a pat down by a Placer County Deputy a few years ago, that cracked a rib and left multiple bruises . I think our focus needs to be on stopping what seems to be epidemic in our national culture. There are too many guns, in too many hands for any sort of ban or licensing requirements to have any hope of controlling . While doing research for an article on militias, a former co-worker told me of his training with a “Christian ” group in Idaho and showed me his ” doomsday arsenal ” all legally purchased, that included no fewer than two semi-automatic rifles and 1,000 rounds of ammo for each of his family members, all well hidden in his suburban home along with several loaded semi-auto pistols and shotguns in plain sight. Is he an extreme example ? I hope so, but that and other examples made clear to me that no ban is possible, whether desirable or not . We need to find the root cause(s) of our country’s murderous rage and that quest involves more than laws and police can accomplish . Japan and Germany came to near extinction before such serious self examination . Some Balkan and Middle Eastern cultures are experiencing such growing pains now. With a growing population and resulting density , if we cannot find time for personal reflection and societal reform now, the accessibility to guns by intransigent religious and political groups and real criminal gangs, many trained by our military, in control of vast arsenals may well dictate our near future .
But, yeah, I’m known as Mr. Happy . ;>)/
@J. Boone
[quote]Similar to the nut-jobs that claim 9-11 was an inside job, or those that claim Israel is oppressing and killing Palestinians for no good reason, or those that claim that oligarchs are controlling government and stealing their wealth?
I don’t disagree that we need to pay attention to conspiracy nut jobs, but the type of people in the list I provides are historically guilty of much more human misery and suffering than are any survivalist. [/quote]
True. But as far as I know, the nut jobs of the stripe you countered with are not typically the ones that amass vast arsenals capable of attaining a very high body count in a short amount of time.
Assuming he is not suffering mental health problems or that he does not have other family members suffering mental health problems, that guy in Idaho with the weapons is not a problem other than he assaults your sensibilities. It is a slippery slope if we legislate based on that… because just about everyone assaults the sensibilities of someone else.
If there is no actual doomsday then these weapons are just there similar to how your hazard insurance is just there. If there is a doomsday type event, you would be likely be quite envious of that guy.
The amount of gun deaths in this country is inflated by gang violence which is a byproduct of our drug-use and drug-culture. Ever used illicit recreational drugs? (This is a rhetorical question… please do not admit it online!). If you have, you have contributed to gun crime.
The guy with the weapons cache isn’t in Idaho, he’s in a suburb 15 minutes from you . He trained in Idaho, with a right wing christian militia . Why would I assume that he nor any of his family have no mental health problems ? That seems highly unlikely . The fact that the weapons and ammo are so easily accessible in a neighbourhood with the normal burglary statistics and with teenagers in the house worries me plenty . The reasons he and his comrades might declare “Doomsday” are also of considerable concern to me, but to you, I’m sure that’s just a matter of my liberal sensibilities . BTW What are The KKK, The Church of the White Christ, The Aryan Nation et al other than outlaw gangs ? ;>)/
If you are an “outlaw” you are outside the protection of the law. We have no outlaw gangs in the US. We have law-breaking gangs… but even they are entitled to protection of the law.
[i]The fact that the weapons and ammo are so easily accessible in a neighbourhood with the normal burglary statistics and with teenagers in the house worries me plenty[/i]
It does not worry me that he is 15 minutes away. It also does not worry me that he has legal guns. It does worry me that his guns and/or his ammo stores are not locked up with teenagers in the house.
I am okay with gun regulations to help get more guns locked and secured. I am okay with some restrictions on AR ownership… certainly significant licensing requirements. I am okay with regulating gun shows.
However, if we really want to reduce the number of people murdered by gun, we should focus on mental health service enhancements, and enhanced punishment for criminals that use guns. We should also have Stop-And-Frisk as a requirement in any area where there is a high gun violence rate.
“enhanced punishment for criminals that use guns”
I’m sure that would stop these kinds of shootings right there…
[i]True. But as far as I know, the nut jobs of the stripe you countered with are not typically the ones that amass vast arsenals capable of attaining a very high body count in a short amount of time.[/i]
I’m not sure where that argument gets us. The US government has the largest military and the largest arsenal.
Re: Medwoman
In terms of Arming Schools:
P1.2.1: Let there be armed staff at school who simply are ex-military or ex-police, without any updated qualification process on mental status. (Accept: None) (Object: EW, MW)
P1.2.2: Let there be armed staff at school who are ex-military or ex-police, who have served and had gone through updated qualifying process that demonstrates their current weaponry skill and, mental capacity (Accept: EW, RR, DS) (Object: MW)
P1.3.1: Let there be a mandate that all public elementary school must have armed staff (Accept: None) (Object: EW, MW)
[b]P1.3.2:[/b] Let it be possible for some public elementary schools to have armed staff for communities that would accept their presence. (Accept: EW) (Object: ??)
In terms of Education:
P4: Promote the concept that communication and creative problem solving are the foundation of peace and democracy and violent confrontation is a last resort. (Accept: EW) (Object: ??)
Only those who constantly look forward to a world where they can disarm themselves are mentally stable to pick up weapons.
When a peaceful person picks up a weapon, they admit that they had already failed once to resolve the conflict in other means. They hope that there is a teacher who could have taught him how to prevent the conflict from escalating to the current situation. They hope that there is someone creative who could defuse or de-escalate the situation. When that person comes, they immediately disarm themselves, because the solution that they have been waiting for had finally arrived.
[i]”enhanced punishment for criminals that use guns”
I’m sure that would stop these kinds of shootings right there…[/i]
You mean stopping those with mental health problems? No it would not. However, it would reduce the gun death numbers to a level where that statistic would not be so high as to give power to the anti-gun activists.
Most gun deaths are suicides. Unfortunately, I don’t think we can reduce access to legal guns enough to make a big reduction in that number. However, I do think that enhanced rules for keeping guns locked up when there are kids in the house, and restrictions from having guns in the house where there are known 5150s in the house, and enhanced services to provide care for 5150s, will help drop the rate of suicide by gun. It will also help prevent the type of tragedy in Newtown.
For homicides by gun, a number that the US leads in, most are done by young men, to young men, in drug gang violence. Also, hand guns are by far the most used gun to commit murder. Because hand guns are easily concealed by baggy clothing, allowing police to stop and frisk any suspected gang member wearing baggy clothing in areas with high rates of gun violence makes perfect rational sense. It has already proven to reduce gun violence and gun death.
If you are using the argument that the US leads the world in gun deaths, then you should advocated for solutions that reduce the number of gun deaths.
If you are using the argument that we should focus on reducing the risk of something like the Newtown tragedy from occurring, then you should advocate for solutions to better ID and treat mental health problems, and to restrict guns to those with mental health problems.
I think we need more licensing and restrictions for AR ownership, and we need to start regulating gun shows. But I don’t think these things will do much to prevent another Newtown tragedy.
Boy, 11, takes gun to school in fear after Newtown shooting ([url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/18/us-utah-gun-school-newtown-fears.html[/url])
By the way, knives and other methods are used to murder as much as rifles are used. Bombs have been used to mass kill students before. But handguns rule as the weapon of choice for murder. The Newtown murderer shot all his victims at close range. That evil, sick kid didn’t need an AR.
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/homicideby.jpg[/img]
Our homicide rate by gun has been falling even as gun ownership has increased.
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/homiciderate.jpg[/img]
After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn’t Had a Similar Massacre Since. ([url]http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html[/url])
Jeff: [i]” I do think that enhanced rules for keeping guns locked up when there are kids in the house, and restrictions from having guns in the house where there are known 5150s in the house, and enhanced services to provide care for 5150s…”[/i]
I think this is a very good summary of what we could do.
This just in. It just gets more and more complicated when mental health problems are involved.
[quote]The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility, according to a lifelong resident of the area who was familiar with the killer’s family and several of the victims’ families.[/quote]
“However, it would reduce the gun death numbers to a level where that statistic would not be so high as to give power to the anti-gun activists.”
That sounds good, but here’s the problem. Right now the penalty for murder with a gun in California is at least a life sentence. California may or may not have tougher laws than everywhere else in the country, but California for those laws doesn’t have a markedly lower murder rate, so I question your premise.
GUN kills intruder and saves Children….. said no Liberal New every…
I am sure some liberal said it was dangerous to have a gun in the house with kids… wait they will try and charge Dad with not locking up his guns, liberals would rather brag about catching the Suspect after he kidnaps, molest and kills the kids, than brag about a responsible gun owner that taught his kids how to defend themselves.
[url]http://www.examiner.com/article/14-year-old-phoenix-boy-shoots-armed-intruder-while-babysitting-siblings[/url]
Mr. Boone (I hope you still have you coonskin cap)
Glad you like the sheep and wolves. I think had a sheepdog and maybe another wolf with higher morals would have been present at this school the outcome would have been much different.
I read the Pseudocommando Mass murders, interesting read. however I think this shooter did not follow the model completely since there is conflicting reports about was the shooter at the school earlier, his mom was not a teacher at the school, first account was he was buzzed in the school and known, then later he shot his way into the school, so according to the article, what was he taking as a personal attack from the kids? Why were they targeted? Since he shot his mom four times in the head, obviously that shows personal and emotional killing, much like stabbing tends to be a more personal crime and multiple stabbing shows greater connection or emotion, but why the kids?
As for the assault ban, all guns are assault weps, they are not designed for improving your love life, they are designed to assault an attacker before you get assaulted. So this liberal label to make a certain gun sound MORE dangerous than a NON assault gun is foolish and is only used to fool the people that want to believe it.
In the 1920’s the tommy gun automatic was too dangerous and had to be controlled, back then people said watch out, this is on the start and is a slippery slope. Today it is the automatic guns, tomorrow it will be other guns. So here are today with a new villain, the big bad semi auto assault rifle. I ask those in favor of this ban, had this idiot used a shotgun to do this carnage would there be a need for a shotgun ban? And after assult guns are banned and shotguns are banned and pistols are banned, then what happens to 2nd Amendment, the part that said very clearly “shall NOT be infringed” ?
Another issue that is not being talked about is Fast and Furious, the GOV sold illegal assault weapons to people to take to Mexico. When the Gov makes the laws, they can ignore the laws. Until one of these guns were used to kill a border agent, this would have been another classified op that no one would know of. The Gov can’t stop illegal people from coming across the border, the border is a freeway for drugs, weapons and people. Supply and demand, when make something harder to get the price and demand goes up, the guns you can’t get here can be walked across the border with the drugs and illegals… and somehow the people calling for more Gov control think a new law on ONE type of gun will somehow fix this and the guns will suddenly be gone since the Gov is so efficient in everything it does. Ridiculous, any more laws only hurt good law abiding citizens but the sheep want to think they are safe and deny that you cannot control the evil wolf and he will always find a way to come calling.
Here’s an interesting article from the Chronicle of Higher Education: (Part I)
Top 10 Myths About Mass Shootings
December 18, 2012, 2:42 pm
By James Alan Fox
Even before the death toll in last Friday’s school massacre in Newtown, Conn., was determined, politicians, pundits, and professors of varied disciplines were all over the news, pushing their proposals for change. Some talked about the role of guns, others about mental-health services, and still more about the need for better security in schools and other public places. Whatever their agenda and the passion behind it, those advocates made certain explicit or implied assumptions about patterns in mass murder and the profile of the assailants. Unfortunately, those assumptions do not always align with the facts.
Myth: Mass shootings are on the rise.
Reality: Over the past three decades, there has been an average of 20 mass shootings a year in the United States, each with at least four victims killed by gunfire. Occasionally, and mostly by sheer coincidence, several episodes have been clustered closely in time. Over all, however, there has not been an upward trajectory. To the contrary, the real growth has been in the style and pervasiveness of news-media coverage, thanks in large part to technological advances in reporting.
Myth: Mass murderers snap and kill indiscriminately.
Reality: Mass murderers typically plan their assaults for days, weeks, or months. They are deliberate in preparing their missions and determined to follow through, no matter what impediments are placed in their path.
Myth: Enhanced background checks will keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of these madmen.
Reality: Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally. Certainly, people cannot be denied their Second Amendment rights just because they look strange or act in an odd manner. Besides, mass killers could always find an alternative way of securing the needed weaponry, even if they had to steal from family members or friends.
Myth: Restoring the federal ban on assault weapons will prevent these horrible crimes.
Reality: The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings. Of course, limiting the size of ammunition clips would at least force a gunman to pause to reload or switch weapons.
Myth: Greater attention and response to the telltale warning signs will allow us to identify would-be mass killers before they act.
Reality: While there are some common features in the profile of a mass murderer (depression, resentment, social isolation, tendency to blame others for their misfortunes, fascination with violence, and interest in weaponry), those characteristics are all fairly prevalent in the general population. Any attempt to predict would produce many false positives. Actually, the telltale warning signs come into clear focus only after the deadly deed.
Myth: Widening the availability of mental-health services and reducing the stigma associated with mental illness will allow unstable individuals to get the treatment they need.
Reality: With their tendency to externalize blame and see themselves as victims of mistreatment, mass murderers perceive the problem to be in others, not themselves. They would generally resist attempts to encourage them to seek help. And, besides, our constant references to mass murderers as “wackos” or “sickos” don’t do much to destigmatize the mentally ill.
Myths (Part II)
Myth: Increasing security in schools and other places will deter mass murder.
Reality: Most security measures will serve only as a minor inconvenience for those who are dead set on mass murder. If anything, excessive security and a fortress-like environment serve as a constant reminder of danger and vulnerability.
Myth: Students need to be prepared for the worst by participating in lockdown drills.
Reality: Lockdown drills can be very traumatizing, especially for young children. Also, it is questionable whether they would recall those lessons amid the hysteria associated with an actual shooting. The faculty and staff need to be adequately trained, and the kids just advised to listen to instructions. Schools should take the same low-key approach to the unlikely event of a shooting as the airlines do to the unlikely event of a crash. Passengers aren’t drilled in evacuation procedures but can assume the crew is sufficiently trained.
Myth: Expanding “right to carry” provisions will deter mass killers or at least stop them in their tracks and reduce the body counts.
Reality: Mass killers are often described by surviving witnesses as being relaxed and calm during their rampages, owing to their level of planning. In contrast, the rest of us are taken by surprise and respond frantically. A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire.
Myth: We just need to enforce existing gun laws as well as increase the threat of the death penalty.
Reality: Mass killers typically expect to die, usually by their own hand or else by first responders. Nothing in the way of prosecution or punishment would divert them from their missions. They are ready to leave their miserable existence, but want some payback first.
In the immediate aftermath of the Newtown school shootings, there seems to be great momentum to establish policies and procedures designed to make us all safer. Sensible gun laws, affordable mental-health care, and reasonable security measures are all worthwhile, and would enhance the well being of millions of Americans. We shouldn’t, however, expect such efforts to take a big bite out of mass murder. Of course, a nibble or two would be reason enough.
James Alan Fox is the Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy at Northeastern University and the author of Violence and Security on Campus: From Preschool Through College (Praeger, 2010).
[b]
446 school age children shot in Chicago so far this year with strongest gun laws in country – media silent[/b]
[url]
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2012/12/18/446-school-age-children-shot-in-chicago-so-far-this-year-with-strongest-gun-laws-in-country-media-silent/%5B/url%5D
James Alan Fox has completely embraced the power of negative thinking.
I think maybe a bit too much.
Although I do get the point about the difficulty. It is sort of the same problem the US military and Homeland Security have with the risk for suicide killers. There is that saying that we have to be right all the time and the terrorist only has to be right once.
I think what Mr. Fox is basically saying is that some tragedies like Newtown are the cost of living in a free society. We can’t yet read people’s minds, and so we can only protect based on expected behavior in a range of normal. When someone’s behavior is so far out of the range of normal, we might only be able to respond.
I am a bit more optimistic that Mr. Fox. First, because these mass murders do not happen very often, we only need to prevent a few to significantly improve our batting average. I think technology might advance to help. For example, perimeter sensors that can detect movements, brain waves and facial expressions… or the same that can detect traces of gun powder or other chemicals that can set an alarm and put a building in lock-down. I would be fine with a gun sensor technology being required… one where all guns have to have embedded sensors that cannot be removed without making the gun inoperable. Then set the crime for carrying a gun without a sensor or with an inoperable sensor very severe. Better school design that has steel doors with a small window with safety bars to prevent someone from reaching in to unlock. I also think we will advance in mental health diagnosis to the point it is more definitive. Brain scans can show patters of brain activity that match a signature for certain conditions. So can hormone and protein analyses. I think we will never solve this problem, but we will lessen the risk over time.
A patchwork of laws is probably not helpful. Who cares if Chicago has tough laws if you can get guns down the way?
[i]That sounds good, but here’s the problem. Right now the penalty for murder with a gun in California is at least a life sentence. California may or may not have tougher laws than everywhere else in the country, but California for those laws doesn’t have a markedly lower murder rate, so I question your premise. [/i]
I thought I already responded to this, but I cannot find it.
Let’s assume that we significantly increase the penalties for crimes committed with a gun. For example, 25-years to life mandatory for any felony where a gun was used during the criminal act. Mandatory life for any crime where a gun injured someone. Mandatory capital punishment in any case where a gun was used in a crime where someone was killed.
Basically zero tolerance for gun use in criminal activity.
I think that would significantly reduce the amount of gun violence. I bet the thugs would develop a new love for knives.
But, using my extension of Roger Rabbit’s explanation for “sheep”, the blue sheep would not accept this extreme punishment. They would wring their hands and say it isn’t fair. They would complain that police and the courts would exploit their power to hand out unfair punishment.
The blue sheep won’t accept Stop-And-Frisk either.
So, I question the agenda of the blue sheep. They don’t seem to really want to take these more extreme measures that would work to reduce gun violence and death. They seem to have more outrage for non-violent hate crimes than the do for many forms of gun violence.
I think they just want to leverage the tragedies to take away gun rights from others.
“Let’s assume that we significantly increase the penalties for crimes committed with a gun. For example, 25-years to life mandatory for any felony where a gun was used during the criminal act. Mandatory life for any crime where a gun injured someone. Mandatory capital punishment in any case where a gun was used in a crime where someone was killed. “
That’s not far from the current law. 10 year enhancement for use of a gun, 20 year enhancement if someone is injured (GBI) and life if killed. When you factor in the base crimes, you are pretty close to what you are suggesting.
Roger Rabbit wrote:
> 446 school age children shot in Chicago so far this
> year with strongest gun laws in country – media silent
The left leaning media pretends to care about people of color but they cover kidnappings and killings of pretty blond white kids about 100x more than they cover the kidnaping and killings of poor brown and black kids…
Twelve white kids killed at a CO school and twenty white kids killed in a CT school is a big deal, but the media spends very little time covering the THOUSANDS of brown and black kids shot by guns EVERY YEAR (more than 100 kids are shot in just Oakland and Detroit EVERY YEAR).
sod: you imply a contradiction but perhaps you err in assuming mediaa outlets are motivated by ideology rather than profit and that the coverage can simply be explained by the fact that the target audiences better identify with white victims from middle class homes or even working class homes rather than minority urban victims.
Re: JB:
What do you mean by regulating gun shows?
JB
“Let’s assume that we significantly increase the penalties for crimes committed with a gun. For example, 25-years to life mandatory for any felony where a gun was used during the criminal act. Mandatory life for any crime where a gun injured someone. Mandatory capital punishment in any case where a gun was used in a crime where someone was killed.
Basically zero tolerance for gun use in criminal activity.
I think that would significantly reduce the amount of gun violence. I bet the thugs would develop a new love for knives.”
This approach assumes that the perpetrator thinks ahead, has a firm grip of cause and effect, believes that there is a reasonable possibility that he may be caught, and places a value upon the rest of his life. If any of these factors is missing, as I believe that one or more frequently are in the case of mass shooters, then stiff legal penalties will not serve as a deterrent . Again, I think it is a serious mistake to confuse the actions of a mentally ill individual part of whose plan is to kill himself after killing as many others as possible with the use of guns by criminals who are acting for monetary gain or establishment of power within a gang. These individuals have very different motives and changing their behaviors would likely require very different approaches.
[i]What do you mean by regulating gun shows?[/i]
Edgar – Gun shows get around the regulations that retail gun stores have to comply with. From one perspective that make sense because gun shows are supposed to be for collectors. However, bad guys know they can purchase utility guns and skip all the required registration protocol. At the very least it is not fair to the retailers that have to deal with all the reglatory and licensing hassle.
JB – Thank you.
———————-
By now it is obvious that some of the ideas do not require government involvement. RR asked about banning shotgun. If banning shotgun and Banning semiautomatic rifle are both on a ballot after a shotgun massacre had also happened, I think I will vote to ban the semiautomatic rifle only, because the semiautomatic rifle has more deadly uses outside self-defense.
But in terms of the acceptance table that I mentioned earlier, I would have to say I accept banning shotgun also because personally I don’t have a concern, if I imagine that someone would not like it and object, I would be speaking for a hypothetical stakeholder. To avoid the Abilene Paradox, I can’t object it. On the other hand, I don’t have a reason to advocate banning shotguns.
This is my list based on what I read:
[url]http://skylet.net/docs/2012-12-18 – Re Sandy Hook.htm[/url]
Green refers to the ones that no one explicitly objected. When RR asked if people who tried to ban semiauto rifle would also ban shotgun, my guess is that RR would object both #2 and #3 on the basis that it would compromise the individual rights to protect themselves too much. But unless he states that he objects, I can’t record it because I would only be assuming an opposition. I can’t tell if his reason was more or less than this.
So if someone wants to explicitly attack the ones marked green, please do so and state your reason.
removed spaces in url:
[ List of ideas ] ([url]http://skylet.net/docs/2012-12-18-Re_Sandy_Hook.htm[/url])
[quote]one where all guns have to have embedded sensors that cannot be removed without making the gun inoperable. Then set the crime for carrying a gun without a sensor or with an inoperable sensor very severe.[/quote]
The problem with this, and it sounds good, but Gov is never satisfied with an inch, this would turn into more control, tracking, reason to do searches of your home, sensors on street lights, fines triggering sensors, over the years Gov never gives back control they only take, Gov does not get rid of programs they only get more, they do not spend less they only spend more, it is consistent power grab and every time the people agree to one little thing it turns into a life long list of more little things.
[quote]gun shows[/quote]
I disagree, I go to guns shows and it is exactly the same as going to a gun store, no short cuts, no selling guns without checks, gun shows have the exact same rules as guns stores, this is another misnomer put out to create fear and confusion to push the agenda and it works every time with the uninformed. And the people that say this, most have never been to a gun show or bought a gun.
[quote]
The left leaning media pretends to care about people of color but they cover kidnappings and killings of pretty blond white kids about 100x more than they cover the kidnaping and killings of poor brown and black kids… [/quote]
I agree the left used minorities and acts like they care, but there is also a backlash when anyone covers facts that make minority stereotypes appear true. So it becomes a double edged sword, which I am sure will also be banned soon.
EW
I really appreciate your calm and deliberate approach to this series of very complex issues. I am posting my views on each with rationale for each position if not already stated in previous posts. I’ll try to keep it short and so may lose some nuance. Questions, thoughts welcomed.
1. Agree with ban of semi automatic weapons
2. Would not support outright ban of shotguns, but feel that tighter safety measures, such as shooter recognition
devices would be warranted.
3. Would ban assault rifles outside of shooting clubs
5. Gun show regulations should be the same as any other commercial outlet
6. Do not favor penalizing others for the act of the mentally ill because of the difficulty of line drawing. In this case
of no benefit since none of the stipulations apply. The owner was killed and the weapons taken. Would any of
you advocate that a parent not be allowed to teach their child to shoot ? Most children, even those with mental
or psychologic problems do not abuse weapons. Demands clairvoyance on the part of the parent.
7. Fully support mental health detection, treatment and policy development.
8. Support
31. Support, but as stated above, difficulty arises with “knowingly”. What if the child is fully proficient prior to their
diagnosis ?
11. Support this, but also feel that having armed guards at schools undermines this concept and reinforces the
objectionable idea that we should live in a fully armed society.
30. Support
32. Support
15. Support and would extend to even when there are not kids in the house
17. Again, I feel that this penalizes the innocents, turns what should be a welcoming, warm, safe environment into
a “lock down”. I do not promote any concept that limits the innocent in their activities while benefiting those
who make the “lock down” necessary….namely the mentally ill, but also those who make their living by selling
these weapons thus contributing to the unsafe nature of our society.
18 and 19 I would fully support as puts the onus for primary safety of the product where it belongs, with the
manufacturer
20. Again, penalizes the innocent while the responsible get to carry on with their lucrative activities
21. Would support as part of a balanced approach that also holds gun manufacturers and vendors responsible on
their end
23/24/25/26 Strongly oppose based on previous posts
27 Could support with a direct vote of the parents at each school and a financially supported opt out provision allowing parents such as myself who feel less rather than more safe with our children at an armed facility, an alternative school option
29 Lovely idea which I fully support
[i]I go to guns shows and it is exactly the same as going to a gun store, no short cuts, no selling guns without checks, gun shows have the exact same rules as guns stores[/i]
Roger Rabbit, this is not completley accurate. Private parties can rent a table at a gun show and sell their guns. Dealers require a federal license to sell guns, but not private gun owners. This is the loophole that needs to be closed.
[i]1. Agree with ban of semi automatic weapons
2. Would not support outright ban of shotguns, but feel that tighter safety measures, such as shooter recognition
devices would be warranted. [/i]
Sorry medwoman but this just angers me. This is you pushing your worldview on others… taking away their freedoms to make yourself feel better. That is a very selfish thing, IMO. Are you serious? Do you know how many safe, law-abiding, honest, caring, patriotic people collect and use semi-automatic guns and shotguns for enjoyment and hunting. Are you really okay with taking that joy away from them?
This conservative will make a deal with you and others with a liberal progressive worldview… I will work harder to ignore what private people do in their bedrooms etc., if you work harder to ignore what private people do in their recreation rooms and garages.
GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE! In fact, DOCTORS KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN DO PEOPLE SHOOTING GUNS, SO SHOULD WE OUTLAW SCALPELS?! Sorry for shouting with caps, but this opinion to outlaw guns angers me.
[i]Do you know how many safe, law-abiding, honest, caring, patriotic people collect and use semi-automatic guns[/i]
No, I don’t know. Do you?
There is more news coming out about this shooter and his mother.
I have a thought/question that I have to aks. I’m sure it will piss some people off that I would even ask it.
From my own observations, it is clear that as a society in terms of household and family management and control we have migrated from a father-dominated standard to a mother-demonstrated standard.
My oldest son was diagnosed with some sensory integrative dysfunction. We first just thought he was being a normal spirited and independent child, but then noticed his behavior did not connect with events. He would have fits of rage and crying for no explainable reason. Well, the reason turned out to be hyper sensitivity to his sensory inputs. It was the way his clothing felt. It was noise and movement. He still does not like large crowds of people, but otherwise at age 22 has grown out of these problems.
But as a youngster and a young teenager, he would rage at his mother going through these episodes. I believe it was his fear and respect of his father and the related consequences of his actions that helped him learn to regulate. His mother’s-child self saw his mother as completely safe to abuse in this way. Their relationship was, and still is, one of unconditional love. However, his father’s-child self considered his relationship with his father as having some conditions and requirements. He naturally wanted his father’s acceptance and wanted to learn to grow to be a good man in his father’s eyes.
The Newtown shooter appears to have had much more complex and deeper problems than did my son. However, I still cannot help thinking that the lack of a prominent and authoritative family father figure might be a contributing factor. In the case of divorce, maybe we should rethink what parents should be required to do in participating in parenting. Should the father and mother been allowed to live in separate states? The shooter was 20 year old and was a legal adult, but obviously had special needs. Might the courts need to consider special needs and extend the parental requirements?
[i]No, I don’t know. Do you? [/i]
Yes, I do.
Re: JB:
Regarding: “pushing your worldview on others… taking away their freedoms to make yourself feel better”
I don’t know the exact intention of MW, but since she was replying to my list, I have to explain that the list itself is meant to document the honest concerns of the individual. Expressing ones’ view is not at act of taking away others freedom.
The difference is that as long as one person objects the proposal by stating their concern, the proposal is defeated. So her reply contains no ill-will according to how the list is supposed to work.
So do you mean that you object banning semiautomatic rifles? I am expecting someone would object, I just need to document the concrete reason. Could you confirm if you object it and state your reason?
Updated list:
[ List of Proposals ] ([url]http://skylet.net/docs/2012-12-18-Re_Sandy_Hook.htm[/url])
JB: [i]Do you know how many safe, law-abiding, honest, caring, patriotic people collect and use semi-automatic guns and shotguns for enjoyment and hunting. Are you really okay with taking that joy away from them?[/i]
Do you think I could have the legitimate right to collect nuclear bombs? I think I could make a good case that I am a safe, law-abiding, honest, caring, patriotic citizen who might find some enjoyment out of collecting them. Why is such a joy suppressed in America? Could this right be protected by the second ammendment?
Roger R.:[i]well, a nuke is a weapon of mass destruction.[/i]
An automatic or semi-automatic rifle can be a weapon of mass destruction, too. Is there a specific potential body count that defines a weapon of mass destruction? is it 30+ dead that makes it a weapon of mass destruction?
Edgar – Semi-automatic rifles and handguns are common. They are used for hunting and target shooting. They are used for self-defense since the bad guys have them and use them. I had a great Browning semi-automatic 22 caliber growing up that I used to hunt and target shoot. That was 40 years ago.
And even the consideration that we would outlaw shotguns is ludicrous. How many people shoot clay targets for a hobby and how many hunt birds?
This gets back to that same argument that we do not ban cars just because they can kill people. The purpose of most cars is not to kill people. The purpose of most semi-automatic guns and shotguns is not to kill people. Just because a small percentage of people use these things for their unintended use is not justification to ban them. Banning them will cause material harm to everyone that uses them safely, legally and responsibly.
[i]Do you think I could have the legitimate right to collect nuclear bombs? I think I could make a good case that I am a safe, law-abiding, honest, caring, patriotic citizen who might find some enjoyment out of collecting them. Why is such a joy suppressed in America? Could this right be protected by the second ammendment?[/i]
That is a silly argument because guns have many uses other than killing people. Are you planning to target practice or hunt with your nuclear bomb?
So you are using extremes to make a point.
Yes we need to draw a line somewhere. And it has to be based on a social perspective of material harm risk versus the benefits of freedom comparison. The risk of material harm from a nuclear bomb is extremely high relative to the benefits derived from the freedom to own it. The risk of material harm from a semi-automatic gun or shotgun are extremely low relative to the benefits derived from the freedom to own it.
Also, there is that consideration for alternatives to help reduce risk. How might society reduce the risk of harm from private ownership of nuclear bombs? I frankly don’t have a clue. However, I have outlined some things we can do to reduce the risk of material harm from guns. For example, mandatory life in prison for using a gun to commit a crime, and Stop-And-Frisk laws in all high gun-crime areas.
My guess is that you and medwoman would prefer to ban guns rather than accept the harsh crime penalties and the law enforcement profiling because it would harm people you care about. But those gun-loving Republicans… who cares if they cannot own em’?! Am I wrong?
Enhanced penalties are fine; don’t we already have those?
I would have to read more about stop-and-frisk to assess whether it really works, and how it could be implemented without aggravating police/citizen tensions. I’m open-minded about it (partly because I have the advantage that it would be very unlikely to affect me in any way).
Restricting the sales of some types of weapons doesn’t bother me, but these discussions usually bog down on the taxonomy of the weaponry. My focus would be on reducing the ability of the shooter to rapidly fire large numbers of rounds.
Enhanced school security should be funded by the federal government and provided by professionals, at the request of school districts. As needed, as appropriate, not imposed on them.
I don’t care if the government develops a system for tracking purchases of certain things, such as certain types of weapons or large amounts of ammunition, much as they do with ammonium nitrate.
I really hope the mental health issue is addressed head on: the inability of parents to get resources. A very large of amount of federal funding needs to be directed to that problem.
The main thing I keep looking at is an individual legally purchasing weapons and ammunition and stockpiling it, with an unstable person in the household. I’m more concerned about large caches of weaponry, whether it’s a paranoid end-times person or a ‘gun enthusiast’, than I am about particular types of weaponry. IMO what really needs to be licensed and regulated is storage of weapons.
Owning large amounts of weaponry is not inherently a problem. I lived next door to a gun shop for many years. I felt quite secure, because I knew the owner had extensive security, was visited regularly by the sheriff for various reasons, and was himself quite an expert with firearms. I was much less comfortable about the other household nearby whose teenage boys wandered the orchards with .22’s.
JB: Rather than talk about extreme examples like nuclear bombs, let’s bring it back down to earth and talk about what kind of regulations our society imposes on a variety of everyday activities and products. For instance, we regulate many kinds of medical devices (heart valves, etc.) that are meant to preserve life but the ATF is not allowed to regulate certain kinds of guns (I’m thinking semi-automatic assault-style firearms) whose basic purpose is to take life. Now, I know this is a bit provocative, but the rules our society sets often take the form of regulations and laws. We regulate behavior all the time, and one of the reasons that firearms deaths outnumber automobile-related deaths in some states is because or our regulation over the last 30-40 years of cars (seatbelts, brakes, airbags, etc), drivers (more driver’s ed, teen driving laws), and highways (better signage, updated medians, straightening out dangerous curves, etc.) while firearm regulation has lagged. I think more regulation of some types of guns is worth considering if we want to reduce firearm deaths (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide). Buyback programs (one of a number of strategies) could be seen to be analogous to recalls of cars with bad parts or bad baby carriages, etc. We accept these sorts of things because there is a direct relationship between the object that is poorly designed (what was the model of care that had exploding gas tanks if hit from the rear?) and the harm. I think you are right when you frame this in terms of risk and benefits. I might put it a little differently but that’s the kind of public policy debate/decision that, I believe, ought to be happening. I don’t believe it conflicts with the 2nd amendment if the society as a whole decides that certain types of guns are just too dangerous to allow in our society – that the harm outweighs the benefit. There are many pleasures that we regulate and even outlaw, and yet there are those that enjoy them surreptitiously and illegally. And when found out (or caught) there are societal consequences, some significant (jail time) and some not so (we love to overlook the adulterers in our midst and especially when they hold office).
When it comes down to it, the ONLY actual dangerous weapon is people. Maybe we should just outlaw people. But, since that is unreasonable, how about we just focus on policies, laws and solutions that deal with those people that pose the biggest danger?
rdcanning, I am fine with technology and other measures to help make guns safer for society… just like we have done for baby strollers… but not to ban them. I am on the fence a bit for ARs only because they are designed as weapons of war meant for killing humans. However, there is that need for defense because the bad guys have them. There are farmers and ranchers in teh southern border states that would be made much less safe if we banned them from owning AR weapons because the drug runners from Mexico carry them.
[b]’Stop And Frisk’ Works, But It’s Problematic[/b]
[url]http://www.npr.org/2012/05/15/152764402/stop-and-frisk-works-but-its-problematic[/url]
For some people, hurt feelings are a bigger crisis than are murders.
JB: [i]Do you know how many safe, law-abiding, honest, caring, patriotic people collect and use semi-automatic guns and shotguns for enjoyment and hunting. Are you really okay with taking that joy away from them?[/i]
A lot of joy and comfort was taken away at the airport in response to 9/11, and this was generally considered acceptable. I don’t have a problem with it. I think we can arrive at an acceptable solution that includes restrictions on the sale of weapons that rapidly fire large numbers of rounds.
JB: [i]My guess is that you and medwoman would prefer to ban guns…[/i]
Don Shor: [i]Restricting the sales of some types of weapons doesn’t bother me, but these discussions usually bog down on the taxonomy of the weaponry. My focus would be on reducing the ability of the shooter to rapidly fire large numbers of rounds.[/i]
Don’s comment aligns with my thinking.
JB: [i]GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE![/i]
Something to consider in response:
[img]http://www.famousquotesabout.com/quoteImage/603972/Guns-don_t-kill-people.jpg[/img]
JR: I’m a bigger fan of regulating stuff (and people) than banning stuff. Banning stuff is difficult and can lead to many unintended consequences (banning a drug with some good uses because it was prescribed poorly and not enough was known about its use in some patient populations – Thalidomide). We also regulate many tools and other objects that people use (automobiles, elevators, swimming pools, buildings, etc.) to keep people safer. Why not firearms?
[i]lot of joy and comfort was taken away at the airport in response to 9/11, and this was generally considered acceptable. I don’t have a problem with it.[/i]
wdf1: I do. I have a big problem with it.
If we allowed profiling we wouldn’t have to go through all that security crap.
But again, we don’t want to offend anyone, so we will ALL go through the security crap at the airports. Even grandma and little kids! It is completely irrational.
JB: [i]I do. I have a big problem with it.[/i]
One of those first world problem.
Obama:
[quote]“They understand that they’re not going to get 100 percent of what they want. And for some reason, that message has not yet taken up on Capitol Hill. And when you think about what we’ve gone through over the last couple of months — a devastating hurricane, and now one of the worst tragedies in our memory, the country deserves folks to be willing to compromise on behalf of the greater good and not tangle themselves up in a whole bunch of ideological positions that don’t make much sense.[/quote]
In other words, Republicans should cave on taxes and spending because of the Newtown tragedy.
And Obama is above these ideological positions he complains about the GOP taking.
Simply breathtaking. He talks only to feeling people, not thinking people.
No, Republicans and Democrats should be willing to work together and come to bipartisan agreement. .That’s what the country wants. Hey, Jeff, I’m a thinking person.
So far, I agree with all of what he’s said and done about this issue. A task force with a tight deadline is a good way to go. This is an excellent use of Joe Biden’s skills. Obama’s comments have been tempered and measured, and his actions and speech in Newtown were outstanding.
This is Ted Nugent talking, here.
NUGENT: Connecticut killings a result of moral decay: Government can’t fix culture of contempt ([url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/18/connecticut-killings-a-result-of-moral-decay/[/url])
The op-ed sort of reads like lyrics to a heavy metal song.
Israel has had no mass school shootings since 1974. I wonder why?
[i]his actions and speech in Newtown were outstanding.[/i]
Don, agree with you there.
But the rest is just an empty chair that is doing much more harm than good.
And yes, you are a thinking person. Too bad there are not more of you left-leaning thinking types because otherwise, the Republicans and Democrats could probably come together. Republicans have no feelings, so we need to work with people that think.
JB: [i]Israel has had no mass school shootings since 1974. I wonder why?[/i]
This 2008 event ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercaz_HaRav_shooting[/url]) didn’t qualify in your book as a mass school shooting? I wonder why?
Because it was a Palestinian and he was shot dead by two private people carrying guns before he did more killing.
So if the perpetrator is a Palestinian and two private people carry guns and kill perpetrator, it’s not a “mass school shooting”. I have trouble following your logic, JB.
Oh yeah, on the Mercaz HaRav massacre as it is called. Per Wikipedia…
[quote]The massacre was praised by Hamas and, according to a subsequent poll, was supported by 84 percent of the Palestinian population. It was condemned in official statements by various countries around the world.[/quote]
Got to love those Palestinians for praising the murder of children. But then I’m sure the Davis Peace Coalition has some Israel-hating excuse for that fact.
I wonder why there are not more school massacres of Israeli school children by Palestinians if 84% support and praise it?
Jeff
[quote]GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE! In fact, DOCTORS KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN DO PEOPLE SHOOTING GUNS, SO SHOULD WE OUTLAW SCALPELS?! Sorry for shouting with caps, but this opinion to outlaw guns angers me.[/quote]
Well you can get as angry, and shout as much as you like. But what this tells me is that you did not pay attention to what I wrote. I was very clear that I was giving a brief acceptance or objection to the points as outlined by EW.
I had specified previously that I was not supporting an outright ban, but would limit use to rapid firing weapons to sports or shooting clubs. I have no desire to ruin anyone’s pleasure in shooting. As a matter of fact, in a previous post it was me that pointed out what I perceived as your inconsistency in questioning why a divorced woman would have weapons and pointed out that had my father lived beyond my ninth year, I would have been a divorced woman with weapons. So Jeff, it would seem that you seem to feel that women, or at least divorced women should not have guns, or at least you would feel free to question why they might have them. I would like to point out that this comment was made well before there was any real information about the possible mindset of Adam’s mother.
As for my wanting a ban on guns to ” make myself feel better”. No, you are definitely wrong. I think that we would all feel better if these mass killings did not occur. Just because you and I differ in what steps would be most effective in the prevention of future episodes does not make me a “sheep”, stupid, selfish or uninformed.
As for scalpels, my answer is yes. Scalpels should be banned from use by anyone who is not thoroughly trained,
supervised, proctored literally for years before they are turned loose as an independent surgeon. And even then, their activities are carefully monitored by the operative assistants, the anesthesiologists, their peers and QA committees. This is exactly how it is, and how it should be. I would certainly be in favor of imposing the same stringent requirements on the use of these weapons capable of this kind of mayhem in the wrong hands just as I support restriction on the use of scalpels.
As for selfishness, I also see this differently from you. I see the selfishness in manufacturers of these weapons who continue to make profits from these weapons even after the murder of 26 innocents, and the selfishness of those who profit from the sales of these kinds of weapons and the politicians whose careers are built on supporting the NRA and weapons manufacturers. I suppose that you do not see any “selfishness” in those who continue to profit from these weapons even knowing the kind of destruction they are used to perpetrate ?
[i]So if the perpetrator is a Palestinian and two private people carry guns and kill perpetrator, it’s not a “mass school shooting”. I have trouble following your logic, JB.[/i]
Come on wdf1… You are going to make a moral equivalency argument for a Palestinian killing Israelis? We are not talking about domestic gun violence then, we are into tribal war. And you certainly have to admit that the circumstances in Israel would be much worse related to this topic if most of the Israeli population were not allowed to carry and were not trained to shoot for defense.
medwoman, the selfishness I am referring to is that you would impose your worldview on others taking away their joy of owning and using guns safely and responsibly (most gun owners). That is a selfish thing. You don’t own the moral high ground with your disgust over the killing of these 26 people. I’m sure most gun owners feel the same way. I know I do. But they did not do the shooting and do not deserve to be attacked… neither do the gun manufacturers.
I think we should all focus our attention on the root cause of the problem. The root cause is mental health problems, and possibly family breakdown, if you are talking about the Newtown murders.
That evil and sick kid was also very smart. He could have just as easily thrown home-made pipe bombs into the classrooms.
Jeff
[quote]the selfishness I am referring to is that you would impose your worldview on others taking away their joy of owning and using guns safely and responsibly (most gun owners).[/quote]
As I have stated repeatedly, I have no interest in “taking away anyone’s joy of owning and using guns”. I do have an interest in having these safe gun user’s use their guns in safe locations and store them safely. Why would you disagree to this approach. As for forcing one’s world view on others, I think a very violent point of view was forced upon all of those at the elementary school. I think that all avenues for preventing these episodes should be on the table.
JB: [i]Come on wdf1… You are going to make a moral equivalency argument for a Palestinian killing Israelis?[/i]
It looks like a mass school shooting to me, JB. You clearly f**ked up on fact issue and now you’re changing the subject as far as I’m concerned. The 1974 event ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma’alot_massacre[/url]) that you also cite was an instance of Palestinian terrorism.
We in the U.S. aren’t in a constant state of at least low-grade state of war with neighbors and fearing incoming enemy rockets from time to time.
You first raised the point about mass school shootings in Israel. So what’s your point? Follow a hard conservative narrative that more availability and choice of weapons will solve this issue because somehow Israel doesn’t deal with this kind of violence?
Re: rdcanning:
[quote]I think more regulation of some types of guns is worth considering if we want to reduce firearm deaths (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide). Buyback programs (one of a number of strategies) could be seen to be analogous to recalls of cars with bad parts or bad baby carriages, etc. We accept these sorts of things because there is a direct relationship between the object that is poorly designed (what was the model of care that had exploding gas tanks if hit from the rear?) and the harm. I think you are right when you frame this in terms of risk and benefits. I might put it a little differently but that’s the kind of public policy debate/decision that, I believe, ought to be happening.[/quote]
I accept more regulations on weapons, so does JB. I just want to point out that there is one property that makes public acceptance on regulations on firearms harder than on cars:
When cars are not regulated, the predominate victim includes the buyer of the car.
When firearms are not regulated, the predominate victim is [b]not[/b] the buyer of the firearm.
Because of this, even without government intervention, the buyers of the cars would already want the car manufacturing to be regulated. This direct link is missing/weaker buyers of firearms and firearm manufacturers.
[b]Action Items[/b]
Does anyone have anything to say about what specific changes Davis should have? Or what action you would take?
For Davis: I would accept even if there is no change. Is there anyone who objects this outcome?
For myself:
o I will update my profile in daviswiki to include my ideals
o I will save the list of the names of the victims in a way that if I had a child I will remember the list
o I will continue to figure out ways to focus on cooperation
o I will continue to do art and music, and make what I know accessible to anyone who wants to know. I started writing songs not long ago, I never thought that I could do it and it is fun.
Summary of proposals ([url]http://skylet.net/docs/2012-12-18-Re_Sandy_Hook.htm[/url])
EW: Either I misunderstand your point about the “victim” of non-regulation vs. regulation, or I did not make my point clear. I’m not talking about individual victims, the harm is more generalized to the society as a whole. The society is harmed (loss of income, family disruption, loss of employment, court costs of litigation, changes in insurance rates, etc.) when cars are not regulated. Regulation is a societal cost that is spread across all the members. Regulating guns (which we already do via the Federal Gun Control Act, the Brady Act, and numerous state statutes) represents an effort to reduce potential harm. I believe that society is harmed by gun violence in the same way that I believe that society is harmed by alcoholism. This is an area of government regulation that I would like to see increased. For instance, there is good evidence that background checks, when used to prevent prior felons from buying guns from licensed dealers, lowers the incidence of gun crime. Let’s extend background checks to private gun sales. Let’s also tighten up enforcement of current laws so “straw” purchases of guns by qualified buyers for unqualified buyers is greatly reduced.
Re: rdcanning
I understand what you mean. I was just saying that no everyone in the public thinks in terms of the common good, therefore regulations on firearms would face a higher resistance from the public than regulations on cars would face.
To compare risk and benefits, do you have a concrete idea on what information is ideal to gather?
I ask because I don’t know, but I am willing to help figure out what information and equation is needed if both of us don’t know. Ideally, the required information and equation are defined before information is gathered. Then we get people to review the decision methods, and have all stakeholders agree that the equation is correct. Then when the data returns in good faith, then it would be clear what should be done.
[i]You first raised the point about mass school shootings in Israel. So what’s your point? [/i]
wdf1: It is so simple that I know you are asking rhetorical questions.
Israel has much more dangerous people in their midst but they have fewer incidents and the ones they do have, the killer is usually killed by armed citizens before he kills more. As with Israel, there is plenty of evidence that more guns in the hands of law-abiding people trained to use them will save lives.
JB: [i]As with Israel, there is plenty of evidence that more guns in the hands of law-abiding people trained to use them will save lives.[/i]
Rhetorical? I’m sorry, it’s not so obvious to me. I think you’re throwing stuff out to argue without fully explaining it to yourself or others.
Seems to me Israel is more restrictive that the U.S. on gun possession laws. (source ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Israel[/url]))
Though not appropriately cited, the article claims, “Gun ownership in Israel is now considered a privilege and not a right.” If true that appears counter to the U.S. in which gun ownership is understood as a right.
For something so simple and obvious to you, I think you’re going to have to explain it in more excruciating detail for those of us who are less brilliant.
JB
[quote]For some people, hurt feelings are a bigger crisis than are murders.[/quote]
I found this statement from you interesting in view of your comment about my wanting to limit the pleasure of
responsible gun owners. For me, the fear of losing something they enjoy ( and yes, fear is an emotion) based on the
“slippery slope” argument that sensible regulation would lead to their complete loss of a recreational pleasure, is causing many who oppose any gun regulation to place their feelings ( pleasure over owning and shooting weapons) over the rights of the murdered and their families. If is hard for me to see how the pleasure of gun owners should be held of more value than the lives of others.
Another car analogy. When I was much younger, I used to like to drive very, very fast. My feeling was that if I was doing it on a wide open stretch of public road, with no one around, why shouldn’t I be able to do so ? As I matured, I realized that I was not as in control as I liked to think I was and that accidents can and do happen and that I had no right to endanger anyone else for my pleasure in speed. That doesn’t mean that I couldn’t have that pleasure, just that I had to follow certain very basic precautions, such as only speeding at a site designated for this activity….
a race track. Again, I have no problems with people owning weapons, possibly even assault rifles, if they can only store and fire them at officially designated safe spots for doing so. Your objection to this very basic safety restriction on pleasure shooting would be ?
wdf1: [i]For something so simple and obvious to you, I think you’re going to have to explain it in more excruciating detail for those of us who are less brilliant.[/i]
First, let me clarify that I don’t think anyone on this blog is “less brilliant”. Routinely biased and stubborn, but certainly not less brilliant. It is that general high level of brilliance that keeps me coming back for more abuse (often justified).
But, for this particular topic I will accept some of the medicine you are demanding I take. After doing more research on a talking point I was sure I had in my pocket, I now can see that it is more complicated.
For example, in Israel:
[quote] Anyone who fits the requirements, is over age 21 and an Israeli resident for more than three years, must go through a mental and physical health exam, Amit said, then pass shooting exams and courses at a licensed gun range, as well as background checks by the Public Security Ministry.
Once they order their firearm from a gun store, they are allowed to take it home with a one-time supply of 50 bullets, which Amit said they cannot renew.
The gun owner must retake his license exam and testing at the gun range every three years. As of January, Amit said, a new law will go into effect requiring gun owners to prove that they have a safe at home to keep their weapon in.[/quote]
I fully support this type of approach with some limitations. Israel is not the US. For one thing, it is a very small country without much land for hunting. The US has vast areas with very low population and there are also millions of acres of hunting lands.
But my initial point still stands… that one remedy to gun violence is to have more licensed and trained gun owners… assuming the licensing requires more rigorous background checks, and we end this foolishness (generally coming from the left and libertarians) that ALL health-related information must be kept completely private.
If you are rejecting this point… that the rate of mass shootings in Israel is lower because of the existence of more licensed gun owners that carry… then I would be interested to hear what you attribute this difference to.
Or, you can continue to ignore my main points and instead make it your crusade to grade my papers for errors. I’m sure I will continue to provide you endless hours of fun doing that.
Medwoman: [i]For me, the fear of losing something they enjoy (and yes, fear is an emotion) based on the “slippery slope” argument that sensible regulation would lead to their complete loss of a recreational pleasure, is causing many who oppose any gun regulation to place their feelings) pleasure over owning and shooting weapons) over the rights of the murdered and their families[/i]
Gun owners have ZERO responsibility for people murdered by guns unless they are the ones involved in the murders. Gun manufactures also have zero responsibility if they are complying with all laws and regulations.
And, your pursuit to ban guns is a selfish pursuit for these reasons. (Note, your words indicated that you had considered supporting a ban on shotguns and that is what really set me off… because it is indicative that you were close to supporting something that would be a HUGE hit to hundreds of thousands of people that hunt birds and compete in clay target competitions.)
I find it troubling that you or any other person demanding a ban on guns would not consider the impacts to all the millions of people in this country that safely and responsibly own and shoot guns for survival and for sport and hobby. Apparently your loving liberal heart has some membership requirements that gun owners cannot overcome.
I am fine with more robust and extensive licensing regulations and background checks. But other than requiring some very rigorous restrictions on ARs and regulating guns shows, I don’t support any bans on guns.
I read this argument “nobody needs to own a semi-automatic gun”. This reminds me of similar arguments like “gays don’t need to marry”. Why is it that some of us feel like we have the right to tell others what they can and cannot do? Why is it that some will fight to prevent gays from getting their feelings hurt, but would then have no problem causing thousands of people to lose a sport or hobby that they love?
I read Rich Rifkin’s piece in the Enterprise, and although I think some of his recommendations are too extreme and motivated by anger over what has happened (never good to make recommendation while angry in my experience), I liked one idea he had… to require that ARs be kept at licensed shooting ranges.
I would take that one step further. Allow private ownership of AR weapons if the owner passes an extensive background check, and has his own property that can qualify as a shooting range and the gun is locked up when not being used, there are no 5150s living at the property, and the gun does not leave the property. The licensing would require re-certification every three years. Owners would need to apply for a certification of ownership transfer where the new owner must be similarly licensed. Guns would be confiscated and held for a period of time until compliance certification could be obtained or a qualified ownership transfer transaction was completed. A federal buy-back program should exist for cases were owners cannot comply or cannot secure a qualified ownership transfer. Guns would be purchased from the owners based on a fair market price, and then destroyed. Gun licensing fees would fund this federal program.
Jeff: Again, I find myself in agreement with the specific policies you’ve listed.
JB: [i]If you are rejecting this point… that the rate of mass shootings in Israel is lower because of the existence of more licensed gun owners that carry… then I would be interested to hear what you attribute this difference to.[/i]
Another source for the difference between Israel and the U.S.? Notice the difference in the rate of gun ownership as represented in this chart below:
[img]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/gun-own-rates-oecd.jpg[/img]
From this source here ([url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/15/what-makes-americas-gun-culture-totally-unique-in-the-world-as-demonstrated-in-four-charts/[/url]).
The U.S., hands down the most prolific, more than twice anyone else’s rate. Doesn’t it strike you that one reason (no, not the only reason, but nevertheless a notable reason) for a higher rate of gun violence in the U.S. is just flat out that there are more guns accessible to any one individual?
[i]I would take that one step further. Allow private ownership of AR weapons if the owner passes an extensive background check, and has his own property that can qualify as a shooting range and the gun is locked up when not being used, there are no 5150s living at the property, and the gun does not leave the property. [/i]
I take more the Israeli position on assault rifles:
“Residents of Israeli settlements in the West Bank are issued assault rifles and ammunition by the army, and are given civil defense training. However, the rifles and munitions are property of the army, and may be confiscated at any time.”
The way I read this, assault rifles are viewed as specifically a weapon for warfare alone. As you astutely state, the U.S. and Israel are in different situations. The U.S. is not in the wartime posture that Israel is, hence in applying Israel policy to the U.S. situation, there’s no need for the widespread availability of assault weapons in the U.S. I don’t care if it takes away someone’s joy, I think that’s the sacrifice of living in a community. Perhaps I could find joy in driving 100 mph down Russell/5th street, but the law prohibits that, and for good reason.
A related thought:
[img]http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/556940_586794148016925_1085521922_n.jpg[/img]
Re: JB
Could you confirm if you yourself is a hunter?
According to the discussion so far, MW is/was a hunter, and she objects to banning shotgun, and accepts that AR be restricted in shooting ranges like you said. On those points you two have the same view.
Edgar – used to be a hunter. Not enough time for it now days. Reserve the right to do it again some day. But prefer to shoot pictures of animals and shoot targets with my guns.
Jeff
EW was partially correct in his statement. Had my father lived long enough to teach me, I doubtless would have been a hunter and sports shooter.
Once again, you are arguing against things that I have never said based on your desire to peg my beliefs as
“liberal” thereby not having to respond to the specifics of what I actually have said.
When I responded to EWs points, I stated clearly that I was not restating my qualifiers that I had already posted.
So when I said that I would favor a ban, I had already stated my qualifiers that I believe that ownership should be allowed, but weapons used for hunting and sport shooting should be kept in a lock up at a hunting or sport shooting club, checked out for use, and then checked back in. I have not yet heard from you why you would find this objectionable. Or do you also believe that I should have the right to drive my car at 120 miles per hour as long as there is no one else whom I judge will likely be hurt by my activity ? If you are going to say that this is because it is illegal, then I am in agreement, and I believe that we should have similar legal restrictions on gun use.
I have never said that lawful gun owners are responsible for anyone being shot. That is a total strawman argument on your part. I do feel very differently about gun manufacturers who at this point in time are not in any way held responsible even if their product proves defective and someone dies as a result. Bear in mind that there is essentially no liability on their part. This I do object to.
[quote]A conservative case for an assault weapons ban ([url]http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story[/url])
Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.
Loughner deserved his punishment. But during the sentencing, I also questioned the social utility of high-capacity magazines like the one that fed his Glock. And I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
….[/quote]
Re: JB, MW
Thank you for the clarifications. Sorry I got mixed up.
Re: WDF
[quote]Why do conservatives seem to believe that outlawing guns won’t prevent gun violence, but outlawing abortion will prevent abortion?[/quote]
I don’t know if I am “conservative”, but this seems reasonable under my impression is that people who would cause gun violence are mostly already criminals, but women who wants an abortion don’t see themselves as criminals. If abortions are outlawed, more women would try others ways because they don’t want to become criminals.
* * *
On Responsibility:
When a well-meaning person tries to fix a problem, they want to do it in a way that would not hurt anyone else. On the other hand, they also don’t want to avoid a good solution just because they fear that they [i]might[/i] hurt someone. If everyone avoid the good solution because of this, the group could reach a sub-optimal decision.
A way to avoid this, is for each participant to speak for their own concerns instead of for the concerns of a stakeholder they imagine.
A shooter had just occurred.
Mr.A: Why don’t we ban AR
Mr.B: I [i]think[/i] that someone wouldn’t like that, so let’s don’t do it.
At this point, it is important for Mr.A to ask this:
Mr.A: Because we want to avoid the Abilene Paradox, despite what society had taught you to be considerate of others, [i]IF[/i] the world has no one else who would object banning AR, would you stand on your ground to object the ban?
In this case, Mr.B thinks about and said, he would not object it because the only reason he objected at first, was because he imagine that someone else would care about it. So Mr.B said:
Mr.B: Then I would accept the ban. But I am sure that there is someone who would object. For instance, Mr.C has an AR and he does recreational shooting all the time.
Mr.A: Then let’s ask Mr.C.
Now Mr.C is brought to the discussion. Surprisingly, Mr.C says:
Mr.C: Yea, let’s ban it.
For the sake of this explanation, we don’t care why Mr.C agrees. The point is, if Mr.A and Mr.B didn’t bring Mr.C to the discussion, they will be over-thinking the problem and they will not get the solution that they both wanted. Therefore, there is a duty for Mr.A to ask like that, and for Mr.B to answer like that.
Suppose Mr.C objects banning AR:
Mr.C: I object because I need AR to [(Insert personal concern here)].
At this point, because Mr.A’s ultimate intention is not to “Ban AR”, but to stop shooting incidences, from Mr.A’s perspective, Mr.C is not an obstacle to the solution. Mr.C is a KEY STAKEHOLDER that prevented Mr.A from making a BAD DECISION. If Mr.A didn’t find Mr.C, Mr.A could have made a bad decision that would indirectly or directly hurt Mr.C.
Given that Mr.A, Mr.B, and Mr.C all want to prevent the shooting, they continue to think about other solutions.
JB
[quote]I would take that one step further. Allow private ownership of AR weapons if the owner passes an extensive background check, and has his own property that can qualify as a shooting range and the gun is locked up when not being used, there are no 5150s living at the property, and the gun does not leave the property. The licensing would require re-certification every three years. Owners would need to apply for a certification of ownership transfer where the new owner must be similarly licensed. Guns would be confiscated and held for a period of time until compliance certification could be obtained or a qualified ownership transfer transaction was completed. A federal buy-back program should exist for cases were owners cannot comply or cannot secure a qualified ownership transfer. Guns would be purchased from the owners based on a fair market price, and then destroyed. Gun licensing fees would fund this federal program.[/quote]
Somehow, in the exchanges, I misinterpreted your comment and missed the part about his own property qualifying as a shooting range. With one small caveat, which would be that he cannot invite his buddies with their
ARs over unless he also keeps their weapons in lock up and registers as a public range. It would seem that we are in agreement. I really have no problem with ownership of weapons as long as we are truly minimizing the risks of ownership and use rather than just paying lip service to it.
EW, you would seem to be correct that JB and I are in agreement. Everyone stand back….take a deep breath….. and let it out…. It can be done ; -)
NRA calls for armed police officer in every school ([url]http://news.yahoo.com/nra-calls-armed-police-officer-every-school-162851713.html[/url])
More and more making our schools look like prisons. I could see CCPOA salivate over this one.
[quote]He blamed video games, movies and music videos for exposing children to a violent culture day in and day out.[/quote]
… and comic books. He forgot comic books. That explained the ills of 1950’s society, and comic books haven’t all gone away.
Protester at news conference:
[img]http://thumbnail.newsinc.com/24039365.jpg[/img]
Image: [img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8vA9ZyazI2k/T4OQEAtkaeI/AAAAAAAACVc/z3cDADLUm2c/s1600/nra.jpg[/img]
yea that’s it, making a prison? you have armed guards at banks, concerts, football games, baseball games, all gov courts, airports, police stations, pawn shops, jewelery stores, state buildings, welfare offices, congress, police eating lunch, at hospitals, malls, on the highways when cops pass you, at weight stations, military bases, movie theaters, ….. yea we sure don’t want another prison. I was getting ice creme the other day and a cop walked in, ohhhh i felt like I was in prison…. really?
Typical left wing lunacy, no logic just good punch lines that scare the ignorant and uninformed.
Many schools have armed community services officer at schools already.
Religion and politicians have killed more people than guns – ban them if want to feel safe.
[i]EW, you would seem to be correct that JB and I are in agreement. Everyone stand back….take a deep breath….. and let it out…. It can be done ; -)[/i]
LOL!
Yes, it can be done!
And, I agree with your caveat that his buddies cannot bring their ARs because that would require them to transport them outside of the certified areas. Now, transport will be required when ARs are legally purchased and ownership is legally transfered. So there will need to be some procedure for transport. For this I would require something similar to transporting hazardous materials.
I think if those bent on gun control would stop with the “ban” pursuit and instead focus on rigorous licensing and safety protocol, including hefty licensing fees to help fund the public services required, we could make some progress. There is no Constituion conflict for having strict licensing and safety protocols. However, just say the word “ban” and you will have a big fight on your hands.
But the main solution requires us to focus on the mental health issues.
JB
[quote]I think if those bent on gun control would stop with the “ban” pursuit and instead focus on rigorous licensing and safety protocol, including hefty licensing fees to help fund the public services required, we could make some progress. There is no Constituion conflict for having strict licensing and safety protocols. However, just say the word “ban” and you will have a big fight on your hands[/quote]
Another point of agreement. And a reason I like to communicate with those of differing views. It was not until your emotional response to what I viewed as simply an abbreviated response to a suggestion by EW that included the word “ban” that I realized that I was not drawing a clear distinction between regulation ( rigorous licensing and safety measures) and an overall ban. Clearly a ban leaves no room for consideration of alternate points of view where as regulation, fees, and/or taxation leaves room for many creative ideas.
[quote]But the main solution requires us to focus on the mental health issues.[/quote]
If are limiting the conversation only to how to prevent these mass public shootings, then I would agree mental health focus would be important as it would seem that the mass shooters do tend to be those who have exhibited some form of mental / social problems. However, if we were to broaden the issue to how to prevent gun related deaths overall, we then do need to have a conversation about how to limit the number of guns floating around in our society. This point is illustrated by the shooting that happened immediately prior to Mr. LaPierre’s NRA presentation yesterday and two recent accidental deaths of children, one three year old who managed to get a loaded handgun from a house his family was visiting and discharge it into his own head, and one the case of the father whose handgun accidentally discharged into the chest of his 7 year old son who was strapping himself into his car seat. I imagine that in both these cases the guns were owned either for protection of the family or for the enjoyment of the owner. Unfortunately, it didn’t turn out that way.
RR
You may characterize a desire not to live in a society where guns are ubiquitous as left wing lunacy. However,
I have made recent ( within the past 5 years ) trips to three societies where guns are indeed ubiquitous.
1) Ecuador where upon arrival one of the main differences I noted is that on virtually every major street corner
there are either police or military with automatic weapons. The end result of relying on “armed good guys” for
protection, is the militarization of one’s society. Is this really the direction that you want to take America ?
How are you going to feel when, because the officials need to be able to stay ahead of the “bad guys” every
police man and/or security guard is armed with military grade weapons ? Think this is just a scare tactic on
my part ? My second example.
2) On a medical outreach trip to Honduras our team was greeted at the airport by our sponsoring agency
representatives, but also by a small contingency of soldiers armed with automatic weapons. They were with us
the entire trip, guarding our compound and travelling with us in convoy when we went to the rural clinics.
The danger that we had to be guarded from as explained to me by one of my hosts ? Two fold. There are still
armed rebels in the rural areas, but also, some of the population is so desperate due to poverty that a medical
convoy may be seen as a wealth of riches. A quick trip to Wikipedia will show you that the gun culture in
Honduras has been very permissive and the population is armed. So are the authorities.
3) I just returned from a trip to Haiti, a country in which virtually everyone lives by their own private protection of
what ever type they can afford. Virtually every building left standing has a protective wall topped with spikes of
glass, metal or concertina wire. Every hotel or public building of any type that we visited is guarded by at least
shot gun packing security. The private middle class home at which we stayed for several days had a locking
metal gate, spiked at the top and locked every night after the family was all in and opened only after day light.
I personally do not want to live in a militarized state. Nor do I want to live in a state where sometimes legitimate fear and sometimes pure paranoia have driven everyone to arm themselves and barricade themselves in their own supposedly safe little armories. This approach is neither desirable, nor effective as demonstrated by the recent tragedy in which Adam’s mother stockpiled weapons in an apparent attempt to feel safe, thereby demonstrating Jeff’s frequently made point ( albeit taken out of context) that emotion, in this case fear, does not always lead to the soundest decision making.
Yesterday, Mr. LaPierre again stated the erroneous concept that the best way to stop a “bad guy” with a gun is a
“good guy” with a gun. Again from the medical and public health perspective, the best way to stop a “bad guy” with a gun is to have prevented him from getting his hands on it in the first place. Strict regulation and safety features on guns would, as Jeff pointed out, not breach any constitutional rights and would preserve the ability of sports men to have their weapons. This would have the advantage of preventing the shooters initial threat, preventing his fatal actions ( at least in this convenient form), and avoiding the need for dangerous discharge of arms by those who while acting with completely good intentions either fail to stop him as in the Columbine case, or manage to injure or kill bystanders as in many examples of “shoot outs” involving highly trained police in which there is “collateral damage.”
Comment on the scope of the discussion:
While I believe that this particular shooting could be prevented, there are certain factors that make this case rather uncommon:
1. The Shooter cannot feel physically pain, which might also have affected his behavior towards others, and the behavior of others toward them. That could in term affect his view about his life. [Ref] ([url]http://www.salon.com/2012/12/16/school_adviser_gunman_a_loner_who_felt_no_pain/[/url])
2. In high school, the Shooter’s issues were well known by everyone because they were so obvious. I think that the school did well attending to his special needs without forcing him to be like everyone else. [Ref] ([url]http://www.salon.com/2012/12/16/school_adviser_gunman_a_loner_who_felt_no_pain/[/url])
3. Then in March 2010, the Mom bought AR and brought the Shooter to the shooting range. [Ref] ([url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/19/nancy-lanza-was-deluded-to-keep-guns-at-home-with-troubled-adam.html[/url])
It seems that this was the serious key event that changed the Shooter’s life. Here are some possibilities:
a) The Mom was insane.
b) The Mom was kind, but delusional. She was desperate to connect with the Shooter.
c) The Mom was intentionally training the Shooter to kill somebody.
d) …
In cases of (a) and (b), the Mom needs help just as much as the Shooter.
In case of (c), we are dealing with a methodical criminal (The Mom), who used the Shooter as her weapon. The one who had the intention to kill was the Mom.
If the Mom was mentally unstable at around the time she was getting the guns (which was also around the time the Dad left the Shooter [Ref] ([url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/19/nancy-lanza-was-deluded-to-keep-guns-at-home-with-troubled-adam.html[/url])), a reasonable person would have advised her not to get the guns. But that person apparently did not exist. She was disconnected from the social grid.
Personally, I would accept a proposal where everyone examine the people we know, and chart out if there is anyone who everyone knew to exist, but actually no one knew what they are up to.
It is also possible to combine our data, and we will know which persons had become detached from the social grid. These are the people who gave up on society. These are the people who need help, that society needs to bring back, so that no one is neglected.
If we do something like this, we will not be solving just the conditions leading to this shooting. We will be detecting and solving all social problems.
On the other hand, I do not object discussing any boarder topics. They are all interrelated. Every issue can be solved as long as they are brought to the discussion, therefore the more discussion the better.
[Proposals Summary] ([url]http://skylet.net/docs/2012-12-18-Re_Sandy_Hook.htm[/url])
[i]”and one the case of the father whose handgun accidentally discharged into the chest of his 7 year old son who was strapping himself into his car seat.”[/i]
We can solve that particular problem by banning the use of car seats.
EW
I have questions about several of your proposals.
1) [quote]Lower entrance requirement to medical schools[/quote]
How are you envisioning that this might help ?
2) [quote]Personally, I would accept a proposal where everyone examine the people we know, and chart out if there is anyone who everyone knew to exist, but actually no one knew what they are up to.
It is also possible to combine our data, and we will know which persons had become detached from the social grid. These are the people who gave up on society. These are the people who need help, that society needs to bring back, so that no one is neglected.[/quote]
While this sounds good, in order to know whether or not I could support this concept, I would need to know the proposed details of enactment. I can easily see this type of “civilian surveillance” degenerating into a modern day Salem witch trial in which those with just plain quirky personalities get falsely identified as a threat and stigmatized
with adverse consequences for them and their families.
Re: JB
[quote]“and one the case of the father whose handgun accidentally discharged into the chest of his 7 year old son who was strapping himself into his car seat.”
We can solve that particular problem by banning the use of car seats.[/quote]
That is correct, so is banning fatherhood, and banning cars. All of these are prerequisites for this particular incident to occur. The only question remains, is [b]which[/b] condition to address.
To decide which condition to address, two principles can be applied:
1. If no one objects that the condition is removed, then the condition can be removed
2. If the condition is the most better than doing nothing, and better than the benefit compare to its associated proposal is better than the alternatives then it should be addressed first.
Under these principles, the proposals can be ranked like this.
Proposals:
A) Ban Guns
B) Ban Car Seats
C) Ban Cars
D) Ban Fatherhood
In terms of least objected: A, B, C, D
In terms of least side-impact: A, B, C, D
Overall Priority of Banning: Gun, then Car Seats, then Cars, finally Fatherhood.
According to this limited number of proposals, if the problem is worth to solve enough, then society should ban Guns first. If Guns are banned, but the problem persists, and the problem is worth to solve enough, then society should also ban Car Seats. And so on.
If the problem is worth solving, society should ban Fatherhood. Once the ranking is established, the determination only depends on whether the problem is big enough that warrants the next resort.
However, to break from this limited way of thinking, society should also look for other solutions that no one would object, and be willing the reverse the changes once the better solutions are identified.
Re: MW
On lowering entrance requirement to medical school:
The logic was that more people can study medical science and find treatments and cures to mental issues.
On checking if anyone is off the social grid:
For this proposal, it might be helpful to think in three ways:
1) Think in terms of what you would propose
Suppose I had a stroke and dies before I could reply, but you liked the idea. What would your proposal be like based on this idea? If you could make a proposal, and I accept it, then I don’t have to explain what my version is.
2) Think in terms of your concerns
In this approach, I don’t ask you to make a proposal, but I look at your reply and try to understand what you worry about that makes you hesitate to accept it. From your reply, I see these:
o The word “enactment”
o “Salem witch trial”
o “Threat and stigmatized”
To address these, I think I have to explain that this proposal is not based on the fear of threat. It is not about identifying threats and locking up people. It is about discovering needs and provide them, and discovering dreams and fulfill them. For those who are barely surviving, we help them survive. For those who are surviving but finds no meaning in life, we help them find their meaning. For those who have find meaning in life, we enable them to imagine and dream. For those with dreams, we help them fulfill them.
The proposal is not looking for threats. It is not about the person being found, it is about the person who is doing the looking–the lookers, because taking care of others is part of life. The shooting incidence reminds the lookers that they have blind-spots in their awareness, that they haven’t done enough to take care of society, but they could do better.
When a looker sees a mentally disturbed person trying to buy a gun, the looker is not thinking about the people that could die from this combination. The looker is seeing that there is a person with issues that they don’t know how to resolve. The looker wants to bring this person back. It is not about saving the ones that the person could kill. It is about saving the person himself.
The looker is not there to judge if people are dangerous. They are there to see what help each person needs to reconnect them.
3) Implementation
The proposal didn’t call for any law or regulation, because I am somewhat anti-laws and regulations. I think laws and regulations distort people’s worldview. If something is worth doing, it will become part of a culture. Everyone does it because they want to, not because they have to. To implement this, I think these are the steps:
First, people who wants to be a helper needs to identify their own status. If they need help, they need to seek help. Naturally, the helpers would disclose their own problem because they understand that the value of a culture where people are honest about what they need, and are working on their issues. They believe in a culture where people freely accept help from others, and give help to others.
This attitude fixes the stigma of people with issues where they don’t want to talk. To fix this, it takes a culture where people routinely cooperate and help each other. When that culture is strong, the helper don’t need to look for people to help. The people who needs help would show up at their doorstep, because the culture makes them see that they can be helped.
Once the helpers had helped those who show up by themselves, naturally, the next step is to reach out and inform those who had never heard of them.
So in this spirit, I can actually start with myself. I can talk about what I want to do in life and what help I need.
My ideal is to build a culture of cooperation that sustains peace. To do so, one of the concept is a Community Help Desk, a place where people routine discuss what they need on a person-to-person instead of person-to-agency way. I envision it as an open-forum where discussion with various stakeholders can be held, where everyone can see what is needed in the community and participate, so that everyone can be taken care of, and everyone can find a role in the community.
Conceptually, this is what the city council should be like, but somehow it is not like that. I suppose if you take the city council and remove all the formality and check and balance on misusing power, and focus on what people wanted to do at heart, the Community Help Desk is what you get–an entity that coordinates, but has absolutely no power or authority on its own. It does not collect tax, does not require membership dues, it does not ask for subscription to any religious belief. Its power only comes from the people who cooperate by their own goodwill.
The Community Help Desk is just one possible way to implement this.
Wow, Edgar, thank you so much for your very thoughtful reply. You have done something that has rarely occurred for me on this site. You have delighted me.
As for the medical school issue, I agree, and would add that increased medial school slots will be necessary in many areas of medicine as well as in mental health. We are in agreement on that proposal.
It is your second response that is very inspiring to me. I misinterpreted your intent and was focusing almost exclusively on identification of someone who had the potential for harming others rather than on the much broader issue of how do we identify, relate to and ultimately help those who have any need. How do we make it socially more acceptable to ask for, accept, and extend help depending on whether we or someone else is in the “needy” position at any given point in time.
One of my life time aspirations would be to establish a women’s center ( sorry but a gynecologist has to start somewhere) where women could come to offer their own services to others in need and freely accept help when they are in need. Small groups of women within families and tight knit groups of friends have always done this to accomplish chores involved in housekeeping and child rearing. But urbanization, greater geographic mobility, and the need for women to work both inside and outside the home has largely led to a disintegration of such networks.
I would love to establish such a network and see this as a limited version of what you are proposing on a larger scale. I totally did not see that coming from your initial proposal and am delighted to hear that I am not alone in my thoughts about the desirability of increasing interconnectedness within our society.